I don't know why Asia Times found it necessary to so obviously tamper with Yuchshenko's picture in this article, but it does raise some very good points that the American media are ignoring:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA20Ag01.html

Is Washington Pushing Ukraine and the EU into a forced marriage

At the White House's special request, Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko will travel to Brussels on Tuesday to join United States President George W. Bush as he meets with the heads of state and government of the NATO and European Union member countries. Ukraine isn't a member of either body, so Bush has declared the first hour of his short visit to Brussels the "NATO-Ukraine Commission." But the forceful gesture hasn't exactly been embraced by EU leaders, who are expecting a more concialiatory approach from Bush. Of course, Europe is celebrating the victory of democracy in Ukraine, but it has considerable concerns about bestowing EU accession negotiations or even NATO membership for the former Soviet satellite nation in part because it would threaten to upset the delicate balance between the EU, NATO and Russia.

Jacques Chirac, France's short-tempered president, was "indignant" and "markedly angry" about the decision, a visitor to the president said. But the concern wasn't just limited to the Elysee Palace -- in Berlin and other European capitals, there is worry that Ukraine is growing closer and closer to NATO and the EU, unchecked, despite the fact that the majority of Europeans are against deepening those ties -- at least not yet. EU membership for Ukraine could have considerable economic consequences, since the Black Sea country's economy relies so heavily on agriculture. That, of course, could further burden the EU's already burdensome agricultural subsidies. Membership for the Ukraine in NATO, the trans-Atlantic alliance, would also push the military pact even closer to Moscow's back door and rattle Russian nerves. Both Berlin and Paris are keen to avoid a touchy situation like that. Nevertheless, few believe that Kiev will be happy with the EU's current offer of extending it a "good neighbor policy," which would provide funding for transportation and environmental infrastructure projects as well as economic aid. Now the US is threatening to accommodate Ukraine for "strategic reasons." The US isn't alone, either: most of the new EU and NATO members in Eastern Europe would also like to bring their larger, but destitute, neighbor on board. (12:00 p.m., CET)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,342938,00.html

Here is an excerpt from the article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA20Ag01.html
Why does Washington care so much about vote integrity next door to Russia? Is Ukraine democracy more important than Azeri or Uzbek "democracy"? There is something else going on besides what appears to be a vote count. We have to ask why it is that the Bush administration suddenly is so keen on the sanctity of the democratic voting process as to risk an open break with Moscow at this time.

Eurasian oil geopolitics
US policy, as Brzezinski openly stated in The Grand Chessboard, is to Balkanize Eurasia, and ensure that no possible stable economic or political region between Russia, the EU and China emerges in the future that might challenge US global hegemony. This is the core idea of the September 2002 Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive wars".

In taking control of Ukraine, Washington would take a giant step to encircle Russia for the future. Russian moves to use its vast energy reserves to play for room in rebuilding its political role would be over. Chinese efforts to link with Russia to secure some independence from US energy control would also be over. Iran's attempts to secure support from Russia against US pressure would also end. Iran's ability to enter into energy agreements with China would also likely end. Cuba and Venezuela would also likely fall prey to a pro-Washington regime change soon after.

Washington policy is aimed at direct control over the oil and gas flows from the Caspian, including Turkmenistan, and to counter Russian regional influence from Georgia to Ukraine to Azerbaijan and Iran. The background issue is Washington's unspoken recognition of the looming exhaustion of the world's major sources of cheap high-quality oil, the problem of global oil depletion, or as the late American geologist M King Hubbard termed it, of peak oil.

Over the coming five to 10 years the world economy faces a major new series of energy shocks as older fields from the North Sea to Alaska to Libya and even major fields in Saudi Arabia, such as the giant Ghawar field, peak and begin to decline. Many large fields already have peaked, such as the North Sea, perhaps one reason for the British interest in Iraq. And no new fields of a North Sea size have been found to replace them.

It was clearly no accident of politics that former Halliburton chief Dick Cheney became vice president, with quasi-presidential powers, in the current Washington administration. Nor that his first job was to oversee the Energy Task Force. In late 1999, as chief executive officer of Halliburton, Cheney delivered a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum. Halliburton, of course, is the world's leading oilfield services and construction group. Cheney presumably had a pretty good picture of where there was oil in the world.

In his speech, Cheney presented the picture of world oil supply and demand to fellow oil industry people. "By some estimates," he stated, "there will be an average of 2% annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a 3% natural decline in production from existing reserves." Cheney added an alarming note: "That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day." This is equivalent to more than six Saudi Arabia's of today's size.

He cited China and East Asia as fast-growth regions, and noted that the oilfields of the Middle East were, along with the Caspian Sea, the major untapped oil prospects.

Oil pipeline politics are also directly involved in the fight for control of Ukraine. In July 2004, the Ukraine parliament voted to open an unused oil pipeline to transport oil from Russian Urals fields to the port of Odessa. The Bush administration vehemently protested this would make Ukraine more dependent on Moscow.

The 674 kilometer oil pipeline, completed by the Ukraine government in 2001, between Odessa on the Black Sea and Brody in western Ukraine, can carry up to 240,000 barrels a day of oil. In April 2004, the Ukraine government agreed to extend Brody to the Polish Port of Gdansk, a move hailed in Washington and Brussels. It would carry Caspian oil to the EU, independent of Russia. That is, were Ukraine to become dominated by a pro-EU pro-NATO regime in the November vote.

The stakes were big. George Bush Sr made a quiet trip to Kiev in May to meet both candidates, according to the British New Statesman of December 6. Former US secretary of state Madelaine Albright flew in to Kiev as well.

Last July, the Kuchma government suddenly reversed itself and voted to reverse the oil flows in Brody-Odessa, in order to allow it to transport Russian crude to the Black Sea.

Commenting on the significance of that move, Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington remarked at the time, "Kremlin officials understand full well that Odessa-Brody has the potential to deal a fatal blow to Russia's current near monopoly on Caspian energy." Berman then added a telling note, "Worse still, from Russia's perspective, the resulting European and US economic attention would all but cement Kiev's westward trajectory." The pipeline to Poland, a three-year project, would make Poland a major new hub for non-Russian, non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil as well, Berman notes.

The decision to reverse the pipeline last July would greatly weaken that westward shift of Ukraine. The next government will have to tackle the issue. Ukraine is a strategic battleground in this geopolitical tug-of-war between Washington and Moscow. Ukrainian pipeline routes account for 75% of EU oil imports from Russia and Central Asia, and 34% of its natural gas import. In the near future, EU energy imports via Ukraine are set to expand significantly with the opening of huge oil and gas fields in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Ukraine is a key piece on Brzezinski's Eurasian chessboard, to put it mildly, as well as Putin's.