“Eurasia is… the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy – the strategic management of geopolitical interests.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997

Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which swept away the crumbling edifice of President Leonid Kuchma’s 10-year-old political fiefdom, was a profound civic movement and a classic example of people’s power. That epic story, however, will be forever tainted by a conspicuous footnote: the story of Victor Yushchenko’s ascendancy is not complete without understanding the role that outside powers played in the election process, and how that participation did more to injure democracy than preserve it.
The following is not meant to deny the Ukrainian people their due in toppling a clearly corrupt political regime (one that may have had a hand in the death of dissident journalist, Georgy Gongadze, for example, as well as other possible crimes). Rather, it is meant to shed light on the problem of international meddling in local politics – a risky game that could backfire at the expense of democracy.

Western commentators insist that U.S. interest in Ukraine’s recent presidential election was an altruistic gesture with the purest intentions; it merely wanted to crack open the blackened windows of the former Soviet frontier to some democratic sunshine, to the benevolent breeze of the Western hemisphere, and other such poetical pretensions. In other words, the West had no ulterior motives whatsoever for casting its hefty weight behind NATO-friendly Victor Yushchenko and his orange brigade. Moreover, Western aid to Ukraine was only marginally responsible for toppling the other Victor, citizen Yanukovich, from his Kuchma-built political pedestal. 

It would be heartwarming if this was really the whole story, but unfortunately it is not. Geopolitical analysts have been touting the strategic importance of Ukraine for many years, and now that the big-game trophy has finally been mounted above the fireplace, the West argues that its primary concern all along has been the oppressed people of Ukraine. Yet, NATO’s unfurled map, complete with little red flags across much of Europe, continues to overshadow those lofty democratic ideals.
The premier Western analyst on geopolitical affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski, recently reasserted the strategic importance of Ukraine for fulfilling his slightly deranged dream of America becoming “the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” (After all, even Hitler had enough sense to put a 1,000-year limit on his Third Reich empire fantasy.)

In an interview with Kiev’s Weekly Digest in May, Brzezinski conceded that Ukraine “is certainly not a pawn; it may not be a queen, but it certainly is an important element on the chessboard – one of the most important.” One does not normally make allusions to the greatest game of strategy when deliberating on the question of democracy; that is because democracy in Ukraine, while certainly important to the Ukrainians, is only of secondary importance to foreign geopolitical strategists. Democratic rhetoric merely opens otherwise closed doors.

Yet most Western commentators, not to mention the housebroken Western media, ignore this more problematic side of the debate, despite the fact that several U.S. congressmen, some of whom are red, white and blue-blooded Republicans, are fiercely opposed to any sort of horseplay in Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Ron Paul, a ‘traditional’ Republican congressman from the state of Texas, told the House International Relations Committee that American taxpayers should not be supporting election campaigns halfway around the world. Now there is a novel idea.

“Simply, it is none of our business who the Ukrainian people select to be their president,” Paul told his fellow congressmen. “It is up to them to work it out.” Obviously, even in the U.S., it is no longer enough to just quack like a duck about democracy and fair elections.

Paul is feeling the heat of the new political realities now blazing over the American horizon. The unilateralist policies endorsed by the U.S. neo-Conservatives, unprecedented in the history of the Republican party for its hawkish tendencies, are not only redrawing the political map in the U.S. – they are frightening a lot of folks around the world and giving rise to unprecedented levels of anti-Americanism. Thus, considering the brash policies of George W. Bush’s first term, the international community feels a bit compelled to scrutinize as never before the true motives behind U.S. activities abroad. After all, even the guardians need guardians, as the mess in Iraq has proven.

While the actual amount of U.S. financial support in Ukraine’s “democratic movement” – brought to you by the U.S.-Ukraine “strategic partnership” endorsed by Brzezinski – remains a mystery (figures range from tens of millions to over one billion U.S. dollars), there is no doubt that the amount was staggering. But Westerners have become numb to the million-dollar sticker shock that is required to prop up candidates, while political opportunities are increasingly reserved for the super-rich (the combined wealth of John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, for example, has been estimated at around half a billion dollars); such a war chest in a place like Ukraine, however, would buy a lot of campaign pins and balloons, not to mention smart Western consultants, ads and dubious exit polls – the raw material of any campaign victory. Theoretically speaking, it would even be possible to employ a not insignificant number of university students – who incidentally made up the bulk of Yushchenko’s campaign ‘volunteers’ – with such massive infusions of hard cash.  

Michael McFaul, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who should know better, forwarded the question in an article for The Washington Post: “Does this kind of intervention violate international norms?” McFaul insists the answer to his question is “not anymore.” (In another one of these dangerous question and answer sessions with himself, McFaul answers: “Not to my knowledge” when asking himself: “Did the U.S. government fund the Yushchenko campaign directly?”)
But this only begs a further question: Should the United States, as the self-anointed solitary superpower, merely follow “norms” like the latest MTV fashions, or should it strive to honor time-proven principles? McFaul bawls in his article that tinkering in democratic due process “occurs everywhere now,” so the almighty U.S., to follow his logic, should indulge itself with a candidate or two, as well. After all, to follow principles is so, you know, old fashioned and Greek sounding. So, when you suddenly find yourself a big, bad superpower, principles, not to mention allies, tend to get shoved aside in order to make room for haphazard norms.

Is the Western hemisphere really doing democracy any favors by getting itself entangled in foreign elections, especially in a ‘sphere of interest’ that is already the subject of intense debate between Russia and the EU? The only answer can be no. If the U.S. could prove beyond a doubt that its interest in the Ukrainian elections (for example) was purely plutonic, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, given the obvious sensitivity of the region, this is mission impossible. Thus, the result is democracy becomes the unintended victim in this geopolitical game of charades.

Once again, it is only necessary to consider the scholarship of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who really did write the book on U.S. geopolitical strategy in The Grand Chessboard, to understand why relatively small Ukraine received more attention from U.S. government-sponsored assistance programs than the entire African continent combined.

The geopolitical wizard does not mix his words when he defines what role NATO – which will inherit a toll-free road from Lisbon to the Russian border should Ukraine become its 27th member – plays in U.S. geopolitical strategy.

“Indeed, a comprehensive U.S. policy for Eurasia as a whole will not be possible,” Brzezinski warns, “if the effort to widen NATO, having been launched by the United States, stalls and falters.” It should be added that since these words were penned (1997), Brzezinski has demonstrated some low-level alarm at the willingness of the Bush administration to ‘go it alone.’ NATO, while not yet redundant, is presently idling at a dangerous crossroads. Russia, however, smells danger, and has placed great emphasis on its nuclear strategic forces – just in case. This, of course, is enough to trigger another arms race.  

Brzezinski then offered up some strong advice for the fledgling European Union as it continues to absorb new member states. Those nations “that are in a position to begin… accession talks with the EU should automatically also be viewed henceforth as subject in effect to NATO’s presumptive protection,” Brzezinski writes. Thus, every nation that is subsumed under the EU banner falls under the de facto guardianship of Washington, as opposed to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, or (please stifle your laughter) the UN Security Council.    

Obviously, there is no place in Brzezinski’s international order for a military contender to the U.S.; even the multi-nation EU will be dependent on U.S. military superiority for its ultimate survival.
In the long run, Ukraine may find itself dependent again, as well.