Skip to main content

Why Putin Worked Yanukovych's Corner

By

An acquaintance of mine, a world karate champion, once told me that when you're competing on enemy territory the judges will never let you win on points. You've got to win by knockout.

Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko won the election on points and now he's going for a knockout. In the election game, a knockout is known as a revolution.

Russia was predestined to referee this bout between Ukrainian political heavyweights. But President Vladimir Putin opted to be the guy in Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's corner who hands him the towel and the spit bucket. The trainer can't be the referee. So the Ukrainians called in Javier Solana and Lech Walesa.

Why did Putin choose to work in the corner of a twice-convicted candidate?

If elected, would Yanukovych give preference to Russian businesses? Not likely. During the campaign, the government privatized the crown jewel of the Ukrainian metals industry, VAT Kryvorizhstal. Alexei Mordashov, head of Severstal and a Kremlin favorite, offered $1.2 billion for Ukraine's largest steel producer. But the company was sold to Investment and Steel Union, a company run by President Leonid Kuchma's son-in-law and a Ukrainian businessman, Rynat Akhmetov, for just $800 million.

If we're treated like that during the campaign, imagine what will happen once the election is over.

Perhaps the Kremlin was trying to keep Ukraine from joining the European Union and NATO. Who came up with the idea of cozying up to the West in the first place? Kuchma and Yanukovych, that's who. Every time Russia complained that Ukraine was stealing its natural gas, Kuchma replied: "So that's how it is. Fine. We're joining NATO."

If Russia had a different president and a different army, the results of the election in Ukraine could have led to a schism between east and west, with Russian troops rolling into the eastern part of the country to the cheers of the local residents. After all, eastern Ukraine from Odessa to Donetsk is basically Russian territory that was artificially annexed to Ukraine in the Soviet era along the line of the Russo-German front in 1918.

But that would require a different Kremlin and a different army. As things stand today, if Yushchenko wins, Russia will have backed the loser; if Yanukovych wins, we'll have backed the guy who stabbed us in the back.

So why did Russia put its money on Yanukovych? I have a theory.

You see, Yushchenko's wife is American. And she's not just any American, she's a former U.S. government official. Their first meeting was extremely romantic -- they were seated next to one another on an airplane.

Lots of people meet like this. But Putin, an old KGB man, could be led to believe that any coincidence is in fact a plot hatched by foreign agents. Belief in a CIA conspiracy against Russia runs high in Putin's inner circle. They blame it for everything from downed planes to Beslan. Following this logic, however, the heads of the Interior Ministry and the Federal Security Service should be the first ones suspected of spying for a foreign power.

You tell Putin that one of the candidates in the Ukrainian election has an American wife, and that they met by chance on a flight somewhere. His natural conclusion: Yushchenko is a CIA agent.

Why plant this idea in Putin's head, you ask? Very simple. The Kremlin has been making a lot of money in the political campaign business for a long time. Now the campaign business is dying in Russia, replaced by the so-called power vertical, or executive chain of command. But these people still have to make a living.

The Ukrainian election presented a huge opportunity. All they had to do was set the process in motion by convincing the higher-ups that a CIA conspiracy was involved.

Yulia Latynina hosts a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Arundhati Roy: The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney. Peace & The New Corporate Liberation Theology It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses me! However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizees. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well. When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch rema

Beastly Behavior

By Chris Floyd It was a largely secret operation, its true intentions masked by pious rhetoric and bogus warnings of imminent danger to the American way of life. Having gained the dazed complicity of a somnolent Congress, U.S. President George W. Bush calmly signed a death warrant for thousands upon thousands of innocent victims: a native population whose land and resources were coveted by a small group of powerful elites seeking to augment their already vast dominance by any means necessary, including mass slaughter. A flashback to March 2003, when Bush finally brought his long-simmering brew of aggressive war to the boil? Not at all -- it happened just last week. This time, however, the victims were not the Iraqi people, but one of the last remaining symbols of pure freedom left in America itself: the nation's herd of wild horses, galloping unbridled on the people's common lands. With an obscure provision smuggled without any hearings or public notice into the

"Global Doubts as Global Solutions"

by Amartya Sen Melbourne Town Hall Tuesday, May 15, 2001, 6pm 1. Misery and Resignation We live in a world of unprecedented prosperity - incomparably richer than ever before. The massive command over resources, knowledge and technology that we now take for granted would be hard for our ancestors to imagine. But ours is also a world of extraordinary deprivation and of staggering inequality. An astonishing number of children are ill nourished and illiterate as well as ill cared and needlessly ill. Millions perish every week from diseases that can be completely eliminated, or at least prevented from killing people with abandon. The world in which we live is both remarkably comfortable and thoroughly miserable. Faced with this dual recognition, we can go in one of several different directions. One line of thinking takes the form of arguing that the combination of processes that has led to the prosperity of some will lead to similar prosperity for all. The advocacy of this perspective c