Certainly, the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people warrant American endorsement on both moral and political grounds. As the election directly affects Europe’s interests, however, it is best that the European Union, or some other coalition of European states, take the initiative to help Ukraine to resolve its internal difficulties. While American diplomacy must encourage such efforts, its focus must be on Russia itself.

That country’s meddling in Ukraine is but the latest indication that it is seeking to re-establish its former influence, if not its pre-eminence, in Eurasia. Coupled with the Putin Government’s increasing authoritarianism at home and abroad, this is disturbing. A re-emergence of Russian hegemony would bode ill for the free world, especially the United States.

Consequently, President Putin must be made aware that, notwithstanding Russia’s strategic, economic, and cultural interests in Ukraine or its co-operation in the War on Terror, any backsliding into imperialism would trigger negative consequences. His country must learn that a democratic Ukraine threatens neither its position in the world nor its prestige.

Ultimately, America must help to foster genuine democracy in Russia. That policy is ambitious. Nevertheless, Russia’s embrace of freedom would not only be best for its people, but also for the international community.

Moreover, such a transformation might render the issue of Ukraine moot, and thus preclude any future catastrophe.

Sincerely,
CHARLES H. RIEPER,
3649 Quail Hollow Drive,
Columbus, Ohio 43228.
November 30.

From Dr Charles Tannock, MEP for London Region (Conservative)

Sir, The Ukrainian presidential election, which I was privileged to observe, was undoubtedly marred by serious government-controlled media bias during the campaign, as well as Viktor Yanukovych using the resources of the state to conduct his campaign. More serious, however, is the reported electoral fraud on the day of election, particularly in the east.

Regrettably, the EU and Nato in recent years have been insufficiently encouraging to Ukraine in terms of its long-term aspirations, which led Mr Yanukovych and President Putin to conclude that there would be little robust defence of Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty if they effectively tried to bring Ukraine back under Russian control.

You suggest a rerun of the election with tighter monitoring (leading article, November 26). This would be fine but, unfortunately, Ukrainian election law in the event of an election being cancelled through fraud prohibits the original two run-off candidates from running again on the presumption that one or other must have used foul play.

If the Supreme Court finds 10 per cent of ballots cast in a district to have been falsified then it can cancel the result for that district. Without changing the electoral law, that would appear to be the only legal option available to the genuine presidential winner Viktor Yushchenko.

Yours faithfully,
CHARLES TANNOCK
(Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats),
The European Parliament,
Rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussels.
ctannock@europarl.eu.int
November 27.

From Mr Bruce Cherry

Sir, In politics there are words that describe certain outcomes. The meaning of a pyrrhic victory is well known.

But what do you call a situation where there are two victors but no winner? A Ukraine?

Yours faithfully,
BRUCE CHERRY,
Mayfield House,
10 School Road, Wooburn Green,
Buckinghamshire HP10 0HF.
November 30.

Explore Letters

• Feedback