The fourth volume of "Aspects of the Orange Revolution" continues the previous volume's discussion on the impact of foreign actors on Ukrainian politics. It provides both scholarly analyses and first-hand accounts. The collection not only investigates, but also gives voice to, some of those involved in the events of 2004. While most of the volume's contributors have an academic background, some of them report here from the perspective of official election or informal participant observers of the three rounds of the Ukrainian presidential elections. Part One juxtaposes some contrasting views on how far Russia's and the West's various interests, activities and tools influencing the Orange Revolution were comparable to each other, and adequate given the circumstances. Part Two presents individual reports by a number of international election observers who were following the campaign and voting in various parts of Ukraine in 2004. Part Three presents three additional on-the-ground observations focusing solely on the notorious electoral district No. 100 of Kirovohrad Oblast. The contributions by Andreas Umland, Iris Kempe, Iryna Solonenko, Vladimir Frolov, Valentin Yakushik, Matthias Brucker, Jake Rudnitsky, Rory Finnin, Adriana Helbig, Paul Terdal, Tatiana Terdal, Peter Wittschorek, Hans-Jörg Schmedes, Adrianna Melnyk, Ingmar Bredies, Oxana Shevel, and Volodymyr Bilyk add a number of novel points of view to those presented in the previous volumes. These partly contradictory and emotional texts as well as a number of photographs document the tense atmosphere and confrontational climate within which Ukraine's second phase of post-Soviet democratization started in 2004.

The fourth volume of "Aspects of the Orange Revolution" continues the previous volume's discussion on the impact of foreign actors on Ukrainian politics. It provides both scholarly analyses and first-hand accounts. The collection not only investigates, but also gives voice to, some of those involved in the events of 2004. While most of the volume's contributors have an academic background, some of them report here from the perspective of official election or informal participant observers of the three rounds of the Ukrainian presidential elections. Part One juxtaposes some contrasting views on how far Russia's and the West's various interests, activities and tools influencing the Orange Revolution were comparable to each other, and adequate given the circumstances. Part Two presents individual reports by a number of international election observers who were following the campaign and voting in various parts of Ukraine in 2004. Part Three presents three additional on-the-ground observations focusing solely on the notorious electoral district No. 100 of Kirovohrad Oblast. The contributions by Andreas Umland, Iris Kempe, Iryna Solonenko, Vladimir Frolov, Valentin Yakushik, Matthias Brucker, Jake Rudnitsky, Rory Finnin, Adriana Helbig, Paul Terdal, Tatiana Terdal, Peter Wittschorek, Hans-Jörg Schmedes, Adrianna Melnyk, Ingmar Bredies, Oxana Shevel, and Volodymyr Bilyk add a number of novel points of view to those presented in the previous volumes. These partly contradictory and emotional texts as well as a number of photographs document the tense atmosphere and confrontational climate within which Ukraine's second phase of post-Soviet democratization started in 2004.

Ukraine's 2004 presidential election was falsified, spurring the Orange Revolution. To many observers, the Orange Revolution was a shock, and the stolen election a recent development. However, both the election fraud and the effort to topple the government of Leonid Kuchma emerged from political dynamics that had appeared in earlier Ukrainian elections.In this path breaking volume, leading scholars place Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution in the longer perspective of Ukraine's post-Soviet electoral politics. Covering both presidential and parliamentary elections over the entire post-Soviet period, the chapters clarify the manner in which earlier elections had emerged as part of the battle for power in Ukraine well before 2004. The opposition that came to power in 2004 had also won the 2002 elections and had developed its strategies during opposition protests that had been catalyzed by the Kuchmagate crisis in 2000. The evolution of the dynamics that led to the fraudulent 2004 election reveals that the events of 2004 represented continuity as well as change. By placing the 2004 elections within a longer trajectory, the volume enriches our understanding of the Orange Revolution and helps us to understand the difficulties faced in consolidating Ukraine's democratic breakthrough following the Orange Revolution.The volume contains an introduction to "Aspects of the Orange Revolution I-VI" by Andreas Umland, followed by eight chapters by Robert K. Christensen, Edward R. Rakhimkulov and Charles Wise, Paul D'Anieri, Robert Kravchuk and Victor Chudowsky, Paul Kubicek, Taras Kuzio, Lucan Way, and Anna Makhorkina. These authors bring complex and varied perspectives that situate Ukraine's post-Soviet elections in economic reforms, constitutional law, foreign policy objectives of integrating into Europe, as well as in the broader context of the rough and tumble competition for political control of Ukraine.

The Crimea was the only region of Ukraine in the 1990s where separatism arose and inter-ethnic conflict potentially could have taken place between the Ukrainian central government, ethnic Russians in the Crimea, and Crimean Tatars. Such a conflict would have inevitably drawn in Russia and Turkey. Russia had large numbers of troops in the Crimea within the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine also was a nuclear military power until 1996. This book analyses two inter-related issues. Firstly, it answers the question why Ukraine-Crimea-Russia traditionally have been a triangle of conflict over a region that Ukraine, Tatars and Russia have historically claimed. Secondly, it explains why inter-ethnic violence was averted in Ukraine despite Crimea possessing many of the ingredients that existed for Ukraine to follow in the footsteps of inter-ethnic strife in its former Soviet neighbourhood in Moldova (Trans-Dniestr), Azerbaijan (Nagorno Karabakh), Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia), and Russia (Chechnya).

The failure of the attempts to create a Ukrainian state during the 1917-21 revolution created a large Ukrainian émigré community in Central Europe which, due to its experience of fighting the Bolsheviks, developed a decidedly anti-Communist ideology of integral nationalism. However, during the 1920s some in the Ukrainian emigration rejected this doctrine and began to advocate reconciliation with their former enemies and return to Soviet Ukraine. This included some of the most prominent figures in the Ukrainian governments set up after 1917, for example Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Yevhen Petrushevych. On the basis of published and unpublished writings of the Sovietophile émigrés, Christopher Gilley reconstructs and analyzes the arguments used to justify cooperation with the Bolsheviks. In particular, he contrasts those who supported the Soviet regime because they saw the Bolsheviks as leaders of the international revolution with those who stressed the apparent national achievements of the Soviet Ukrainian republic. In addition, Gilley examines Soviet policy towards pro-Soviet émigrés and the relationship between the émigrés and the Bolsheviks using documents from historical archives in Kyiv. The Ukrainian movement is compared to a similar phenomenon in the Russian emigration, "Smena vekh" ("Change of Signposts"). The book contributes to the study of the era of the New Economic Policy and Ukrainianization in the Soviet Union as well as to the histories of the Ukrainian emigration in the 1920s and of Ukrainian political thought.

How could an undemocratic regime manage to stabilise Russia? What is Putin's success formula? What are the symbolic and discursive underpinnings of Russia's new stability? Many outside observers of Russia regarded the authoritarian tendencies during the Putin presidency as a retreat from, or even the end of, democratization. Rather than attempting to explain why Russia did not follow the trajectory of democratic transformation, this book aims to attain an understanding of the stabilization process during Putin's tenure as president. Proceeding from the assumption that the stability created under Putin is multi-layered, the authors attempt to uncover the underpinnings of the new equilibrium, inquiring especially about the changes and fixations that occurred in the discourses on political and national identity. In doing so, the authors analyse the trajectories of the past years from the traditional perspective of transitology as well as through the lens of post-structuralist discourse theory. The two approaches are seen as complementary, with the latter focusing less on the end point of transition than on the nature of the mechanisms that stabilize the current regime. The book focuses on how nationalism became an increasingly important tool in political discourse and how it affected political identity. "Sovereign democracy" is seen by many contributors as the most explicit manifestation of a newfound post-Soviet identity drawing on nationalist ideas, while simultaneously appeasing most sectors of the Russian political spectrum.

In the opinion of some historians the era of fascism ended with the deaths of Mussolini and Hitler. Yet the debate about its nature as a historical phenomenon and its value as a term of historical analysis continues to rage with ever greater intensity, each major attempt to resolve it producing different patterns of support, dissent, and even hostility, from academic colleagues. Nevertheless, a number of developments since 1945 not only complicate the methodological and definitional issues even further, but make it ever more desirable that politicians, journalists, lawyers, and the general public can turn to "experts" for a heuristically useful and broadly consensual definition of the term. These developments include: the emergence of a highly prolific European New Right, the rise of radical right populist parties, the flourishing of ultra-nationalist movements in the former Soviet empire, the radicalization of some currents of Islam and Hinduism into potent political forces, and the upsurge of religious terrorism. Most monographs and articles attempting to establish what is meant by fascism are written from a unilateral authoritative perspective, and the intense academic controversy the term provokes has to be gleaned from reviews and conference discussions. The uniqueness of this book is that it provides exceptional insights into the cut-and-thrust of the controversy as it unfolds on numerous fronts simultaneously, clarifying salient points of difference and moving towards some degree of consensus. Twenty-nine established academics were invited to engage with an article by Roger Griffin, one of the most influential theorists in the study of generic fascism in the Anglophone world. The resulting debate progressed through two 'rounds' of critique and reply, forming a fascinating patchwork of consensus and sometimes heated disagreement. In a spin-off from the original discussion of Griffin's concept of fascism, a second exchange documented here focuses on the issue of fascist ideology in contemporary Russia. This collection is essential reading for all those who realize the need to provide the term 'fascism' with theoretical rigor, analytical precision, and empirical content despite the complex issues it raises, and for any specialist who wants to participate in fascist studies within an international forum of expertise. The book will change the way in which historians and political scientists think about fascism, and make the debate about the threat it poses to infant democracies like Russia more incisive not just for academics, but for politicians, journalists, and the wider public.