Posted on: 29th November 2004

For years, I was wondering why people do not get point of anarchists, but now I am certain that one quite obvious reason is that when looked from aside, anarchist movement has no any coherent politics whatsoever and there is no agreement about even most elementary questions. So I am more like pointing out a fact than looking for a quarrel.

If up to 40% of Ukrainians have Russian as a mother language, it would make pretty much sense to equal rights of Russian speakers with those of Ukrainian speakers, as Yanukovich promised. Also limiting free movement of people eastwards, which would be immediate consequence of Ukraine becoming another EU colony, would put people down quite a lot. Actually there was a tremendous positive consequence from Putin buying Ukrainian votes for Yanukovich - few months ago he promised to prolongued allowed period without registration for Ukrainian guestworkers in Russia, from 3 days to 3 months - this way Ukrainians actually become to have more rights in Russia than Russians! Of course, we suspected that this reform would be immediately cancelled when Ukrainian elections would be over, but actually now there is an analogous project in Russian duma, which would extend rights now given to Ukrainians in Russia to all Russians. Also some other liberalisation of the registration regime is included in the bill, essentially it would scrap stalinist propiska system still used in Russia, where people are sentenced to live in the city they have born. Of course there is much to go still, but if passed, this project would have a huge positive influence to lives of practically every Russian and person residing in Russia.

Ok, this again for the record only, and for sure I am also not going to choose between Alien and Predator.But any support by anarchists to either of them would be very much discrediting the movement. One of the most important supporters of Yuschenko is Boris Nemtsov, ultra-neoliberal scum from Russian SPS party. If Russian public would get a hint that we are in the same front with hated privatizers, that would be no good.
Putin (sic) rightly (sic!!) pointed out that OSCE election observers are a total joke, just look for Kosovo elections for example. All this outrage is so absolutely hypocrite, so obviously hypocrite that it pushes all Russia, Belarus and South-East of Ukraine further to realms of patriotic reaction instead of "freedom" and
"human dignity" about what Max is writing below. I would agree with Butkevitch that we should appeal against any of the parts of the conflict to compromise lives and health of peaceful stupid demonstrators of both sides, but the way he proposes below would lead nowhere.

I also do not have time to translate local opinions right now, just look to avtonom.org and indymedia and have a babelfish.

Aleksei

UKRAINE: MARKOV'S THEORY ON YUSHCHENKO AND THE POLISH REACTION
Posted on: 28th November 2004
Laure Akai's comments on the situation in Ukraine
In general, I wanted to refrain from writing a long commentary on Ukraine for two reasons: the first being that I don't have too great a knowledge of the political scene there (just basic) and the second being that I am not on location, I haven't talked to the comrades yet and, quite simply, I do not believe in making judgments from newspaper articles or what I see on TV. (I was a participant of the 1991 events in Moscow and, a month or two later, finding out what CNN and the media had presented, it felt like they had created a fictious event.) Still, I have a few words on Yushchenko, the bastard, and some other things. Our friends from ABB would like a little more analysis then "he's no good", but I thought some reasons why he's no good might be needed. Also, I suppose some of this info is unknown in some places. Well, here on some random thoughts.

MARKOV'S THEORY ON YUSHCHENKO AND THE POLISH REACTION

Sergei Markov is an Russian political analyst known to maybe English speaking readers through articles in the Moscow Times and other publications. He is also a close ally of Putin and was an advisor to Yanukovich. Putting this potential bias aside, Markov has been, since 2000 -2001, complaining of the so-called Brzezinski Plan.

Anybody who has read the Grand Chessboard can understand a little of the American's geo-political interest in Ukraine and Central Asia. (I've included some excerpts at the end.) To be brief, there are several issues at stake:

1. A Pro-Western, pro-NATO Ukraine is another loss for the Russians. 2. Ukraine, with over 50 million people and with a relatively poor population is a good market for goods and labour if run by pro-western-capitalist interests.
3. The Brody oil pipeline is currently used for Russian oil interests. The Americans and Europeans, who would like to weaken Russia's strong oil imports (which is practically the life blood of the economy), would prefer Condi Rice's Chevron or some American firms working in the Caspian to be able to use this oil pipeline to supply Central European Countries (like Poland). (The pipeline goes through Georgia. Figure it out.)

The main aspect of the Brzezinski Plan is the idea that the Russians have not been totally subjugated to the interests of Western Capital and to do that, you have to chip away at their areas of influence.

So yes, the Cold War is still alive in Washington think tanks and Brzezinski is helped along by his sons, notably by Ian (advisor to Bush). Is Yushchenko then, a member of a conspiracy?

The Polish press, reporting on Markov's ideas just make fun of them and dismissed them as some Russian paranoia, and, although I obviously cannot find "proof" of a conspiracy, we can clearly see that Yushchenko was in very tight with all the usual anti-communist, free-market important players. One has to ask how and why a political player who was sacked from his job and was accused of defrauding the IMF managed to have such political clout in Washington.

When I talk about this, I refer to the fact that, for example, last year, on a trip to Washington, Yushchenko met with Cheney, Armitage, Brzezinski, McCain, Albright, etc. The number of visits Yushchenko has had with American think-tankers, notably with Brzezinski leaves no doubt in my mind that he was "Washington's Candidate". Anybody who understands the media and State Department spin can see this; and of course we know that vote fraud only concerns Americans when their candidate is on the wrong end.

AMERICAN (AND GERMAN) MONEY MADE YUSHCHENKO

While we cannot blindly trust the media, nor can we trust presidential investigations, I find that some of the "facts" presented in the course of the commissions investigation on the role of NGOs in Ukraine (started last
year) to not only be credible, but to be backed up by facts. The idea is that NGOs and funding of Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshenko's group by US think tanks was meant to bring Kuchma down. Typical donors include Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute, the Intenational Republican Institute the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the British Westminister Fund for Democracy, etc.

One must look at such facts with a critical eye. On the other hand, the Ukrainian and Russian media have, at times, gone overboard with their tales of espionage, even claiming that Soros went to Ukraine to train Crimean Tatars how to storm the government.

YANUKOVICH TRIED TO BRIBE THE DEMOCRATS

Last week (Sept. 20), there was an article in the Washington Post which shows that, however much we think that Yushchenko is "American's candidate", we have to remember about the political divide in America.

According the the Post, during the second round of the elections "Hundreds of U.S. and European monitors are traveling to Kiev to observe Sunday's runoff, including some funded by the U.S. government through the State Department and the Agency for International Development (USAID). Together, they have dispersed $7.9 million to help Ukrainian and American pro-democracy groups monitor the elections and $13. 7 million for "activities related to the presidential election."

BUT, this fact, that the State Department and USAID, (suspicious players) took a big interest in monitoring the fairness of the second round (they'd been worried about "potential vote rigging for a long time"), contrasts greatly with the report made by American observers after the first round who claimed that elections were held fairly.

On Nov. 10, there was a meeting at a think tank, the Nixon Center, about the elections and there surfaced the first allegations that actually, the first observers, former Democratic Congressmen, were being paid by Yanukovich. The Alliance for Democracy and Transparency is apparently headed by an agent of Yanukovich and paid foreign observers a modest stipend to come to Ukraine. The financing of the entire trip was $125,000 and created a corruption scandal.

Why this think tank receiving $125,000 from Yanukovich is worse than the State Department, USAID and several CIA fronts supporting Yushchenko and spend $13.7 million in undisclosed "activities relating to the presidential election" is just one of these great mysteries.

By the way, at the think tank meeting, the head of the Alliance for Democracy and Transparency apparently lied about where the funding for the trip was coming from, so the Dems apparently "had no idea" that this money was from Yanukovich. So, either this was a lie and they agreed to work pro-Yanukovich (which leads to interesting questions) or they really didn't know and really found the election fair. Either scenario is compellingly interesting.

COULD THE RESULTS BE FRAUDLENT?

Of course. I suspect that vote fraud is more the norm than the exception these days. This aside, there is an interesing question about Yanukovich's support in the Eastern regions, notably in Donetsk.

Ukrainian think tankers of a pro-nationalist bent have their own conspiracy theories of Kuchma coming uo with an idea of using ethnic hatred against Yushchenko. By showing Yushchenko as a nationalist, they could descredit him in the east.

No doubt they took advantage of this. It's easy. Yushchenko IS a nationalist. But the problems with Yushchenko run deeping than this.

Nobody is talking about Yushchenko's economic policies in the media but I'd describe him as a Balcerowicz without the brains or the heart. A monetarist and neo-liberal monster, no wonder the IMF forgave his creative accounting. He is the man who can implement the Plan. And high up on the IMF's plan is the restructuring of the mining industry.

The current talk is that is Yushchenko is president, he'll shut down the mines. It's not a fact that he'd shut them down completely though: he's come up with a "more humanistic" solution - to turn coal miners into hourly-paid workers instead of F/T workers with a steady job. This is much more creative and responsive to the market. And not much better for the workers. Incredibly, he claims that such a plan would significantly raise their standard of living.

Several times, including at a rally in Donetsk, Yushchenko was accosted by miners. But the reasons who this can go beyond these superficial analyses and theories - that Kuchma incited this or that it's all about identification with Russia. There is also a highly critical strain against free market economics, against NATO, against the West, etc. etc.

Yushchenko should also be looked at from a class analysis.

WAS THE US SPYING ON KUCHMA?

This was the accusation made against Melnychenko who taped Kuchma's offices in 1999-2000 which led to Kuchma gate. The popular theory being that the Americans tried to destablize the Ukrainian government in 2000 and replace Kuchma with their man, Yushchenko, then.

THE ELECTION GAME

Georgia, Central Asia. Make sure the public knows which side you are on. It doesn't always work. Georgia got its pro-US puppet but others kept their non-US sponsored but authoritarian leaders.

THE RETURN OF POLAND

If you think positive media coverage of the "Cellophane Revolution" (aka the Orange Revolution, depending on whose TV stations who watch) in your country is something, you have no idea what sort of political frenzy is going on in Poland. Demos, concerts, solidarity actions and international brigades, the entire Sejm heading to Ukraine after the President - we hear over and over how Warsaw and Kiev share "a common cause". But there's something much deeper than democracy or anti-communism. A careful look at what's going on in the popular mood and political realia shows that Poland has the same political and economic interests in Ukraine as Russia and, essentially the same attitude that Ukraine is somehow it's sphere of influence. More than the prestige of being called to mediate, more than any fake love of democracy, Polish politicians are waiting to cash in on the political bonanz a that Poland will have if Ukraine is very tight with Poland. Further, the right's nostalgia for the former Polish territories is quite clear and, even if they don't call for return of Lwow, Ukraine must be pro-Polish, Catholic leaning, open to Polish economic and cultural influence and, presumably, the increased presence of Poles. Poland with important influence in Ukraine is the goal and will increase Poland's prestige in international matters.

ISN'T PROTEST BETTER THAN FRAUD?

A hard question to answer. Obviously, people need to get angry when elections are rigged. On the other hand, the pro-Yushchenko fans are obviously choosing the other side of the statist coin. The dominance of capitalism in world ideology and myth seems clear. Rather than choosing to fight for "freedom", they are opting for another form of slavery. Not all protests are our protests. Not all revolutions are a celebration. The beautiful thing about moments like this is seeing how the people are potentially able to mobilize themselves into civic action. The bad part is that once their man is in office, all they'll care about is eating trying to be good consumers and retaining their places in the atomized and hierarchical society.

BRZEZINSKI

(Excerpts)

Today, the geopolitical issue is no longer what geographic part of Eurasia is the point of departure for continental domination, nor whether land power is more significant than sea power. Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy. The United States, a non-Eurasian power, now enjoys international primacy, with its power directly deployed on three peripheries of the Eurasian continent, from which it exercises a powerful influence on the states occupying the Eurasian hinterland. But it is on the globe's most important playing field - Eurasia - that a potential rival to America might at some point arise. Thus, focusing on the key players and properly assessing the terrain has to be the point of departure for the formulation of American geostrategy for the long-term management of America's Eurasian geopolitical interests.

Two basic steps are thus required:

*first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; and to pinpoint the geopolitically critical Eurasian states whose location and/or existence have catalytic effects either on the more active geostrategic players or on regional conditions;

* second, to formulate specific US policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above, so as to preserve and promote vital US interests, and to conceptualize a more comprehensive geostrategy that establishes on a global scale the interconnection between the more specific US policies.

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.
.............

In the current global circumstances, at least five key geostrategic players and five geopolitical pivots (with two of the latter perhaps also partially qualifying as players) can be identified on Eurasia's new political map. France, Germany, Russia, China, and India are major and active players, whereas Great Britain, Japan, and Indonesia, while admittedly very important countries, do not so qualify. Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots, though both Turkey and Iran are to some extent - within their more limited capabilities - also geostrategically active. More will be said about each in subsequent chapters.

.........

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there.
However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine's loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe.

Despite its limited size and small population, Azerbaijan, with its vast energy resources, is also geopolitically critical. It is the cork in the bottle containing the riches of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia. The independence of the Central Asian states can be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow's control. Azerbaijan's own and very significant oil resources can also be subjected to Russian control, once Azerbaijan's independence has been nullified. An independent Azerbaijan, linked to Western markets by pipelines that do not pass through Russian-controlled territory, also becomes a major avenue of access from the advanced and energy-consuming economies to the energy rich Central Asian republics. Almost as much as in the case of Ukraine, the future of Azerbaijan and Central Asia is also crucial in defining what Russia might or might not become.

 http://www.alter.most.org.pl