My Blog List

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Parallels between the 2010 Ukrainian Election and 2016

In both elections the crowds were fired up with shouts to:

"lock her up! lock her up."

As president Putin's Trump-like client, Yanukovich, threw Tymoshenko in prison!

What do Paul Manafort, Tad Devine and Jill Stein have in common?

They all three worked extensively with Russia.
And Manafort and Devine worked for Putin's Man, Yanukovich!

I started this post a while ago. But since I started it, other people have started writing about the subject. So what I'm going to do is to put links at the end of every one of my paragraphs to where you can read more detail. This is too big a subject for me to write all the details I've learned without a book contract.

Working for the Wrong Side

Tad Devine and Paul Manafort worked for Victor Yanukovych in two elections. In 2004 and 2010. Both elections were rigged! In 2004, outside observers could claim some parity between the parties contending. However, after the election it became clear that Yanukovych and the Putin Party had engaged in massive cheating. There were huge demonstrations and Yanukovych had to flee in what was called the "Orange Revolution".

More on the Orange Revolution:

In the interest of fair elections and rapprochement Yanukovych was given a second chance. A new election was arranged for 2010. In this election, Tad Devine and Paul Manafort worked in tandem to defeat Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine's 2010 presidential election in a way that looked amazingly like the one we just had. Worse, it turned out the Russians had cheated again. This time not only by flipping votes, but also by going all out to defame and use propaganda to turn the election upside down for those listening to Russian propaganda. There was yet another revolution, this one called the "Euromaiden" because one of the issues being contended over was whether the Ukraine could join with the rest of Europe in amicable relations or should become part of the Pseudo-Soviet Client State that Putin was building. Putin responded to being defeated electorally by using his assets in the Ukraine to attack and seize Crimea and launch a war that continues to this day.

More on the Euromaiden:"

Infiltrating the West

What does the left's reaction to Ukraine's 2010 electoral debacle and the Euromaiden revolution have in common with the right wing and the reaction to the election of 2016? Some on both left and right are downplaying the obvious involvement of Russian Intelligence in the outcome in both elections. In both cases prominent lefties have deliberately misread, downplayed or denied FSB involement in the election despite obvious indications that the Russians were intensely involved. In both 2010 and in 2016, pundits who might normally have been outraged at what was going on tried to make a false equivalency between US behavior and Russian behavior. Why is that? It turns out that Vladimir Putin has influence with both the far right and far left with business and financial ties. He apparently sees Trump as an Asset. But he also seems to see many otherwise reform and progressive minded politicians and pundits as assets too.

The similarities are spooky.

Background: Orange Revolution

The background of the 2004 election is complicated.

Later the propaganda would paint the Ukrainian resistance as anti-semitic and neo-Nazi, and claim that the Ukrainians were being anti-Russian and ultra-nationalists. But the real reason for the Orange Revolution was a rational reaction to outside rigging of the election. There is plenty of Nazi and anti-semitic influences in every part of the Ukraine, including the Russian influenced parts. It turns out that the Ultranationalist allegations against the Ukrainians in 2004 were exaggerated. It was part of the effort to de-legitimize Western Oriented elements in the Ukrainian language Faction.

Rigging the 2004 Election

"In 2004, Mr. Yanukovich's campaign was caught rigging the election after members of his election team were recorded discussing how to destroy evidence that showed tampering with the tabulation results. That revelation led to massive protests in the street, the Orange Revolution and a new vote which resulted in the election of Viktor Yushchenko."

Nobody would believe written reports.

But election observers spotted massive fraud. According to Nelson Ledsky of the National Democratic Institute, observers "reported that the rigged voting was in the neighborhood of over 1 million extra votes." [Atlantic]

But when you hear the crooks discussing it among themselves, it has even more impact.

"The back story regarding the 2004 election theft was provided in public testimony last year by CIA Agent Steven Stigall, who confirmed that Victor Yanukovich stole that October 2004 election by secretly placing a (man in the middle) computer in the central tabulation facility and flipping the results (by 14% according to other sources). This rigging was suspected because the exit polls favored Victor Yushchenko by 11%. However, it was only proven by taped phone calls between Yanukovich's campaign managers discussing the rigging and the attempted cover-up."

The campaign managers included Paul Manafort and Tad Devine! The article implies that they were involved in the rigging!

Orange Revolution Necessary to respond to Election Rigging

The Country was furious. But how furious they were about election rigging was influenced by where folks lived. The Atlantic reported:

"The country is severely divided as it stands," Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said after he returned from monitoring the November 21 runoff in Ukraine. "Some leaders in the eastern part of the country are talking about dividing the country. Clearly, the election divided it absolutely down the center, between the red and the blue states, to use the analogy from the United States."[Atlantic]

Actually the Colors were Orange for the Western Oriented Ukrainians and Blue for the Russian Oriented folks aligned with Putin:

"Yushchenko's supporters massed in the streets of Kiev, demanding that the results be annulled. It became orange versus blue, with orange being the color of the media-savvy Yushchenko protesters, blue the color of the pro-Yanukovich government supporters. Apparently, in the post-Soviet era, nobody wants to be red." [Atlantic]

Most Ukrainians didn't like cheating anymore than we do. The blue demonstrators were vastly outnumbered and soon stepped aside to allow a run-off election. Ukrainians weren't going to treat the Constitution as shackles for allowing unconstitutional behavior:

"In 2004-2005 mass protests lasting for two months - the Orange Revolution - helped bring to power pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko, who defeated his rival Viktor Yanukovych in a repeat run-off election." BBC Report

Orange Revolution, Wash and Repeat

When the people found out the depth of "blue" fraud, they took to the streets. This came to be known as the "orange revolution".

"The crowds on the streets of Kiev responded by defiantly singing Ukraine's national anthem. Whom were they defying? One sign, in English, read, "Putin: Hands off Ukraine!" In Ukraine, nationalism means resentment of Russia."

Eventually the crowds caused the Russian Puppet Viktor Yanukovich to flee the country. Victor Yushchenko would be the new President, and didn't seem that interested in Governing. So when the 2010 election came there would be a three way race. Essentially Yulia Tymoshenko was "primarying" him.

A little Historic digression

The "orange" in this case was the more western oriented parts of Ukraine, while the blue were the more "russophone" and "russophile" eastern parts of Ukraine, who also were more influenced by Russian propaganda and agents.

Prior to modernity Ukrainian, Polish and Russian probably formed an isogloss, in which the primary divide was between those parts who used the Cyrillic script to write their language and were Orthodox and those who use Latin script and were Catholic, but the languages were intelligible locally always. The western parts of Ukraine were Polish until Russia Partitioned Poland twice. The Eastern parts went back and forth. Soviet Rule deported people and imported people. It strengthened the Russian characteristics of the language used in the East, but also caused Ukrainians to standardize their language more so that it was more homogenous. I don't recall if the isogloss described in the past is still present. Instead people speak more than one language for commerce and socializing and the Russians use the Russian speakers as tools to try to recreate the Soviet Union.

Cossack Freedom

In reality the Khlmelnitsky story is very nuanced. His Cossack campaign terrorized the Ukraine and Poland/Lithuania and started when Polish Kings reclaimed what is now the Eastern parts of the Ukraine and encountered cossacks during their fights against Turks and the Tatar Khanate. They tried to levy taxes in lands that they had just liberated and used Jewish Tax collectors to make the collections. This set off the prejudices of the local Cossacks and allied peasants.

"The division in Ukraine goes back 350 years. In 1654, when Ukrainians were fighting Polish rule, a Cossack leader named Bohdan Khmelnitsky swore allegiance to the Russian czar. Since then, Ukrainians have been dominated by Russia." [Atlantic]

Schlacta State

Poland remained a State as long as there was a serious threat from the Turks and Tatars, but as soon as they stopped being a credible threat the nobility divided into folks more loyal to Poland's neighbor than to Poland.

The revolt also reflected this weak commonwealth that was the Polish Kingdom. The Polish nobility (Schlacta) dominated an aristocratic legislature where those from the East Favored Russia, the Catholic West favored Poland, Austria or Prussia. And all the nobility were intermarried and feuding with each other. Poland's eastern parts (modern Ukraine) were usually aligned with the Russians, but the Western parts were driven to ally with Austria or Prussia. Poland's government was kept weak by aggressive aristocrats whose only agreement was that they wanted to keep their King weak.

Poland would eventually be divided up into three parts with the Ukraine, Lithuania and "Belorus" becoming completely Russian ruled and made a part of Tsarist Russia. Parts of Poland were annexed to Prussia, and the southern part to Austria-Hungary as Galicia. Poland disappeared as a country twice. The third time when it was reconstituted only half of it was it's original territory. They never gained back the Ukraine or Belarus. Instead they given extensive parts of territory that had been majority German for centuries.

The Ukraine was "Russian" but it also had it's own unique identity. It is an ancient land that is a breadbasket for food, except when climate change is creating cyclic droughts or cold spells. Under the Soviet Union the Bolshevik Government oppressed Ukrainians and killed many of them, in the name of "collectivization" and "class warfare." This was referred to as the "Holodomor" more History. Ukrainians were right to distrust ethnic Russians, many of whom still deny what their government did to the Ukraine in the 30s.

I'm quoting from several physical books, I'll footnote this later

Religion and Politics

And religion plays a role too:

"Ukraine's east is mostly Russian-speaking, Orthodox in religion, and strongly pro-Russian. Most people in Ukraine's west speak Ukrainian and adhere to a church that acknowledges the authority of the Roman Catholic pope. Western Ukrainians are intensely nationalistic and distrustful of Russia." [Atlantic]

They're Back! Ukraine's 2010 Election

Of course, naturally when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, it is never really over. Yanukovych would be back! with help from International Chaos agents, like Tad Devine and Paul Manafort!

"Yanukovich's campaign team in 2004 and 2010 included Rick Davis" ... Tad Devine ... "and Paul Manafort, the owners of a Washington, D.C. lobbying/PR firm called 3eDC. 3eDC has bragged on its website that it had five "strategic partners." []

And a more circumspect Vladimir Putin

In 2010 the Russians tried to be a little less visible. And it worked. Russophile reporters were recruited, wined and dined, and told that "this time" would be different.

A close election where Yanukovich appeared to play by the rules. This led russophile and anti-USA forces in the USA press and punditry to praise Putin for his restraint and lay into the Ukrainians for their nationalism. It seems that divided loyalties aren't just a pre-partition Polish issue. And indeed, the three way nature of the race led to a runoff race in which it was claimed by the website "FOI" that:

"Yushchenko has taken every opportunity to attack Tymoshenko. In contrast, he has only rarely criticised Yanukovych, a curious move that has spurred rumours that the former foes agreed to a secret power sharing agreement in order to thwart Tymoshenko." [FOI]

Like with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, the man who ostensibly was on the same side of issues, Yuschenko, appeared to be supporting his formal enemy to defeat a rival on his own side. And like with the reaction to Trump's victory, Jakob Hedenskog would claim that protesters were no longer serious reformers, but were "paid" to demonstrate against each other.

Like Trump, they got proactive in alleging fraud. Along with staged attacks, Yanukovych partisans chanted "lock her up." "Lock her up!" The idea was that this time Yanukovych would prevent accusations against himself by aggressively attacking his opponent's legitimacy.

The Christian Science monitor reported on February 5:

"Yanukovich, smashed their way into the Ukraina state printing house (see video) two weeks ago, claiming that millions of excess presidential ballots were being produced there to enable fraud by Tymoshenko's camp." [CSS]

The Western Press, used to this sort of thing. Ignored it. At any rate, the election looked legitimate. The observers said it was legit. Yanukovych had locked her up before the election and before he'd fled the country the first time.

The New York Times reported on February 8th 2009:

"election monitors praised the election that was held Sunday, calling it an “impressive display” of democracy." [NY Times]

They noted that:

"Mr. Yanukovich, defeated Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko by three percentage points"

Euromaiden Revolution

But evidence soon came out that the 4% of the vote victory that Yanukovych won by, had been rigged after all. There was a lack of overt evidence of rigging. Yet rigging had occured anyway. Soon after the election

On February 20, 2010, Yulia Tymoshenko appealed to the Country's High court and was outraged that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine refused to examine documented evidence of fraud committed in the presidential election. And said at the Court:

"At the very least there was rigging of votes using the main methods of falsification, and I think that for history this lawsuit with all the documentation will remain in the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, and sooner or later, an honest prosecutor’s office and an honest court will assess that Yanukovych wasn’t elected President of Ukraine, and that the will of the people had been rigged," [Web Archive]

Yulia claimed:

  1. about 300,000 voters who voted but were not in the "Register of Voters of Ukraine";
  2. about 1.3 million voters who "without right" voted in their homes;
  3. about falsification in the election in the eastern regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv region, Crimea, etc.) — fixed by law-enforcement officials

She also said:

"All the fraud was proven, it's not just words."

Of Course the Russophile members of the Press didn't believe her. And not many others either. And so Yanukovych was back. And this time to make sure he stayed back, he had Tymoshenko arrested! She would go on trial for charges ranging from Corruption to murder. Again the parallels with Hillary. And Tymoshenko might have stayed in office his whole term this time. Except he reneged on a promise to make a treaty with the European Union (which would have benefited the Ukraine and Russia, but that Vladimir Putin opposed on ideological grounds). And it was that that started the Euromaiden protests in 2014. Allegations of cheating had been echoing for years, but it took a revolution to get her out of jail. BBC reported:

>"The mass demonstrations were triggered by his government's decision not to sign a wide-ranging association agreement with the European Union, because of pressure from Russia. [BBC]


Astoundingly the left in the USA, aided by cynical analysts blamed the Obama Administration! Robert Parry claimed on July 15, 2015 that Toria Nuland orchestrated the Euromaiden protests. Many lefties believe that Ukraine's issues are the fault of the United States and not Vladimir Putin. But the fact is that, when the Ukraine forced Victor Yanukovich out of Office. Putin started a rebellion in the parts of the country he controlled and invaded Crimea. I have a lot more to discuss. But I'm tired.

And the Ukrainians found their evidence after ejecting him again. More importantly they found evidence linking this to Manafort:

"Ukrainian government National Anti-Corruption Bureau studying secret documents claimed in August 2016 to have found handwritten records that show $12.7 million in cash payments designated for Manafort, although they had yet to determine if he had received the money. These undisclosed payments were from the pro-Russian political party Party of Regions, of the former president of Ukraine). This payment record spans from 2007 to 2012. Manafort’s lawyer, Richard A. Hibey, said Manafort didn’t receive “any such cash payments” as described by the anti-corruption officials. The Associated Press reported on 17 August 2016 that Manafort secretly routed at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012 on Party of Regions' behalf, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy. Associated Press noted that under federal law, U.S. lobbyists must declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties and provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department, which Manafort reportedly did not do. The lobbying firms unsuccessfully lobbied U.S. Congress to reject a resolution condemning the jailing of Yanukovych's main political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko."

Yanukovych would flee the country

"In 2013 Yanukovych became the main target of the Euromaidan protests. After the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution (the conclusion of Euromaidan) Yanukovych fled to Russia.[42] On 17 March 2014, the day after the Crimean status referendum, Yanukovych became one of the first eleven persons who were placed under executive sanctions on the Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN) by President Obama, freezing his assets in the US and banning him from entering the United States."

Meanwhile the Russians invaded. They had learned to not be too heavy handed in their election fraud after the Orange Revolution. But they still couldn't control public opinion long term without making changes to their own policies. Without the invasion Ukraine might have joined the European Union. Who knows maybe Russia next?

Related Posts:

Further Reading

BBC On the 2010-2012 revolt:
Ukraine Lawsuit
Politico spins Tad Devine's participation:

"He worked with Paul Manafort on Viktor Yanukovych’s 2010 presidential campaign, but backed away after the election, when Yanukovych began clamping down on dissent."

Of course since Yanukovych did the same thing in both 2004 and 2010, this is either spin or someone too blind to vet who he is working for.
Last days of Sanders Campaign:

*Note Paul Begala, David Axelrod and other political consultants worked for either Tymoshenko or the previous Ukrainian leader Yushchenko

Paul John Manafort, Jr. (born April 1, 1949) is an American [Republican] lobbyist and political consultant.
"Manafort is best known for his lobbying efforts on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych as well as for dictators such as Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko and guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi. He was an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Republicans Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and was the national chairman of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, as well as being a senior partner in the firm Davis, Manafort, and Freedman. It was confirmed in the New York Times on the eve of the 2017 Presidential Inauguration that Manafort is under active investigation by the CIA, NSA, FBI, ODNI and FinCEN." [Source Wikipedia-taken 1/20/2017]
Defamation of Victoria Nuland
BBC Article
Nuland Testimony:
Robert Parry of "Consortium News"
Parry seems to see Victoria Nuland as the villain in Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Christopher Steele

No comments:

Post a Comment