One of the decade's biggest events in Europe is happening at the end of October - the Ukrainian presidential election. The process by which the next leader of Ukraine is decided will determine that country's future orientation for years to come.

If the current government in Ukraine allows for relatively free and fair elections as the process for selecting the president, then Ukraine will be able to maintain the prospect of consolidating democracy and integrating fully into European institutions. If, however, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma does not allow the people to decide who will replace him, and instead wields the power of the state to undermine the democratic process, then Ukraine will have little chance to consolidate democracy, and no chance of further integrating into Europe. Instead of becoming the next Poland, that is a rising power in the heart of Europe, Ukraine will become yet another post-Soviet autocracy, following Russian dictates with no chance at all of joining the Western community of democratic states.

Anatol Lieven is right to cite the West's approach to Turkey as a model for how to engage Russia today ("A different way of talking to Russia," Views, Oct. 18). Western advocates of disengagement and containment are gravely mistaken. Such an approach would only lead to greater conflict with Russia and would further isolate the Russian people from the West.

However, Western leaders and especially EU leaders must not compromise their standards concerning markets and democracy.

Sergei Markov is right to worry about potential unrest and instability in Ukraine after the upcoming presidential vote. What his "view from Moscow," laid out in an op-ed in The Moscow Times earlier this week, fails to see, however, is the source of this unrest. The necessary, though not sufficient, condition for unrest is a clearly documented falsified vote. If "Moscow" is concerned about instability on Russia's border, then the Kremlin should be doing all that it can to ensure that the vote is free and fair. To date, there are few signs that Moscow is committed to facilitating such an outcome.

Of course, the playing field for all presidential candidates in the Ukrainian election has never been level, and the Kremlin has done much to tilt the context in favor of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Lots of ruthless dictators have remained in power during [George W. Bush]'s tenure, but they were in power before Bush came to the White House. Russia is the only major country in the world that has, during Bush's time in office, moved from "partly free" to "not free" (as determined by Freedom House, the leading institution in the democracy assessment business). Vladimir V. Putin is also one of the few leaders in the world with whom Bush has developed a close relationship. If Russian democracy completely breaks down while Bush is still in office, Bush's decision to invest so much time and energy in Putin will look like a strategic mistake.

On the surface, the presidential election campaign in Iran underscores the weakness of the Iranian democratic movement and the futility of elections under Iran's current Constitution.

Most of the would-be candidates were barred from the election by the hard-line Guardian Council, the unelected mullahs who control Parliament. And many leading democrats, disappointed in their hopes that President Mohammad Khatami would be the reformer he had promised to be, have called for a boycott of the vote on Friday.

Beneath the surface, however, there are encouraging signs for the future of Iranian democracy.