Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko won the first round of the Ukrainian presidential elections on 17 January, as predicted.
According to the Central Election Committee, 66.72% of the voters took part in the elections. As of today, 15.46 (CET) results are:
Viktor Yanukovych – 35.36%
Yulia Tymoshenko – 25%
Sergij Tigipko – 13.01%
Arsenij Yatsenyuk – 6.97%
Viktor Yushchenko – 5.51%
Results of the National exit poll are as follows (as of 17 January 2009, 22.00 (CET)):
Viktor Yanukovych – 31.3%
Yulia Tymoshenko – 27.1%
Sergij Tigipko – 13.4%
Arsenij Yatsenyuk – 7.8%
Viktor Yushchenko – 6.0%
It’s too soon to make final conclusions. One may only say that history is closing a circle: Ukraine has taken the first step to elect the man it ejected five years ago.
No matter which of the two wins the 7 February run-off, we will see another Ukraine.
Will it still be a country based on democratic principles?
#1 by olivier on January 18, 2010 - 11:38 am
dear Oleana, I am sorry but your comment is a bit confusing. History has no circles, Ukraine has never rejected Yanukovitch, and these first results show that his support is less significant than it used to be 2, 3 and 5 years ago.
Also I can’t agree with the rest of your add.
Why do you conclude that Ukraine will be different after this election? And why do you think that Ukraine, is a “country based on democratic principles”?
#2 by Anonymous on January 18, 2010 - 7:21 pm
Cheap manipulation may work in some parts of the world, but not here.
Were the elections free and fair? That’s the question you need to be asking yourself Ms. Prystayko. If they were, Ukraine clearly is / will be a country based on democratic principles. Were they not, the opposite applies. Period.
Raising the issue of democratic credentials of candidates is a false one and you know it if you’ve ever read a single book on political regimes. The system is democratic if elections are free and fair (electoral democracy). Should the system have rule of law and respect for individual human rights on top of that you may call it liberal democracy.
How the democratically elected leaders decide to run the country – meaning the policy choices they make – is totally beside the point, provided they stick within the constitutional and institutional frame. But no, you’d like to make the Ukrainian voter feel guilty for voting as they sought best. Hypocrisy of the worst kind I say.
#3 by Lucian Stefanescu on January 19, 2010 - 12:42 am
“Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko won the first round of the Ukrainian presidential elections”. That is really nice, he he
#4 by al on January 19, 2010 - 2:40 am
Wow. Sounds like you’ve never studied history that closely.
So 2004 never happened? Who are you trying to sell that to?s
Yeah…by your definition, the USSR was also “based on democratic principles”. Why don’t you take your cowardly totalitarian cheap shots somewhere else, tovaritshch?
#5 by Paul on January 21, 2010 - 5:14 am
Sorry to go off topic! How do people manage to quote on this blog? Not a function I’ve noticed.
#6 by Kazimierz on January 21, 2010 - 7:39 pm
I click on Q that is at the end of the line with your name and see a bunch of “crazy letter”. Then I just start typing below and it works. I also cut out those parts of your letter that I don’t want to quote.
#7 by Kazimierz on January 21, 2010 - 8:09 pm
@ Olena,
The idea of Yushchenko, or rather his handlers, is simple. Divide Ukraine and Russia and try to attach Ukraine to the west while separate and isolate Russia. You seem to support that idea.
I think it is a wrong idea. The good idea would be to try to negotiate an association agreement with EU together with Russia. In other words, Ukraine together with Russia and Belarus should jointly negotiate an association with EU.
I like to call this idea EU + 3.
Ukraine is too distinct from EU to have a chance for EU membership. The whole scheme of attracting Ukraine to EU and, more broadly, to the west has been invented in order to isolate Russia. Ukraine is merely a tool, the sooner you realize that the better
#8 by misled on January 22, 2010 - 3:32 am
Western nations want everyone to see them and their institutions in a tutelary role. In this economic crisis, however, they put maintenance of their workers’ salaries at top priority while at the same time demanded that poorer countries cut back on services, driving them deeper into despair. Ukraine falls into the latter club, and I think Yushchenko’s presidency has taught people that.
#9 by Kazimierz on January 22, 2010 - 6:06 pm
Putin warns against ‘Ukrainianization’ of Russia’s political system
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14746914
#10 by Santos on January 25, 2010 - 5:16 pm
Is it my imagination but haven’t dozens of posts been removed?
Yes, I agree – the Ukraine, Russia & Belarus should jointly negotiate an association with EU: “EU + 3.” Looking much further into the future some sort of EU-Russa entity should exist. Not something that the United States would ever permit, so it can’t happen as long they have the power to prevent it (i.e. indefitely).
#11 by manhit on January 26, 2010 - 7:37 pm
“militant nationalism”
Examples? Also, examples are freely available in the current EU.
“Soviet apologism”
Nazi apologism is acceptable in the Baltic states. Don’t white supremacists flock to Tartu every year?
“violation of human rights”
Like renditions, torture camps, etc. All within EU.
“invasion of neighbouring countries”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iraq
Actually, of four countries involved in the invasion, two are now in the EU. One was accepted shortly after the fact. What country has Russia and Belarus invaded? Does it only matter if the invaded country is neighboring?