tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202630.post110633884213197618..comments2023-06-23T16:13:12.577+03:00Comments on Neeka's Backlog: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202630.post-1106356895961317142005-01-22T04:21:00.000+03:002005-01-22T04:21:00.000+03:00Melnychenko is not saying that Shmeshko did not ch...Melnychenko is not saying that Shmeshko did not change his allegiances on November 21, when he saw the Orange Revolution coming out in force. Nobody can say that. Revolutions have a curious effect of changing people's minds, sometimes sympathetically, and sometimes opportunistically. The NYT article seems too much of a thriller to be taken too seriously. No doubt Shmeshko was hedging bets, but he appears to have taken risks too. But this misses the whole point:<br /><br />Obviously the machinations are in high gear to deflect blame (thanks NYT), appear as an all-along supporter (of the OR) or at worst neutral, and to cover some influential behinds.<br /><br />But this finger pointing by the opposition misses the whole point.<br /><br />If you wish a negativist approach, then yeah go ahead and find as many culprits, real or imaginary, conspiratorial or rational, as you can find, and give them the Abu Ghraib treatment while consolidating your own power position at other's expense.<br /><br />If you however are of a positivist bent, then you would want to get the truth and facts out, to expose the behind the scene anti-state activities, scheming and profiteering - but for a historical and empirical perspective. Then you would try to understand and then learn from this experience, and then you would try to improve (reform) the system, and then you would get on with your lives.<br /><br />My choice would be the positivist approach.<br /><br />The influential Kyiv Post editor Jed Sunden is being a REAL jerk for not calling for a truth commission - and instead trying to whitewash Kuchma, when the facts remain obscured.<br /><br />ManucherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com