As Russia Blog has written before, we are open to publishing our readers views and comments to spark discussions on Russia-related topics. Here's an article by our reader.
by Kim Zigfeld (a/k/a La Russophobe)
Victor Yanukovich, candidate for the presidency of Ukraine, is a convicted criminal, having been sentenced to three years in prison for robbery in 1967. No sooner was he released than he was convicted of assault and battery in 1970 and sentenced to two more years in prison. In 1978 he was prosecuted a third time, but this time acquitted.
Yanukovich joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1980.
An electrician by training, he does not have a genuine undergraduate diploma but only a degree he obtained through a correspondence school. He then obtained various higher degrees through vague periods of study. His knowledge of Ukrainian language is extremely poor and his handwritten documents on the record are full of linguistic errors.
Yanukovich is closely linked to organized crime, particularly the dreaded Clan of Donetsk, headed by Rinat Akhmetov, and he has also been linked to the Russian KGB as a mole.
Yanukovich was a member of the Kuchma administration which was fundamentally corrupt and utterly repudiated by Ukrainian voters.
Here is what the World Socialism Website had to say about Yanukovich’s recent election “victory”:
It has taken little more than a year for this “revolution” to expose itself before the Ukrainian masses for the reactionary fraud it always was. From the beginning, Yushchenko and Timoshenko based themselves largely on middle-class, anticommunist layers that opposed the old Soviet system and its remnants in the Kuchma regime not out of hostility to Stalinist repression and corruption, but because it limited their strivings for wealth and privilege. Those who took to the streets out of genuine hatred for Kuchma and the oligarchs were cynically manipulated by the “democratic” impostors and their Western sponsors.In the final analysis, moreover, Yushchenko, Timoshenko and Yanukovich all represent rival oligarchic clans—some, mainly in the east of the country, more closely tied to Russia and the remnants of the state economy; others, mainly in the west, more closely linked to US and European interests. Yushchenko’s initial steps towards his “free market” policy only intensified the social crisis facing broad masses of Ukrainian working people. In 2005, the economy grew by a mere 2 percent, compared with 12 percent in 2004. Inflation is averaging 13 percent. Poverty and inequality have reached record levels. The social crisis reached a high point last December, when Russia for a time cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, and only restored the flow of energy on the basis of a new and far higher pricing scale. This crisis evidently brought home for many workers the economic damage caused by the breaking apart of Russia and Ukraine, whose economies were closely integrated within the Soviet framework.
In other words, the people of Ukraine justly suffered for daring to dissolve the Communist paradise of the Soviet Union, soon to be restored by Comrade Yanukovich.
Yanukovich is surrounded by pro-Russian propaganda and blatant disinformation. Writing in Russia Profile, a group of Russians claimed that “in no way is Victor Yanokovich a pro-Russian political figure. In fact, he plays the ‘Russian card’ skillfully, capitalizing on Moscow’s integrationist illusions. It is likely that he would be more successful than Yulia Tymoshenko at renegotiating the gas deal with Russia. He was one of former-President Leonid Kuchma’s closest associates, and Kuchma was never Moscow’s biggest admirer.” This is obvious propaganda, coming from a member of Russian Duma and a MIGIMO professor. Apparently, the wily Yanokovich duped the clueless Vladimir Putin into formally endorsing Yanokovich and spending millions to support his election campaign. Apparently he also duped the entire Duma, which formally congratulated Yanukovich on his “victory” in being the most popular candidate in the most recent elections (even though the Orange Coalition formed the government). This is the sort of ludicrous propaganda Russia is prepared to put forth regarding Yanukovich, easily worthy of the old ham-handed USSR tactics that brought Russia to its knees.
Comments
This may be a little off topic, but it is related to the current elections in Ukraine. Maybe, it is my own personal ignorance/bias showing, but it seems to me that as a US citizen, that parliamentary types of governments just don't work very well.
It seems like the fringe groups can have too much control over the debate and since there are so many different groups, they have to be pandered to, to create a large enough coalition to gain the majority. By only having two political parties to vote for, it causes the political parties to move to the center to try to gain more of the swing votes. This leaves the fringe wackos and their stupid ideas in the wilderness, where they belong.
In the Ukraine, if only two parties existed, Yanukovich would be the loser right now, and either Yushchenko or Timoshenko (whoever was chosen to be the leader of their side of the aisle) would be the winner. The fringe communist/fascist groups would be left without a voice in matters and no one would care what they thought because their support is not needed to win the middle ground.
The other good thing about a two-party system is that it would cause people in a multi-ethnic society to pick one of two choices, which would invariably cause them to find common ground with other ethnic groups they may normally not want to associate with.
As for the original topic of the post, I don't think anyone believes the propaganda Yanukovich's guys spout except for those who want to believe it.
Posted by: Jason Herr | April 14, 2006 11:16 AM
One day last year, I came down with the flu and took the day off from work. Ended up spending it watching a History Channel marathon of their "Russia, Land of the Tsars" series. One interesting bit of info I gained from series was that the legacy of each Tsar heavily depended on how much land/territory he/she added to the empire during their reign.
Beginning with the decline of the Mongol empire, throughout the progression of history, the territory under Russian control had continued to increase up until the fall of the iron curtain. Now the opposite is happening. More and more territory is separating from the Russian sphere of influence.
While it is likely a good thing for those countries/republics that are gaining their independence. It is not for the Russian Federation, and Putin doesn't want to go down in Russian history as the guy who lost all the land and prestige that his forefathers fought to gain over roughly the last 500 years. I actually feel sort of sorry for him, in this respect. I imagine it is extremely depressing to know that you will be remembered throughout the rest of history as the guy who lost the empire and there is nothing he can do about it.
Posted by: Jason Herr | April 17, 2006 11:02 AM
Parliamentary government works pretty well in the UK! The system in the Ukraine, which weeds out tiny parties with under 3% of the vote has meant that a fifth of Ukranians are not represented in these elections. I don't think you can blame the system for the clear ethnic split in the country. The soviets moved huge numbers of Russians into the Ukraine, as they did the baltic, to 'russify' them in a failed attempt to integrate them into the Soviet Union. That legacy remains today. The russian speakers in the east feel threatened, and the Ukrainians in the west want to look westwards, correctly seeing that's where the future of a free, thriving country lies.
The important thing is that the elections happened, were free and fair, and it'll force the pro west parties to unite again.
The western media spun this as a victory for the Yanukovich, in complete ignorance of the realities of the ethnic split in the country. It was, of course, no such thing.
Let's hope the country continues to move in the right direction.
Posted by: Laika the space dog | April 18, 2006 2:00 AM
"Do Russians want freedom, or do they prefer a life of desolate slavery? Of all things to do, how could the country elect and reelect a proud member of the KGB after that organization killed more Russians than Hitler and brought the nation to its knees? How could they follow the mandate of Borish Yeltsin to elect that KGB spy when they claimed to hate Yeltsin? Do they, in fact, love dictatorship and misery?"
Your perceptions, right or wrong - are not how Russians (or Ukrainians) themselves would frame the question or think of the problem. The question smacks of the unilateral thinking of which the West and US are often accurately accused.
Your statement about the numbers of Russians killed by the KGB is also off base, but there is no point in discussing the numbers of Russians murdered under Stalins rule or the KGB's role in aspects of that. It becomes an excercise in morbidity.
“Ever since the Romanovs ascended to the Russian throne, from Mikhail Fyodorovich to Nicholas I, the government has been at the forefront of education and enlightenment. The people follow along, but often lazily and half-heartedly. And it is precisely this which constitutes the strength of our autocracy.” — Alexander Pushkin
Posted by: W. Shedd | April 18, 2006 4:30 PM
A few questions/requests:
Not to question your portrayal of Yanukovich, as I really know little of his past, but could you provide more evidence on how he is "closely linked to organized crime", and "has been linked to the Russian KGB as a mole"? If I repeat these allegations without providing evidence from a reputable source then it will appear that I'm simply seizing upon rumors that place the man in the worst possible light.
When you say the Kuchma administration was "fundamentally corrupt", could you define your different types/levels of corruption and how they compare to "fundamental" corruption? Where would you define the Yushchenko government on this scale and what are the specific activities you use to place the Kuchma government in the "fundamentally corrupt" category and the Yushchenko government in its category?
Why do you choose to quote the World Socialism web site? It doesn't seem to be a significant party in the events in Ukraine.
Why are the arguments in the Russia Profile article "obvious" and "ludicrous" propaganda? Because of the authors or the arguments? Once again, I truly do not know the thinking/tactics of Kuchma/Yanukovich, but it would seem if they were trying to play upon Russian integrationist illusions then they were quite successful if Putin and the Duma were actively supporting them.
You finish by mentioning the "ham-handed USSR tactics that brought Russia to its knees." Are you ascribing the failure of the USSR to the use of propaganda?
Posted by: Bill Eastman | April 18, 2006 9:13 PM
I re-read your article as well as the Russia Profile piece and, in response to your question, I'm not sure if I see the statement in question as propaganda. I would agree that it's a stretch that Yanukovich simply played on the Russians' hopes to get their support without actually intending any quid pro quo. I might have asked the author to provide some evidence for that assertion (I see a feedback link at the bottom of the article).
However, the statement comes in the context of an article that seems fairly negative about the Russians' role in Ukrainian politics. The article, or that particular author's section of the article, refers to Yanukovich's "criminal record", the Russian "'political engineers' who failed totally and shamefully during Ukraine's 2004 presidential elections", and "Russia's gas maneuvers". I would also note that the author of the section containing the statement, Yury Fedorov, is based out of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. I may think the statement is improbable and poorly-supported, but I don't see an agenda that would place it in the realm of propaganda.
In regard, to your second set of feedback, I'd first like to thank you for the articles to which you referred me. The first three focused more on the Ukrainian elections, but the forth article (by ww4report) gives at least the name of the organized crime group he's alleged to have acted as a lobbyist for (what exactly does it mean to lobby for an organized crime group?). Anyway, in general when links to organized crime are alleged there are references to particular crime figures, meetings, suspicious cash flows, suspicious actions on the part of the politician, etc.. Even if there isn't evidence presented in a court of law there's usually some investigative journalists and the like who come up with some details. Anything you come across and point me to along these lines would be appreciated.
Posted by: Bill Eastman | April 19, 2006 9:37 PM
It seems that all information that can be tied to specific a interest is propaganda. I just read some pretty funny articles in the online Vice Magazine that is profiling Russia this month. Some of the material is crude but there were some insightful pieces as well... At least for an outsider.
http://viceland.com/index_int.php?country=us
Posted by: Dan | April 20, 2006 1:47 PM