Simon Seebag Montefiore on Ukraine

We've said little about Ukraine thus far, although I suspect that, like many other bloggers, the coming days will see us posting some thoughts on the situation there. Tonight, I recommend this piece from the Daily Telegraph by Simon Seebag Montefiore.

He's not exactly pessimistic -- in fact, one might say he's hopeful -- but he knows too much of the area to assume that all will be well:

If Kiev's brave street protesters triumph over tyranny, corruption and electoral fraud, the Ukrainian revolution will soon glory in one of those wonderful nicknames, such as Georgia's Rose Revolution. My favourite was Estonia's Singing Revolution. What would this be? The Silk Revolution? The Dancing Revolution? Probably the Orange Revolution, after the opposition's colours. But Ukraine has a Soviet-dominated army and security police who are quite capable of turning this into a tragedy. There could be blood, not roses, on the streets of Kiev.

And: Yet Ukraine has repeatedly failed the tests of independent statehood: she has always been surrounded by powerful neighbours, usually Russia and Poland. None the less, this weekend is seminal: will Ukraine remain independent or not? After the 1917 Revolution, Ukraine was trampled by Bolshevik, Polish, White, Anarchist, Austrian, German and Ukrainian armies, while ruled by a succession of bizarre regimes. The first half of the 20th century was a nightmare for Ukraine. Stalin shot and starved millions during the 1930s, then came the Nazis. This was followed by a four-way battle between two large independent Ukrainian armies, the Germans and Stalin's legions, which Stalin's troops finally won.

This history of bloodshed and sovereignty denied makes the support of the West vital for Ukraine's immediate future. President Putin must be told, in no uncertain terms, that amicable relations with America and the EU are dependent on a fair and closely monitored election whose results can be accepted as the will of Ukrainians. (That means Jimmy Carter should be arrested on sight should he show up in Kiev.) The old guard must know that the world is watching intently and that the status quo is unacceptable.

Ukrainian developments also remind us of the importance of George W. Bush's victory. As an opponent of cynical realism, Bush is far more likely to push for democracy in Ukraine than Kerry would have been -- provided, that is, that he overcomes his reluctance to confront Putin on the latter's increasingly autocratic style. For, as Montefiore says, Ukraine has three choices, and we should come out strongly for the Burkean students he mentions below:

These stakes remind me of the national hero, Bogdan Khmelnytsky, who achieved Ukrainian independence in 1648, defeating Poland, only to lose it permanently to Russia. Ukrainians call this event Ruina - the Ruin. Ukraine's destiny is being decided on the streets, in the courts, and in the Kremlin. Three choices: Ukraine becomes a Russian satellite; Ukraine and Belarus reunite with Russia; Ruina again. Or bloodshed with untold consequences. Or the bloodless creation of a new European democracy. Students in Kiev rightly wave a banner quoting Burke: "The only thing that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing."