Remember Mikhail Gorbachev?

Yes, the Gorby that was once the darling of the West, who unleashed the magic power with his Gorbamania that enabled the eastern bloc to wrest free of communist rule, fulfilled the reunification dream of millions of Germans, and eventually consigned the Soviet Union to history.

Thanks to the advent of modern technology and the omnipresent satellite TV, the man once held in high esteem by much of the world was brought near to me one fine day in 1999. It was a chilly spring day, and I was waiting in sheer eagerness in my rented tiny flat in the run-down area of Stoke Newington, London, to pose my question to Gorby, who was answering questions from audiences worldwide on the Q & A programme of the CNN .

I was shivering, the receiver nearly falling off my hand, as I was startling the question to the erstwhile second most powerful man in the world: 'Mr. Gorbachev, if you are so convinced that the Russian people still have faith in you, how on earth that you garnered less than one per cent of the popular votes in the 1996 presidential election, and your fortunes are still not improving as indicated by all the opinion polls today? Surely most of your compatriots are yet to forgive you for what you did to the nation?'

I could not have regretted my bluntness sooner, as the last leader of the Soviet Empire began to defend his records in office and list out all the efforts that he made to create a better Russia - in wilderness. His tone was bitter, and his words full of vengeance for the man now sitting in the Kremlin spoiling the fruits of his success.

One man's hero is another man's nemesis, and nothing is more true with Gorby. The reunited Germany, the eastern Europeans who are now happily married into the European Union, and the large part of the world may be grateful to him, alas, like Jesus of Nazareth who was detested by his own people, millions of Russians are perhaps still holding Gorbachev responsible for all the political and economic turmoil in Russia since the Soviet demise.

Inconclusive election

And this acute awareness of the lost glory has been made all the more grueling by the battle for influence over a desired outcome in the inconclusive presidential election in Ukraine in recent weeks. Victor Yanukovich, the candidate openly blessed by President Vladimir Putin, has been forced to retract his claimed victory and now awaits a re-run of the run-off the day after Christmas, while Victor Yuschenko, popularly seen as pro-West and favoured by the US and the EU, is suing for peace amidst great uncertainly, safe in the knowledge that he could eventually emerge as the new leader of the country.

It is nothing odd about each side accusing the other of interfering in the domestic politics of Ukraine. However, what makes the whole saga fascinating is the fact that Moscow finally realised that enough is enough and it is time to make clear Russia's stance on Ukraine by backing the Russia-friendly Yanukovich, and accused the US of interference, a charge that the out-going Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly dismissed.

Russia's anxieties over a domino effect are understandable. Since 2000, People's Power has toppled Slobodan Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia and Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia, both with signs of US interference, and the old guards were replaced by pro-West successors. A repeat of this scenario in Ukraine would mean an expanded Nato and a further enlarged EU - a nightmare for any future Russian leader indeed.

The Economist , the British weekly that demonstrates zero tolerance for state interference and a devout follower of market economy, is naturally wary of a win by Yanukovich and sees him as a menace on account of his affinities with Moscow. In an article entitled 'Russian Roulette', the magazine chastises Putin for interfering in a foreign election that could have gone on smoothly.

Well, the British title is only partially right. One must never forget the adage that it takes two to tango. Without the proselytizing agenda of the EU and, particularly, the US, Russia would not have been provoked into a siege mentality. Therefore, it is rather rich of the International Herald Tribune to ridicule Putin for treating unnecessarily the Ukraine election as an East-West confrontation.

Nothing at stake

Who on earth would, in all honesty, come to the conclusion that the West would have nothing at stake should Yanukovich win the race? Have I mentioned the strategically important northern coast of the Black Sea and the much courted Caspian oil, which will have to go through Ukraine to the EU?

Incensed by the insatiable desire of the US to bring Russia's near-abroad under its orbit, Mark Almond, a self-confessed ex-spy for the ' Free World ', has been compelled to come clean with all the forces behind a series of regime change in the rival camp, including the much praised velvet revolutions in eastern Europe.

David T Johnson, the acting US Ambassador to Britain, was in turn enraged by another Guardian article which accuses the US of pulling the strings behind the Ukraine election, and came out declaring to the world 'What Uncle Sam is up to'.

So, what Uncle Sam is really up to? Yes, you've got it: support for democracy around the world. I am still at a loss as to why His Excellency Mr Johnson has failed to explain why there seems to be less keenness on a 'transparent and open democratic process' in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of the staunchest allies of the US on the global war against terror.

In short, I am inclined to believe all powerful nations, be they the US, the EU, Japan, India, China or Russia, are under the delusion of a manifest destiny and have their own 'near-abroad' to guard; the only difference is that the US has all the trappings of democracy and economic freedom to make its hidden agenda look nice and palatable, while the more problematic ones, such as Russia and China, often find themselves in the dock being forced to explain each and every action that they take to influence their neighbours.

I cannot help but recall Gorby. Perhaps he was plain naive and put too much faith in ending an East-West rivalry, or he was simply realistic about the ailing Soviet Union. Still, had he known that the collapse of the communist camp could not have saved Russia from the perennial suspicion of the West, would he have done things differently?