What’s good for the goose

Russia suggests that elections in Ukraine, projected to take place on May 25, should be put off until normalcy returns to the country.

It might not be a bad idea, considering that no free and fair elections can take place in any country witnessing armed conflicts, even if in a limited area.

With the east of Ukraine engulfed by an insurgency of pro-Russia separatists and Kiev reacting by deploying its full military strength to crush the revolt, the environment in the country is indeed not conducive to holding any form of elections.

At least this is Russia’s reasoning.

The US, on the other hand, is pushing for holding elections in Ukraine on time, despite Russia’s warning.

Washington feels that once the people of Ukraine choose their leader and form of government, the elected government will have the legitimacy and power to put things in order.

There is an obvious drawback in the otherwise prudent Russian position on elections in Ukraine on time.

Russia’s client state Syria is about to hold its own presidential election in June, with incumbent President Bashar Assad seeking a third term in office.

Moscow is aware that Syria is in its fourth year of a civil war whose death toll has reached so far over 150,000 people and that pushed millions to flee to neighbouring countries in search of safety.

The inevitable question is why would election in destabilised Syria be fine in Moscow’s books, but not in Ukraine?

Why doesn’t Russia voice objections to Syrians’ voting when the bloody armed conflict in their country is much more destructive?

Moscow should be consistent in its position if its voice is to be credible and convincing.