Quick comment: I tend to believe "outside observers" who are not Jimmy Carter. However, given our own experience, I really, REALLY don't trust exit polls. So I'm not fully prepared to simply get behind Yushchenko and say we should declare him the winner; perhaps that's just not true. But can claims of vote fraud really be investigated in the time period they would need to? I am also skeptical about that. I really don't see a way out of this, other than to say "revote". And I don't know that either side would accept a do over.

Exit polls here and exit polls in Ukraine are not precisely analogous. Early voting, resistance to being polled, sampling errors, and other factors that make exit polling here less accurate than it used to be are evidently not factors in Ukraine.

Michael McFaul, who I believe is a Russian expert at Stanford, gave an alarming take on the split in Ukraine last night on the Lehrer show. Essentially his argument was that two leaders each claiming to be the legitimate head of the government was at least a necessary if not a sufficient condition for civil war. I don't know enough about the state of Ukrainian politics to say whether things could go so far. What ought to be clear, though, is that Ukrainian independence from Russia is an important Western (i.e. not just an American) interest. This independence is precisely what Putin and his Ukrainian allies wish to undermine.

A strong stand against Russian expansionism is as necessary now as it ever was. I was relieved and even a little surprised that the White House followed Sen. Lugar's lead using plain language to discuss vote fraud in Ukraine and the seriousness with which this election is viewed in the United States.

I thought that the Stanford prof.'s most discouraging point on the Lehrer show last night was that even Western polls showed 40% support for Yanukovich. He seemed to imply that the acual support could be higher. Yanukovich may not be playing by the rules, but he is not without popular support, so I can't really imagine him agreeing to a revote.

In Clash of Civilizations, Huntington predicted that Ukraine would either
1. break into civil war (least likely),
2. partition along the cultural fault line or
3. muddle through as a generally pro-Russian state (most likely).

What would be the best outcome?

Let me weigh in (as a Russian person).

Firstly, it's clear to me that democartic and rich Ukraine is absolutely in Russian interest to have as a neighbor. There's no reason to try and "protect" the Russian minority--unlike what happened in the Baltic countries of the early 90s, they will not be denied the basic rights or treated as 2nd class citizens, and most Ukrainian people will speak Russian for a long time to come.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that Putin showed his love for Yanukovych. He should have been saying that he'd work with whoever is president. As a matter of fact, if the Western leaders want Yusch. to win, they are better off keeping their mouths shut as well. The simple reason is that these kinds of statements from abroad have in the past caused contrarian reactions in people. Just think of the US election.

Thirdly, the reason the thousands of Ukrainians are in the streets is not necessarily first because they love Yushchenko. The fact of the matter is that Yanuk. is clearly an odious person with a criminal past and most likely current organized crime ties. Yushch. seems like an angel in comparison.

Fourthly, one should not forget the Russian experience. In 1990 and 1991 Boris Yeltsin was swept into power by the populus. He turned out (from the Russian point of view) a pretty bad president, in 1993 ordered tanks to fire on crowds and ultimately made a smooth transtion from "national hero" to "national caricature" by the time he resigned.

So the "orange angel" may or may not be a saviour, and he may or may not be the leader to lead the way to "democratic and rich" nation. All I hope for that there's no violence--Ukrainians have shown remarkable restraint so far.

And we thought we had problems...

Does anyone really see this ending with less than 10K dead and Russian tanks preserving the stability of the government?

On the other hand, this may be the price necessary for continued Russian support of the WoT.

YOU: "We'll see if that makes a difference. As a political scientist who's spent time in-country, my guess is no."

ME: Maybe this is a quibble, but "scientist[s]" don't guess. Guessing is a cop out. Scientists generate hypotheses which make predictions as to what will happen in the future given a particular set of circumstances. If their hypotheses generate inaccurate predictions then scientists admit that their hypotheses were wrong. If Yanukovich does not accede to power, then you're hypothesis (Kuchma and Putin hold all the cards) will have been invalidated. Doubtless, this is the hypothesis that the "realists" in a Kerry administration would have endorsed. If Yanukovich does not take power, will you admit that your hypothesis (and all of its underlying assumptions) is wrong. That's what a "scientist" would do.

jim

"A few years ago there were sizeable protests in Kiev because of "Kuchmagate,". . . Despite months of protests, however, Kuchma stayed in office . . . Not to put a damper on what's going on right now in Ukraine, but that example should be kept in mind. . ."

Honestly, these two situations are *completely* different, both in scale and motivation. And there is such a sense of hope now, that something can be done about the mass corruption that there wasn't two years ago.

It seem a lot of people are focusing on the east/west, "Russian"/"Ukrainian" split. That seems to be much less of an issue (in many senses, a non-issue) in what is going on here. Instead it is desire for freedom and integrity and a real hope that they can overcome the corruption and oligarchical rule.

And, I'm a lot more optimistic than you seem to be in this post! *grin*