You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
An opposing view on Yushchenko's win in Ukraine
2005-01-09
Yushchenko's going to be president of Ukraine, not of Illinois. He'll be reacting to internal Ukrainian political currents. Some we're going to like, others we're not going to like. Where's the surprise here?
The president-elect of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, said repeatedly on the campaign trail that if elected, he would swiftly pull his country's troops out of Iraq. If he stays true to his word, he risks putting America's little Ukraine and his American wife, Yekaterina Chumachenko, in an extremely embarrassing position, not to mention all the organizations and other nonprofits that helped him, many of which did so unlawfully at the American taxpayers' expense. Which gives rise to the question: Just who is responsible for making U.S. foreign policy, anyway?

Clearly, America's large, well-organized Ukrainian community, whose members hail primarily from the country's western half, placed their bets on Yushchenko. Nevertheless, legislation in the United States prohibits meddling in the election campaigns of foreign states. Be that as it may, realities on the ground are such that even if President Bush had wanted to keep Ukrainian Americans from intervening in their former homeland's elections, he would have been hardpressed to do so. He wouldn't even have been able to stop people like George Soros or other private citizens from participating. On the other hand, U.S. organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, sustained by taxpayer dollars, are required, in principle, to spend this money to benefit, and not damage, U.S. interests. Already many Americans, including Republican members of Congress and other loyal supporters of George Bush, are demanding an investigation into possible transgressions of the ban on foreign elections intervention. If Yushchenko pulls out the Ukrainian battalion from Iraq, the number of unhappy people in the United States would obviously grow.

Most of us would like to keep the Iraq coalition from unraveling further, while simultaneously preventing U.S. relations with the Kremlin from deteriorating; we also understand full well the important role Russia plays with respect to the international security and global energy issues. The coalition in Iraq is, frankly, anything but awe-inspiring. Ukraine, with its 1,600-troop contingency, is one of its most representative members after Great Britain (8,300), South Korea (3,600), Italy (2,700) and Poland (2,500). A troop pullout would potentially deal a serious blow to, if not to the military strength, then definitely the morale of coalition forces. Given the difficulties in Iraq, such a blow would be extremely unpleasant for Washington. Yekaterina Chumachenko, who worked in Ronald Reagan's administration and is, logically, a supporter of President George Bush, finds herself in an awkward position, too.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#2  It's only "appeasement" when it refers to Muslims or to Hitler, it's never "appeasement" when talking about the need to prevent "U.S. relations with Kremlin from deteriorating".

What are the words that Edward Lozansky strongly avoids? "Democracy" and "Freedom", those are the words.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-09 7:08:20 PM  

#1  The real story is not Yushchenko the man. It is what he represents. For him to carry the majority of Ukrainian votes is the story. It could have been Homer Simpson who won and, had Homer represented what Viktor represents and the majority of voters voted for Homer, it would still be the story.

Posted by: Captain America   2005-01-09 12:49:24 PM  

00:00