Ukraine's Yushchenko Declares Victory

Elissar

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Orderite
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/ukraine_election


By ALEKSANDAR VASOVIC, Associated Press Writer

KIEV, Ukraine - Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko declared victory Monday in Ukraine's fiercely contested presidential election, telling thousands of supporters they had taken their country to a new political era after a bitterly fought campaign that required an unprecedented three ballots and Supreme Court intervention against fraud.

Photo
AP Photo

AFP Photo
AFP
Slideshow Slideshow: Ukraine Elections



"We have been independent for 14 years but we were not free," Yushchenko told the festive crowd in Kiev's central Independence Square, the center of weeks of protests after the fraudulent and now-annulled Nov. 21 ballot in which Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych had been declared the winner.

"Now we can say this is a thing of the past. Now we are facing an independent and free Ukraine."

Yushchenko spoke after three exit polls and partial results projected him winning easily in Sunday's Supreme Court-ordered rematch.

"Now, today, the Ukrainian people have won. I congratulate you," he said.

As Yushchenko declared victory, about 5,000 supporters gathered on the square applauded and set off fireworks. They waved flags of bright orange — his campaign's emblematic color — clasped hands and danced.

Oleg Yusov, 35, popped the cork on a bottle of cheap champagne. "I've been carrying this around all night waiting," said the 35-year-old engineer. "This is a fresh start for Ukraine. We are moving forward."

Earlier, Yushchenko told journalists and others crammed into his campaign headquarters that Ukraine had opened a new era, which would include neither current President Leonid Kuchma nor Yanukovych, the prime minister and candidate hand-picked by Kuchma to be his successor.

With ballots from just over 60 percent of precincts counted, Yushchenko was leading by 56.04 to 40.12 percent, election officials said.

Earlier in the evening, a dejected-looking Yanukovych told reporters in Kiev "if there is a defeat, there will be a strong opposition." But he did not concede, saying "I am ready to lead the state," and hinted he would challenge the results in the courts.

"We will defend the rights of our voters by all legal means," he said, ruling out negotiations with Yushchenko were the opposition leader to win.

Some 12,000 foreign observers had watched Sunday's unprecedented third round to help prevent a repeat of the apparent widespread fraud on Nov. 21 that prompted the massive protests inside the nation and a volley of recriminations between Russia and the West.

Both campaigns complained of violations, but monitors said they'd seen far fewer problems.

"This is another country," said Stefan Mironjuk, a German election monitor observing the vote in the northern Sumy region. "The atmosphere of intimidation and fear during the first and second rounds was absent ... It was very, very calm."

Yushchenko echoed that sentiment in the speech at his campaign headquarters.

"Three or four months ago, few people knew where Ukraine was. Today almost the whole world starts its day thinking about what is happening in Ukraine," he said.

The vote count got under way after polls closed at 8 p.m., and the Central Election Commission estimated that turnout was around 75 percent.



"Today Ukraine will have a new president — Yushchenko. Everybody will feel the changes," Yulia Tymoshenko, a radical opposition leader and Yushchenko ally, told pro-opposition TV5.

Tymoshenko's calls for massive protests after the Nov. 21 runoff earned her the nickname "Goddess of the Revolution." She appeared to revel in her role Sunday, wearing an orange-and-black shirt with the word "Revolution" running the length of the sleeves.

With Yushchenko supporters clad in orange campaign colors, the peaceful protests became known as the "Orange Revolution."

The election outcome was momentous for Ukraine, a nation of 48 million people caught between the eastward-expanding European Union (news - web sites) and NATO (news - web sites), and an increasingly assertive Russia, its former imperial and Soviet-era master.

Yushchenko, a former Central Bank chief and prime minister, vowed to take Ukraine closer to the West and advance economic and political reform. The Kremlin-backed Yanukovych emphasized tightening the Slavic country's ties with Russia as a means of maintaining stability.

Yushchenko promised to uproot the corruption that concentrated the former Soviet republic's wealth in the hands of about a dozen tycoons. Yanukovych promised to continue work to boost Ukraine's economy — which enjoys the fastest growth in Europe — and pledged an increase in wages and pensions.

Serhiy Shetchkov, a 53-year-old Kiev voter, said he opted for Yushchenko because "he is an economist and that's what the country needs right now."

"I'm interested in someone who can raise the standard of living, raise pensions, create more jobs," he said.

The political crisis had cast a harsh glare on the rift between Ukraine's Russian-speaking, heavily industrial east and cosmopolitan Kiev and the west, where Ukrainian nationalism runs deep. Yanukovych backers feared discrimination by the Ukrainian-speaking west, and some eastern regions briefly threatened to seek autonomy if Yushchenko won the presidency.

"I am voting for independence (of eastern Ukraine), an end to feeding those lazy westerners! My vote goes to Yanukovych," said Hrihoriy Reshetnyak, a 44-year-old miner in Donetsk.

Yushchenko, whose face remains badly scarred from dioxin poisoning he blamed on Ukrainian authorities, built on the momentum of round-the-clock protests that echoed the spirit of the anti-communist revolutions that swept other East European countries in 1989-90.

"Thousands of people that were and are at the square were not only waiting for this victory but they were creating it," Yushchenko said. "In some time, in a few years, they'll be able to utter these historic words: Yes, this is my Ukraine, and I am proud that I am from this country."

After his speech on the square, as the crowd cheered, Yushchenko embraced the raven-haired singer Ruslana, the other Ukrainian who could be credited with putting the nation on the map in 2004. She won the Eurovision song contest.

Kuchma, the outgoing president, said Sunday he hoped the results of the vote would not be disputed. "In my opinion, the one who loses should call and congratulate the winner ... and put an end to this prolonged election campaign."

Pollsters said they heard the same sentiment of fatigue from voters.

Will this be good for the Ukraine?
How will this effect Russia?

Discuss damn you.
 
Whoohoo! The free, moral, and intelligent people of Ukraine have proven that Democracy can work! Thank God...I was starting to have my doubts.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
WTF? Who put you up to that Elissar? You have never posted something important.
 
Elissar, I think Dove just insulted you...

On topic, yeah, this is very good news for Ukraine and for the world. It is quite likely that remaining countries of the former Eastern block will follow Ukraine's example and orient themselves towards the European Union instead the totalitarian Russia. In worst case, Ukraine will become a little more democratic and a little more open to the West. In best case, this will substantially weaken Putin's position and leave Russia isolated and alone in its expansionist and extremist tendencies.
 
With them commies you at least are aware of the opression...

:: mumbles ::
 
I'm with Ashmo.

Yuschenko's track record is at least as bad as Big Viktor's. When he was Prime Minister he had plenty of people arrested who bothered him. And where does his money come from? Not the ultra giving people of Western Ukraine, I can tell you that.

They both have ties to organized crime. At least Yanukovich is linked with Ukrainian criminals. Yuschenko is taking money from EVERYONE. Europe, Russia, and organized crime groups both in the Ukraine and Russia. Hes been accepting money and support from whoever will throw it at him.

At least with Yanukovich you knew what he planned to do and who he would be working for. he was obviously supported by the Kremlin, but thats not always a bad thing. His primary concern was national stability and retaining power. The National division since the election is really bigger then anyone is saying. Most of Eastern Ukraine supported Yanukovich, and will now have to live with no duel citizenships, restricted border access and pressure from an unhappy neighbor (Where their relatives live, Whos language they speak and whose businesses they work in)

I'm not saying this is the worse outcome. There is a chance Yuschenko will be alot better then Big Viktor, but people need to stop hailing this as a "Victory" for democracy. It was a victory for money and strong arm tactics. I don't want to sound like I would be pleased if Yanukovich won either. I wouldn't have been. But at least he was a predictable and obviously controled leader. The only reason the West came out in favor of Yuschenko was because he sold out to them. Hes not really a better choice, just a more western one, and so he recieved support from the west. The results might be good for the Ukrainians, but it might very well cripple them in the long run.
 
That is terrible news...

USA is expanding without any control.We NEED new superpower-there has to be balance in the world.
 
Haven't you read Tau Zero by Poul Anderson? The UN votes to hand over all power to Sweden, because we're so upright and all.
 
Question: What country had the guy from behind bars running for leadership?
 
Commissar Lauren said:
I'm with Ashmo.

Yuschenko's track record is at least as bad as Big Viktor's. When he was Prime Minister he had plenty of people arrested who bothered him. And where does his money come from? Not the ultra giving people of Western Ukraine, I can tell you that.

No it isn`t. He has shady people on his entourage, but one can`t have worse record than to be a convicted criminal that made armed robberies and found a way to make his process about raping a minor to disapear like the pro-russian creep. And he won`t have the space to do the same totalitarian bullshit that the the other american friend Karimov has on Uzbekistan, but instead he`ll have the limits the Georgian President has.

They both have ties to organized crime. At least Yanukovich is linked with Ukrainian criminals. Yuschenko is taking money from EVERYONE. Europe, Russia, and organized crime groups both in the Ukraine and Russia. Hes been accepting money and support from whoever will throw it at him.

The idea that Ukrainian criminals are better than other criminals because of their nationality is ridiculous. That`s like saying a Russian fascist is better than another fascist because he`s Russian, or a Belgian paedopholi is better than other creeps because he`s belgium. Ukrain needs to get out of the criminal control of the state by the Donetsk Clan and their Russian bosses, and at least now has some hope that it can achieve that goal.

At least with Yanukovich you knew what he planned to do and who he would be working for. he was obviously supported by the Kremlin, but thats not always a bad thing.

Where is that not a bad thing? Bielorus, Ukrain until now, on the old soviet satellite countries that hate Russia for the sins of the Soviets? Putin can control the press and create a tightly subservient new oligarchy with the help of his former KGB friends in Russia at his will, let`s leave the other countries running their fates on their own, with the help of real democracies, not corrupt oligarchs and neo colonialist neighbours.

His primary concern was national stability and retaining power. The National division since the election is really bigger then anyone is saying. Most of Eastern Ukraine supported Yanukovich, and will now have to live with no duel citizenships, restricted border access and pressure from an unhappy neighbor (Where their relatives live, Whos language they speak and whose businesses they work in)

Yeah nothing like living in foreign soil and getting all the perks as long as you shut up to your mafia style political bosses from the Donetsk Clan and Russian smuglers. The OSCE got enough garanties that the economical ties with Russia will remain the priority from the Ukrainian new governement, and the borders will remain quite open until Ukrain is ready to start talks into entering at least the EEC (EU admission will take decades though).

So Ukrain won`t be a Russian colony no more, big deal, learn to live with it, Russian neo colonialism isn`t better just because it´s Russian you know.

I'm not saying this is the worse outcome. There is a chance Yuschenko will be alot better then Big Viktor, but people need to stop hailing this as a "Victory" for democracy. It was a victory for money and strong arm tactics. I don't want to sound like I would be pleased if Yanukovich won either. I wouldn't have been. But at least he was a predictable and obviously controled leader. The only reason the West came out in favor of Yuschenko was because he sold out to them. Hes not really a better choice, just a more western one, and so he recieved support from the west. The results might be good for the Ukrainians, but it might very well cripple them in the long run.

It was a VIctory For Democracy alright. When the people on power rig elections and are overrun by the desire of the people to fix the wrongdoings that`s always a Victory for Democracy. And Democracy is about HOPE, wich is the real winner of these elections.
 
bullshit that the the other american friend Karimov has on Uzbekistan
Easy there cowboy. If America gives any aid to Uzbekhistan, it's to prevent an Islamis uprising. And we've severed most ties anyway. Supporting fauxtarian regeims in Dar-al-Islam is part of what got us in this shitstorm in the first place.
 
Briosafreak said:
Alot of good points

I don't want to argue this too closely. Its like alot of politics in that people pretty much stick to their opinions no matter what you say. However I think you missed my point. The point I was trying to make was not that I am angry Big Viktor lost. He was an asshole and a gangster. However, So is our unfairly poisoned comrade. My point is that both choices offered very little in the aspect of a free and independant Ukraine. One leader was controled from the East, the other controled from the West.

I will agree with you on one thing. As far as the Western world is concerned (Including now, the Western half of Ukraine) this was a victory for Hope. Those who rallied with their orange, blocking the streets and basicly shutting down Kiev several times (in sub freezing tempatures no less) have much to be proud of. Those who live in places like Donets'ka obviously feel different.
 
Commissar Lauren said:
I don't want to argue this too closely. Its like alot of politics in that people pretty much stick to their opinions no matter what you say. However I think you missed my point. The point I was trying to make was not that I am angry Big Viktor lost. He was an asshole and a gangster. However, So is our unfairly poisoned comrade. My point is that both choices offered very little in the aspect of a free and independant Ukraine. One leader was controled from the East, the other controled from the West.

I understood that, but my point is that Yushenko puts them a hell lot closer to that goal than Viktor.


I will agree with you on one thing. As far as the Western world is concerned (Including now, the Western half of Ukraine) this was a victory for Hope. Those who rallied with their orange, blocking the streets and basicly shutting down Kiev several times (in sub freezing tempatures no less) have much to be proud of. Those who live in places like Donets'ka obviously feel different.

Yes please understand the fact that the hope i`m talking about concerns the Ukrainians in the first place, not the Western World. Their hopes are the important thing here, and the hability of them getting the future they want, and that they deserve after fighting the powerfull and the corrupt on the streets. Now the pro Russian westerners need their fair end of the bargain too, but with diferent rules, not the Donetsk Clan rules.
 
Seems to be on the topic.

Muzzled in Moscow
Fear and self-censorship in Putin's Russia
By Masha Gessen, Boston Globe | January 2, 2005

MOSCOW -- On Monday, Dec. 20, Russia celebrated Secret Police Day. Once an obscure date, it has acquired a high profile in recent years, with banquets, speeches by highly placed officials, and commemorative banners all over Moscow. This year the celebrations marked the 83d anniversary of the founding of VChK, which has since had many acronyms, of which KGB is the best-known in the West.

That same day, in two different courtrooms -- one in Moscow and one in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk -- judges handed down two verdicts. One concerned seven members of the radical National Bolshevik Party, a once-marginal organization that has emerged as the country's best-organized opposition group, who in August took over the office of the minister of health to protest a bill then pending in Parliament. All seven were sentenced to five years in prison -- for an act of civil disobedience. In Krasnoyarsk, another member of the same party, Andrei Skovorodnikov, was found guilty of using his personal website to insult President Vladimir Putin. His sentence: six months in prison.

The second of the two verdicts was, in a way, the more frightening. Officers of the FSB (the current acronym for the Russian secret police) showed up at his apartment the very day he created his website, in February of this year, before almost anyone had seen it. What's more, the prosecution's case relied not only on content that was actually posted on the site -- apparently, a collage of Putin's head atop a naked woman's body, with the caption "Putin is a fag" -- but also on articles critical of Putin that were found on the hard drive of the computer they confiscated from his home.

I am the deputy editor of an independent magazine called Bolshoy Gorod (Big City), a Moscow biweekly that covers both urban life and national politics. The day after the verdicts, the editor and I were planning our first issue in the new year, an important one for us because we are launching a redesign. And we had a problem: The two verdicts were the most ominous political events in months, the definitive indication that Russia had entered another age of state terror. How do we give these events their due without risking getting shut down ourselves?

In the last five years, Putin's government has systematically eradicated a variety of political freedoms, turning back Russia's attempts to build a democracy. A report released on Dec. 20 -- coincidentally, the day of the two verdicts -- by Freedom House, the US human rights organization that monitors and advocates political freedom around the world, downgraded Russia to "not free" status, making it the only country this year noted for its backward movement. Russia no longer has the usual tools of democracy: a free media (a handful of independent print publications that rarely reach outside of Moscow cannot compete with the state television monopoly); free elections (starting next year, Russians will no longer be able to directly elect local governors or members of parliament); or an independent judiciary (in essence, judges at all levels now serve at the pleasure of the president).

The message of these two verdicts is that, in an important sense, we have returned to the late Soviet period, the Brezhnev era. At that point, Soviet terror was not total: Many people read and distributed samizdat publications, for example, and many more listened to "Voice of America" and other foreign broadcasters that used shortwave frequencies to get information to the Soviet people. But every once in a while, someone was imprisoned for one of these transgressions. The late-Soviet regime was far more economical than the Stalin regime: Its leaders seemed to understand that, to keep the country in line, they didn't need to imprison tens of millions of people. They just needed frequently to punish a few people at random.

The Putin regime has adopted a similar strategy. Since Putin came to power, the state has taken over all television channels. For a time, print and online media, which reach comparatively few people, were still allowed to function. Recently, though, the editor of Izvestia, the Russian daily of record, was fired on orders from the Kremlin. Crackdowns on newspaper distribution systems have driven circulation down significantly. Individual journalists have been threatened, attacked, and, in at least a few cases, apparently killed. The prison sentence for Andrei Skovorodnikov sent the message that no media outlet, no matter how small, is immune to the Kremlin's unfriendly attention any longer.

. . . So we had a problem. How would we write about the two verdicts handed down on Secret Police Day? We did, after all, want to attract attention to our first redesigned issue. Just not the wrong kind of attention.

The verdicts were covered by other media, including at least one television channel (the most liberal of the three state-owned national networks), and one daily newspaper even quoted the "fag" line. But as a magazine, we would want to do a more in-depth story, one that would analyze the dire implications and consequences of the verdicts. At the same time, there was also a temptation to play the story down a little, so that only the alert readers would see the significance of it.

This is how self-censorship works. One bargains with oneself. How much can I sacrifice before I lose respect for myself as a journalist? Can I respect myself if I don't give a story the play it deserves because I'm afraid? Can I respect myself if I kill a story because I'm afraid? Can I respect myself if I force the reader to look for the truth between the lines because I'm afraid?

And does it matter who I'm afraid of? One can be afraid of the FSB, organized crime, the police. And one can also be afraid of the fears of others -- companies who will pull their ads, for example, or investors who will pull their money because they fear the association with a risk-taking publication will cost them dearly.

Earlier this year, I reported a story that I found both ridiculous and very, very sad. The Russian edition of GQ, the men's magazine, had run its traditional "Man of the Year" contest. Some 26,000 readers had voted, and the winner was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil tycoon, philanthropist, and political activist whose Yukos oil empire has been expropriated and who has been in jail for over a year on charges of tax evasion that are widely seen as politically driven. His well-publicized trial has sent a message to all Russian entrepreneurs, warning them that they will suffer gravely if they ever happen to displease the Kremlin. The publisher of Russian GQ banned the publication of Khodorkovsky's name in connection with the contest, forcing his editorial staff to falsify the results. According to staff members, someone actually had to fly to Italy, where the magazine is prepared for printing, to replace the offending page.

One remarkable aspect of this story is that the magazine's publisher, Bernd Runge, is a German national who has little to fear personally from the authorities: He doesn't even spend much time in Russia, since his turf includes other Conde Nast publications in Germany and Africa as well. But Runge has an intimate understanding of how the new Russia works. He hails from East Germany, and he went to college in the Soviet Union. Earlier this year, two major German magazines published multi-part exposes showing that Runge served as a Stasi (the East German secret police) agent during the Soviet period. Jonathan Newhouse, chairman of Conde Nast International, issued a statement affirming his confidence in Runge and calling the revelations "irrelevant" to today's realities.

As it turns out, though, the instincts of a former Stasi agent are very relevant indeed in today's Russia. I am not yet sure how we will solve the problem of covering the two verdicts (we have until mid-January, when our next issue goes to press, to make up our minds). I do, however, know that just a few months ago I would have considered the very question of a story's potential risks, whether to myself or the publication I work for, a deeply offensive one. But I have a personal stake in the decision: If I lose my job because I write or assign a story that gets the magazine shut down, I may never work in this country again.

. . .

In the late Soviet period, some people rejected such choices altogether and went to work as street-sweepers and boiler-room operators. Most, however, tried constantly to strike a balance. I have spent years trying to figure out how they made the balance work, and have recently written a book about my own grandmothers' quests for what they often called "a decent compromise." One of my grandmothers, Ruzya, was educated to work as a history teacher. But when she graduated from college, she decided she could never use her skills, knowledge, and charm to lie to children. So instead, she became a censor, telling herself that censorship was mechanical work that someone else would be doing if she were not. When my other grandmother, Ester, was 20, she stood up to the secret police when they tried to draft her. Five years later, when she was out of a job and her young son was suffering from malnutrition, she accepted a job as a translator for the NKVD (another acronym for the secret police). She then failed her medical exam, which saved her from becoming a uniformed officer of the secret police.

Ester got to have a heroic narrative, while Ruzya, who is nearing her 85th birthday, is still deeply ashamed of the work she did half a century ago. But while my grandmothers' decisions were intensely difficult and informed, above all, by a desire to stay a moral course, the choice was hardly theirs at all.

In the book, I concluded that there is no such thing as a decent compromise. When I started researching it, about eight years ago, I never thought my grandmothers' lessons would have a direct application for my own life. But in the days after Secret Police Day 2004, I face a choice: Commence the search for a decent compromise or go work in a boiler room. This was the nature of choice in the Soviet Union, and it is becoming the nature of choice in today's Russia. If one does anything at all -- edits a story, for example, or kills one -- one is in some way becoming an accomplice of the regime.

For merely being mindful of the limitations of freedom inevitably makes one also an enforcer of these limitations. But the penalties for not being mindful, for refusing to play by the rules, are too grave. Just ask the young man in Krasnoyarsk, who dared insult the president.

Masha Gessen is a journalist in Moscow. She is the author of "Ester and Ruzya: How My Grandmothers Survived Hitler's War and Stalin's Peace" (Dial).
 
That same day, in two different courtrooms -- one in Moscow and one in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk -- judges handed down two verdicts. One concerned seven members of the radical National Bolshevik Party, a once-marginal organization that has emerged as the country's best-organized opposition group, who in August took over the office of the minister of health to protest a bill then pending in Parliament. All seven were sentenced to five years in prison -- for an act of civil disobedience. In Krasnoyarsk, another member of the same party, Andrei Skovorodnikov, was found guilty of using his personal website to insult President Vladimir Putin. His sentence: six months in prison.

Good for them, actually. NBP is widely known for their extremism in Russia, the government tolerated them for too long - their attacks on the police forces, acts of terrorism, vandalism, etc. They are the extremists wing of bolsheviks (communists, the most aggressive kind of them) - do we need to drop a tear now, when they organized an armed attack on a government building? C'mon, they've deserved it a long time ago. Add to this a judge, who simply hates communists (this was the case this time, his grand-parents were killed by communists during the 1917 revolution) and you get the results - 5 years in jail.
 
Back
Top