That's not to say Ukraine doesn't deserve the spotlight. After all, it is a major European nation with a Texas-size territory, 48 million well-educated people and an economy that's among the world's fastest-growing.
But none of that appears to matter much these days. What does matter is an ongoing saga involving two main characters: a pro-status quo presidential candidate and current prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, backed by Ukraine's industrial east and the Russian leadership, and on the other side, a Western-leaning reformer - and former prime minister - Viktor Yushchenko, supported by the nation's western part and thousands of demonstrators in capital Kiev armed with "Yes to free Ukraine" posters. The standoff is color-coded, too; Yanukovych's team wears blue and white, Yushchenko's crowd prefers orange.
For the most part, the focus is on the accusations of widespread government-sponsored fraud that allegedly gave the victory in the election's Nov. 21 second round to Yanukovych. The Ukrainian Supreme Court on Friday agreed with the allegations and ordered a Dec. 26 rerun of the head-to-head presidential contest.
The basic plot, or at least the way it has been portrayed by most media outlets, appears simple enough. There are the good guys in orange head scarves who want democracy and prosperity, and there are the blue-and-white guys who want Ukraine to stay a backward servant of Russia's selfish interests in the region.
Enter Secretary of State Colin Powell's official refusal to accept the blue-and-white Yanukovych's victory, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's unashamed and rather clumsy backing of Yanukovych, and it almost seems like the Cold War never ended.
In an article titled "U.S. campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," Britain's The Guardian told its readers just as much last week, describing the events of the past two weeks as "an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing." In another article, the paper described the Ukrainian situation as a "CIA-sponsored Third World uprising of Cold War days, adapted to post-Soviet conditions."
There are plenty of voices in Russia who concur wholeheartedly. "The West is winning [in Ukraine], and Russia is losing," Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin analyst, said last week in Moscow.
And there is no shortage of bitterness on the other side, either. "Russia openly interfered in the internal affairs of a neighboring state by backing its preferred candidate in the Ukrainian elections - Yanukovych, who is seen by most voters as opposed to democracy and the creation of a clear Ukrainian identity," fumed Donald Jensen, director of communications at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S.-financed radio station broadcasting to Eastern and Central Europe.
But the Cold War did end long ago, and the story has to be more complex than that.
True, there is plenty of external interference in Ukraine, and plenty of money from without is being spent - just bringing all those orange flags, arm bands and sweaters to Kiev must have cost a bundle. But the fight for Ukraine's future is being waged primarily within, by its entrenched domestic interests: its oligarchs, its secret police and its professional political class, including Leonid Kuchma, the highly unpopular president of 10 years, a political survivor who over the years has been accused of corruption and even ordering the murder of an investigative journalist.
Kuchma was the one who hand-picked Yushchenko to be head of the Ukrainian Central Bank from 1993 to 1999 and later his prime minister from 1999 to 2001. Kuchma also chose Yanukovych, a former governor of the eastern Donetsk coal-mining and industrial region convicted three decades ago on assault and robbery charges, as premier in 2003 and now as his successor.
Critics find Yanukovych a Soviet-style functionary who led the country further into corruption and nepotism. He has been accused of pandering to rich coal and steel magnates from the country's east and allowing the allegedly fraudulent privatization of Ukraine's largest steel maker, Kryvorizhstal. Last summer, it was sold to a company controlled by Kuchma's son-in-law.
However - as in "the economy, stupid" - under Yanukovych as premier, Ukraine did show industrial growth of 12.5 percent in the first half of 2004. And almost 80 percent of that growth came from its eastern, "anti-Yushchenko" regions. The western part is largely rural, with the exception of a few major cities. As for Moscow's role, of course it is a major player in Ukrainian affairs - but politics have much less to do with it than the 80 percent of Ukraine's oil and natural gas that come from Russia.
There is little doubt there was fraud during the election. Yet it seems difficult to believe it was perpetrated exclusively by one side. If the 90 percent Yanukovych victory in his native Donetsk is far-fetched, so must be the 90 percent Yushchenko victory in the western city of Lviv. The key point is, no matter the outcome of the final Dec. 26 revote, there will be tens of millions of Ukrainians who would sincerely prefer a different president.
The West and Russia did find themselves on different sides in the Ukrainian crisis, and Putin obviously would rather see a pro-Russian authoritarian leader if that is what it takes to keep Kiev close to Moscow.
Yet if Yushchenko wins, he probably will be invited to visit Moscow. In fact, despite Putin's open support for his foe, Yushchenko lately has been exceptionally friendly to Russia.
Ukraine is not going anywhere, it still is connected to Russia by geography, centuries-old common history and even the language - the roots of the Russian language actually are on the territory of the modern Ukraine. A peaceful and prosperous Ukraine is in Russia's - and the West's - best interests, and in that regard, both have a major role to play there.
---
World News Editor Michael Nakoryakov joined The Tribune in 1991, after 11 years as a journalist in Moscow.
