His main opponent and one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution, Julia Tymoshenko, had 45.47 percent of the vote and immediately announced her intent to contest these results through the courts. However, the election commission has rejected her claims and confirmed the validity of the results.At first sight, all this may look like an ordinary democratic contest where two rival political parties are engaging in a domestic power struggle. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian elections are far more meaningful, not just for this country but also for a larger region. Just like Georgia, Ukraine is of crucial importance in the balance between the West and Russia. The latter wants to make Ukraine a buffer zone between itself and Europe, and for similar strategic reasons the former want to use this country for the same purpose, for the sake of Western interests.
The US has tried for some time to develop bilateral relations with this country and has even encouraged Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership. Washington had hoped that with Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the US’s influence in the Black Sea region, which includes the Caucasus, will grow stronger. As you may recall, these plans have put Turkey into a very difficult position. Turkey knew that a US military presence in the Black Sea would seriously damage the relationship between Russia and Turkey. On the other hand, refusing this presence would be harmful for Turkish-US relations.
During this period, Europe’s attitude was quite mysterious. The EU had worked seriously to assure Ukraine’s democratization and harmonization with EU markets. However, since day one, all European countries have emphasized that Ukraine mustn’t expect to join the EU. At the same time the EU has adopted an ambiguous stance about Ukraine’s probable NATO membership, without seeing that Europe’s contradictory approaches were not helping pro-Western circles in Ukraine. It appears that the EU’s priority was to not make Russia too angry, considering this country’s critical role as Europe’s main gas supplier. Still, during the gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia, the EU had shown its solidarity with Ukraine. In brief, the EU has given the impression that it is indecisive about what to do with Ukraine.
In the latest elections, Ukrainian voters were influenced by three major players, namely Russia, the EU and the US. Those who were concerned about Russia’s reaction to the US’s Ukraine policy, who have thought that they were fooled by the West, who have seen that Europe’s well-meant declarations are not sufficient to assure economic take-off and who were already pro-Russian for historical reasons supported the “Blue List.” As a result, mainly because of the West’s ambiguous policies, a person whose political life was said to be doomed has managed to become president. The Bush administration’s policy of continuous pressure and the EU’s indecisiveness have largely contributed to the Orange Revolution’s failure, and in the end Ukrainians have chosen to gather around someone ostensibly pro-Russian. This state of affairs lays the groundwork for a period of endless quarrels between the newly elected president and the supporters of the Orange Revolution, who are now on the opposition benches. If the West pursues its ambiguous policies, this may push the two sides of the Dnieper River apart. And if that happens, everyone must prepare themselves for a Ukraine full of conflict.
