LEvko can, of course, speak for himself here on anything he posts. I asked him to co-blog with me because his analysis is solid. And I am looking for others who similarly have a point to make and who can make it persuasively to join our happy band.
It is likely that others who post here will not agree with everything I have to say. That is what happens when people don't share a brain. This means that opinions may differ here on any number of things. From my perspective, so long as that difference is respectful and thought out, it should add to the blog not detract from it. It will allow people who read here to be informed about the issues.
When anyone posts or writes about anything, they stake out a position on that thing. But the validity of that position is a result of how closely that position mirrors what is actually happening. Does what is being said actually correspond to the facts on the ground? That is the test for any assertion that is made anywhere, whether it be the pages of the New York Times, the halls of the Pentagon and the White House, the boardrooms of the Fortune 500 or the pages of this humble blog. If it does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground, it should be disregarded regardless of where it came from. And a focus on the brand or on academic credentials or on the fact that a trendsetter in business or anywhere else said it, are not substitutes for good analysis though they are always used precisely for that. Good analysis is good analysis wherever it comes from and from whomever it comes.
But some things cannot be known for certain when they are argued. That is one reason to have all the sides presented on an issue and that those sides be reasoned out and presented the best they possibly can be. The people themselves can then decide. (And they may even leave a comment when they do. We will post those too.)
My views on Yulia are clear to anyone who has been reading this blog for anything over a couple of days. I think she was a disaster here and Yuschenko should have pulled the trigger on her a lot sooner than he did. But maybe using the word "disaster" to describe her government is too much. It leaves not many other words to describe what might happen with a Yanukovych back in power. This is the point I made in my last post on the subject. It might be the worst case, but the risk of that worst case is real.
Politics in a democracy is really the science of the possible. Right now, Yanukovych is ascendant. Yuschenko hasn't gotten much movement at all. Any support for Yulia could cut into support for Yanukovych especially because of her populist appeal. And that would be a good thing. Some sort of rapprochement between Tymoshneko and Yuschenko, though not ideal in terms of what I would absolutely prefer, is inevitable and is to be preferred under the current circumstances, if the good of the country is taken into account at all. The point is that dealing with Tymoshenko is a lot better than having to deal with a Yanukovych in power. Both Yuschenko and Tymoshenko will follow the rules. Yanukovych would not.
The "come, let us reason together" of the Bible seems like good advice. We'll try to do that here.