Three Ukrainian political opposition leaders were visiting Whippany, New Jersey, last month as part of their U.S. tour.

The subject of their presentation was the dismal aftermath of the presidential election in Ukraine last February, which was won by Viktor Yanukovych of the Regions Party.

These three leaders are representing the Committee for the Defense of Ukraine, which consists of civic leaders and politicians. As of the visit date, 12 political parties belonged to the Committee – apparently mostly the same ones that are either part of the Yulia Tymoshenko Block in the parliament or are siding with it in a pinch. The Viktor Yushchenko and Arseniy Yatseniuk groups do not participate.

What was glossed over, however, is that these parties represent only a very small fraction of Ukraine’s voters, except Yulia Tymoshenko’s own Fatherland Party, which is the main opposition force for winning the elections or seriously challenging in the parliament the governing regime.

Characteristically, the Committee’s prominent personnel touted by the presenters are mostly elderly poets and writers who admittedly eschew political ambitions. Dmytro Pavlychko, a noted writer, was named as coordinator.

Ironically, a few days after that meeting, one of the parties in the Committee for the Defense of Ukraine, named The People for Self-Defense, has self-destructed when its members in the parliament switched sides to the pro-government majority.

The presenters’ perceptions of some key factors are less than stellar. The first one came from Borys Tarasiuk, the former foreign minister, blaming “fellow democrats” for Yulia Tymoshenko’s loss in the election.

His assessment seems unfounded, although it has been shared by others, mostly as a reflex after the election, without any substantive analysis. Tarasiuk is simply convinced that this is why she lost.

My own number crunching results showed that the adherents of Yatseniuk, Yushchenko, and Oleh Tiahnybok [the nationalist leader of Svoboda Party] went strongly for Tymoshenko in the runoff, despite Yushchenko’s wrath and Yatseniuk’s sour grapes. The net effect of the activist “Against All” was minor.

The 3.5 million votes decrease in Tymoshenko’s total (as compared with Yushchenko’s numbers in 2004) was due to people who stayed at home, frustrated by the bad economy. Yanukovych too lost some (about 400,000).

Another baffle was Dr. Yuriy Shcherbak’s revelation that he “does not understand” (in his words) how the United States does not see Russia’s (aggressive) intentions in Europe.

This career ambassador certainly knows that the U.S. foreign policy is driven mainly by domestic politics that include special interest lobbies with an inordinate financial wallop.

It works not only in the corridors of Congress by oiling the election campaigns, but also through the media (for instance, the Fox TV Channel that “offers opinion as journalism”).

They see what they want to see, and designate the foreign enemies accordingly, on the front pages and on talk shows.

They saw weapons of mass destruction in Iraq’s arsenal – before they invaded that country – although there weren’t any.

Not until recently – in the highest strata – was it conceded that there is a palpable difference between the al-Qaeda (which has now metastasized to more than 60 countries) and the Mujahideen (now called Taliban) which our troops are battling in Afghanistan.

While indirect on-and-off talks are underway with the latter, the military-industrial complex does what it always does in time of war: it makes money , with no media attention, except when a major scandal is uncovered.

With the U.S. hobbled in its Asian wars for nine years now, and in the midst of its financial crisis and deficits, the downgrade of America’s concern and influence in Europe was not unexpected.

What came as unexpected for most Ukrainians was the collapse of Ukraine’s economy in 2009 – on the wave ofthe world-wide Great Recession, spreading from its Wall Street epicenter of financial meltdown.

In Ukraine, the national democrats’ leaders have paid scant attention to the bread-and-butter issues. Not having a foothold in large industrial centers, they ceded the economy make-or-break to the eastern oligarchs a long time ago. .

The third speaker, Valeriy Chaliy’s emphasis on a growing resentment, caused by the chasm between the small number of very rich and the very poor majority in Ukraine, is a rare indication of someone noticing a social catastrophe – as a sleeper that can be powered into a political whopper.

The Committee for the Defense of Ukraine deserves support. However, its shaky component of 10 or so splinter parties (some of them distinguishable in name only) is unlikely to translate into a popular vote avalanche. Tymoshenko continues to be a central force at the opposition front (even if some Committee members may not know it), as someone who came within whiskers of winning Ukraine’s presidency last February, and who still has a political muscle, which is not out of style.

To be more effective, the opposition needs to be visibly unified – and act like a single, broad-based party with one recognized leader – rather than manifest itself as a proxy of miniature quasi-political parties (that as often as not are the expressions of fetishes with a negligible popular base). It must also show a clear concern, coupled with a forceful, credible recovery plan for the dire needs of the impoverished people of Ukraine, from west to east. It is the economy, professor.

Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.