On Sunday, most of Ukraine will be able to go to the polls to vote for a new president to replace the “interim” President Oleksandr Turchinov. Only 23 of 34 districts in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are expected to open at all, meaning large numbers of voters in the east won’t be going anywhere at all.
The Obama Administration doesn’t need to wait to see the results to know what they think, however, and are already going to bat for the election, defending its credibility despite the election not covering major protester-held cities in the east.
The State Department treated 23 out of 34 as good “despite the difficult environment,” insisting that the vote is nationwide anyhow, and covers more than just that region.
Rather than expressing any misgivings about that, they insisted that the interim government had done everything to allow people to vote, and blamed Russia for any potential inability to vote that takes place in the east.
That’s in keeping with the position Secretary of State John Kerry staked out earlier this month, threatening to sanction Russia in retaliation for any problems with the Ukrainian vote.
Russia ate my homework.
Is Obama really going to put his credibility on line and defend this voting fiasco….? Oops, what credibility?
The USG State Department are the biggest impediment to peace in the World.
Their actions here in Ukraine simply reinforces their inability to act in a fair , just and impartial manner.
"Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts….The United States launched 201 overseas military operations…41% of the world’s total military spending……700 to 1000 military bases or sites in more than 100 countries"
The pro-Putin faction, not least Mr Ditz, have been spinning the supposed lack of credibility of the election for about a week now. The usual extremist position: when our pals win, it's a triumph for democracy, when our pals lose, the vote was rigged! It looks like Mr Ditz thinks his pals are going to lose.
Mr. Kenny,
Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that Mr. Ditz is "pro-Putin?"
Ab election that leaves out swaths of the Ukraine is obviously not legitimate you Orwellian!
"when our pals win, it's a triumph for democracy, when our pals lose, the vote was rigged!"
A perfect summary of the US position on every election in the world. This is a classic example of projection.
What they're postulating is like the USG holding an election and excluding large cities from participating because they've significant segments of unemployed and …Democrats.
So, some Ukrainians are voting to see who will represent some of Ukraine. What's wrong with that? It'll only be a problem if those who get a mandate from some of Ukraine try to represent ALL of Ukraine!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL of the presidential candidates nominated from the junta in Kiev? Even if Eastern Ukraine gets to vote, there's no candidate who represents the East. No wonder the US thinks this setup is OK. It's just like they do it in America!
I believe that the real vote will come several years from now —- after the Ukrainians in the Western portions get a full dose of what the Western vulture capitalists plan for them. By then, there will be even more unemployed, most pensions cut, students priced out of higher education, their natural resources and environment looted, etc. All of the nasty things that have been done to the Greeks and others and written large. I will bet that after some years of this exposure to capitalistic imperialism, austerity, and unbridled banker greed, about 90% of the whole country of Ukraine will want to seek refuge with Russia.. Probably us, too (as if we will get a choice).
PoROSHENko, the chocolate king,( his company name is "Roshen"), is the sure winner, in a first round. Some candidates were intimidated, others were on the ballots for presenting the "fair" campaign. Considering that a couple years ago Russia refused to import his sweets, he is going to use the WTO now to ram it down the Putin throat, I am sure ))
It seems to me that this Ukrainian vote is as valid as the U.S. presidential election of 1864, which also excluded large parts of the country from participation.
There's been a lot said about the current elections in Syria, as to their legitimacy when a substantial portion of the country is outside of the incumbent government's control. Most antiwar libertarians (maybe not all, but at least by and large) seem to support the legitimacy of these current Syrian elections by analogy to that of the 1864 U.S. presidential elections. Why doesn't the same analogy hold true as to the validity of the current Ukrainian elections?
Don't misunderstand my position. I want the U.S. to mind its own business and stay out of Syria, Ukraine, and everywhere else. But that doesn't affect the issue of the legitimacy of elections. I think we've got to be consistent here and recognize the Ukrainian elections as legitimate if we consider the Syrian elections to be legitimate.