Exit polls from the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election, released late on March 31, seem to confirm what has long been believed: that no openly pro-Russian candidate has a chance to secure this Ukrainian presidency.
But it doesn’t seem that will stop the Kremlin from having its voice heard, or from trying to have some of its strategic objectives secured, observers note.
On April 1, as ballots were still being tallied, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia officially, although quietly, expired.
Previously renewed automatically each decade, Ukrainian lawmakers approved the treaty’s termination on Dec. 6, 2018, after roughly four years of undeclared war between the two nations.
Also on April 1, as the likely outcome of the Ukrainian presidential election started to become more clear, elected Russian lawmakers prepared a statement of “non-recognition” of the result.
The move is yet another signal that Moscow is committed to discrediting the election and not accepting its outcome.
Senior Moscow figures have repeatedly suggested that they would not accept the outcome of Ukraine’s election unless an openly pro-Moscow candidate was elected, and not recognizing the result of the election has been a theme of Russian television propaganda for at least a month.
Russian media have been covering the Ukrainian election campaign in depth and with constant critical coverage on state-backed or state-owned television.
At times, the back-to-back coverage has seemed to reflect something of a national obsession, some observers have noted.
On April 1, a BBC news segment highlighted an array of Russian media reactions to the Ukrainian exit polls. The pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia reported that there are “big doubts about the legitimacy of the vote… the possibility of recognizing the result is getting smaller and smaller.”
The Ukrainian Central Election Commission, or CEC, as well as the interior ministry and independent election watchdogs, for their part, have all so far said that no significant violations or disorder took place throughout the March 31 vote.
Another Russian newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, incorrectly suggested that pro-Russian candidate Yuriy Boyko had fared well in the election, knocked out the incumbent president Petro Poroshenko, and would proceed to the run-off against newcomer Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Boyko actually seems to have only received about 9 percent of the national vote, taking fourth place and therefore not progressing to the second round.
Another author in the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, who fought on the side of Russian-backed militants in the Ukrainian Donbas – according to the BBC – wrote: “If we have the chance to manipulate or even blackmail the winners, then positive change is possible. We need a pro-Russia Ukraine. It will come. It’s a long process, but inevitable.”
Beyond declaring the Ukrainian vote illegitimate and mobilizing state-owned media to attack the election, there are fears that the Kremlin still has other tricks up its sleeve.
The run-up to Election Day in Ukraine has already seen constant, sustained cyber attacks against the country, often originating from Russia and frequently hitting state institutions and government departments.
According to the country’s Central Election Commission, or CEC, as of April 1, no significant cyber attacks on the vote itself have been detected – but the authorities and the country’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov, remain cautious.
“We assume that, if there is any attack, it will be done at the moment of vote counting,” Avakov said, as reported by Ukrinform.
“The CEC monitored several attempts to crawl the vulnerability of the CEC web server, which may indicate attempts to break it. We have identified which IPs… they are located in Russia and in Kyiv,” Avakov added.
Dmitry Tymchuk, director of the Center for Military Political Studies in Kyiv and coordinator of the Information Resistance NGO, suggests that beyond disinformation and cyber attacks, Moscow is still prepared to use an arsenal of tools against Ukraine, having failed to secure a Kremlin-friendly candidate.
He suggests that the parliamentary elections, which are to be held in October, will be even more critical for the Kremlin as they work to assert their influence over the country.
“The main efforts will be aimed at forming a pro-Russian majority (in parliament). The goal is clear – to provoke in Ukraine a confrontation between deputies and the president, which will lead to the incapacity of the entire state apparatus,” Tymchuk wrote in a March 29 op-ed.
“According to Kremlin strategies, the political crisis caused by this should ultimately lead to the dismissal of the president… provoking mass riots and armed conflicts…” he added.
Tymchuk is certainly not the only observer who fears that Russia is ready to exploit uncertainty or internal strife within Ukraine for its own benefit, with the animosity and polarity around elections potentially presenting such a chance.
Other experts have also said that the Kremlin’s objective in Ukraine is widespread protests and even another revolution that the Kremlin could quickly take advantage of.
“The objective is chaos,” said Christo Grozev in a recent interview with the Kyiv Post. Grozev is an expert on Russian hybrid warfare and lead investigator for the London-based investigative agency Bellingcat.
“I think at this point, Russia has realized it cannot orchestrate order – it can only orchestrate chaos. It’s much cheaper and easier.”
Grozev believes the Kremlin wants to create crises that can eventually lead to a more Russia-friendly regime in Kyiv.
Other observers are more optimistic about the near future, and even if they have concerns they note that Ukraine’s chosen trajectory towards the West and Europe is now irreversible, regardless of the Kremlin’s wishes.
“Ukraine has shown that she wants change and a fresh start,” said Glen Grant, former British military and now an expert on national security and defense at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future.
“Russia has lost the ability to influence Ukraine in the way it would like… The Kremlin may try to engage activists, but those would mainly be titushki (hired thugs) and be so obvious in their intent as to be laughable. The days when they might be able to engage masses have gone,” Grant added.
