Russia is no longer the hub of a worldwide Communist empire, nor the main ingredient of the Soviet Union; but the Kremlin still insists on wielding power in its old sphere of influence, an area of special interest to Russian foreign policy that it calls the Near Abroad.
The most recent – and, to Russia’s other neighbours, most intimidating – example of that insistence was this summer’s brief Russo-Georgian war, in which the Russian Army established final control over Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, eventually recognising their independence.
In the years immediately following the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia was too weak to prevent what it qualifies as EU and NATO ‘encirclement’ (an old Russian geopolitical worry). But now, a resurgent Russia flush with oil money insists on checking what it sees as further encroachment by the EU and(especially) the US.
The term Near Abroad therefore excludes far-flung corners of the worldwide socialist experiment, such as Vietnam or Cuba (although Russia maintains good relations with old-school leftist regimes such as Cuba’s and new ones such as the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez).
It also seems to exclude what used to be called Eastern Europe, states that were independent before 1945 and are again now, almost all firmly lodged in western institutions such as the European Union and NATO (i.e. East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria; of the former Yugoslav states, only Slovenia is fully integrated).
An interesting twilight zone are the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), in NATO and the EU, but with considerable historical baggage vis-a-vis their giant neighbour to the east – they were independent between the World Wars, but part of the Soviet Union thereafter, and each harbours considerably large Russian minorities.
The Ukraine however, with 45 million inhabitants and about the size of France, is firmly within Russia’s Near Abroad. Its east is ethnically mainly Russian (Ukrainian nationalism tends to be a western thing), and Russia has strategic interests in the Crimea (Russian until 1954, when it was transferred to the Ukraine, but still home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet). The country itself seems divided on whether it is an eastern outpost of the west, or a western outpost of the east.
The 2004 ‘Orange Revolution’, in which pro-western candidate Viktor Yushchenko successfully contested the rigged results of the presidential election that was ‘won’ by his pro-Russian opponent Viktor Yanukovich, seemed to place the Ukraine firmly in the western camp. Ukrainian politics has however seen several reversals of fortune since that time, proving that Ukraine is unique among the former Soviet republics: pro-western and pro-Russian sentiments are almost completely in balance.
That balance is not spread out evenly across the country. This map shows which of both Viktors was the victor in each of Ukraine’s regions in the (contested) November 2004 presidential elections. Each candidate has won in a remarkably contiguous area – Yushchenko winning the northwestern half of the country, Yanukovich the southeastern part. Both Moscow and the West are eager to have the populous, and potentially prosperous Ukraine in their camp. Will the fault line running through the Ukraine become the front line of a Second Cold War?
If you take a look at the map of the borders of Kievan Rus’, a medieval eastern Slavic state with Kiev as its center, you may see an amazing similarity of it with the Ukrainian voting habits. What is now a pro-Yanukovych part of the country was mostly a nomadic steppe developed during the Russian Empire times, with Crimea being a remarkable exception (as ancient Greece northern colony, then heartland of Crimean Khanate and then Russian Empire’s Black Sea navy and military outpost).
The irony of such divide is that Kievan Rus’ is widely considered as a motherland of modern Russia.
There is of course a similarity of the votes distribution map with the map of the percentage of native ukrainian speakers. But I like the Rus’ coincidence better.
And it’s “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”.
Comment by QYYWB — December 11, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Interesting that Transcarpathia, which actually borders several central european countries, is only barely pro-Yushchenko. Do the significant Ruthene and Hungarian minorities in the area really support Janukovich’s orthodox/russian-oriented vision or was there a third candidate?
Comment by Birdseed — December 11, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Amused by the fact that the page’s content is getting you “Russian dating” ads from Google.
Comment by Eric Meyer — December 11, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Isn’t that almost exactly the 17th-century border between Poland and Turkey?
Comment by Rodger — December 11, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Thanks for posting this. I hadn’t known about the political split in Ukraine; I’d always assumed it to be the anti-Russian Western image as portrayed in the media. This really was quite an enlightening post.
Comment by El Santo — December 11, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
And all this time, I thought the red state-blue state thing was a clear distinction. I’m not seeing swing districts here.
Comment by Patrick — December 11, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Why does one say “The Ukraine”and “The Argentine”? Are there other nations similarly denominated?
Comment by Victorian — December 11, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Interesting map, but your history is, to be fair, typical Western boilerplate. NATO is a military alliance, consider US Gov and even popular reaction if, for instance, the Warsaw Pact moved into Canada which must be the US’s “near abroad”. Or, if Texas proclaimed independence and then Russia installed ABM missiles. Turning tables is not saying what is right and wrong, but rather points out geopolitical realities which will hopefully lead people to look deeper.
Comment by yuri — December 11, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
QYYWB – good point. Old Rus’ land is rather pro-Western and that nomade land populated in imperial and Soviet time is rahter Soviet minded. In fact in Ukraine there is no ethnic or religious diision, even not cultural… rather political which is Ok and the map can change every day.
Comment by Stanislav — December 11, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
There is a bit of a cultural division- the preferred language changes from Ukrainian in the Orange Oblasts to Russian in the Blue ones.
Comment by Darren — December 11, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
It wasn’t Russia, that was weak, it was Yeltsin who sold out Russia, doing the dirty work for “the West”.
It isn’t Russia concept of “near abroad” which is threating “the West”, it is the controlled “revolutions” and the extension of NATO right unto the doorstep of Russia which is (quite rightly) perceived as a threat for Russia. Don’t tell me you don’t know the maps of US military bases around the world. Do you want to tell me you don’t know about US’s “backyard” where the US can do as it wishes? Do you deny the US connection with death squads and drug lords?
And we already had a situation where a USA gone wild, threatening and provoking the Soviet Union, brought us near to a Nuclear War. Look up Able Archer 1983. Go ahead, read how a rogue US-leadership tried to push the USSR over the edge.
We had the situation were big countries have been isolated, like Germany before or after world war I. Don’t go there. We know where that road leads.
If the US thinks has a right to meddle with Russia’s neighbours, then well, Russia has every right to do the same.
(I personally don’t like “strong National states” like Russia. I hate “the big game” and anybody that plays it. But if I see how immensely Anti-Russian screwed the reporting is, how sloppy you write here, how one sees the splinter in Russias eye, yet fails to see the wooden beam in US’s eye, I have to ask whose interest you serve: Do you want do bright light into the darkness or what is your purpose?)
Comment by Tony — December 11, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
As I can see Russian imperialist position is well represented in comments
Comment by L — December 11, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Dark Orange: Eastern Galicia, main part of the “Rus” Principality of Galitch, subdued by the Mongols in 1242, absorbed by Poland and Lithuania ( by the way the middle-aged Grand-Duchy of Lithuania from the Baltic to the Black Sea would be nice in strangemaps…) one century later;annexed by Austria in 1772, Poland in 1920 and the “Red Russia” in 1945. Strong Uniat Church ( Catholic with orthodox rites ), former strong polish and jewish minorities, strong cultural links with central Europe ( Habsburg-Mitteleuropa is not dead…)… I think, dear Stanislas, that the gap can be great with the “blue” russians, settlers of the Soviet times…
Comment by lp — December 11, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
@Tony -
Would you like a cup of tea and some slippers?
Comment by Yuval — December 11, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Compare the above map to Poland-Lithuania at its height:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rzeczpospolita265.png
The correspondence isn’t perfect, as 17th-century Poland overflows the orange areas significantly, but it is notable that the old border bisects all the light and medium blue areas, while the darkest blue areas were never under Polish control. It would be very interesting to see a map of voting patterns by district.
Compare also percentages of people speaking Ukrainian as their mother tongue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ukraine_cencus_2001_Ukrainian.svg
This is a much closer match to the voting patterns.
And now something that may surprise Westerners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ukrainian_salary_map.png
Yes, the Russian-speaking areas are richer (broadly speaking).
Comment by Andrew Gallagher — December 11, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
“As I can see Russian imperialist position is well represented in comments”… as opposed to? Israel? The US?
Perhaps you should take the time to read US military doctrine which spells things out very, very clearly.
Currently Russia’s actions are reactive.
To cut to the chase, someone wants war with Russia. Personally I think the reasons are basically the same as outlined by Mackinder over 100 years ago.
Comment by yuri — December 12, 2008 @ 12:44 am
The names are too damn confusing. How do they know which is which? Did any districts vote for McCain?
Comment by Cappy — December 12, 2008 @ 1:57 am
11.
I looked up Able Archer. The description was far different from your “USA gone wild” scenario.
15.
“To cut to the chase, someone wants war with Russia.”
Of course; that always worked out so well in the past–da, tovarishch?
Comment by Xystus — December 12, 2008 @ 6:51 am
This may be a touchy subject, but doesn’t Ukraine mean something like “edge” in Russian? (I’m not sure about that, though.) 1) If true, it leads to the ominous question, Edge of what? 2) Are Ukranians edgy people?
Comment by The Spokesrider — December 12, 2008 @ 7:24 am
I actually got a call from the Ukrainian embassey once reminding me that the name of the country is “Ukraine” not “The Ukraine”.
apparently the word ukraine is derived from the russian for border so putting in the ‘the’ implies that that is all it is – russia’s border area with the west.
all very ironic when you consider that ukrainian (like other slavic languages) has no definite articles at all! (i.e. no ‘the’ or ‘a’)
Comment by Donal Quinn — December 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
The blue areas coincide almost exactly with the borders of the Crimean Khanate… This is no coincidence. After Imperial Russia had gobbled up the Khanate, an extensive settlement program was started in these parts of the country, called “New Russia”/Novorossiya. See http://karty.narod.ru/great/nvr/nvr.html for a map… As a result, those areas are much more strongly Russified than old Ukraine.
Comment by lukas — December 12, 2008 @ 11:13 am
@18 “The realistic nature of the exercise, coupled with deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some in the USSR to believe that Able Archer 83 was a ruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.”
Mind you, why did the relations deteriorate? Might it have to do something with a guy called Ronald, behaving like a cowboy hot-head, sending his spy planes to “probe” the Soviet Union, “testing” the Soviet response where he could, stationing his nuclear missiles four minutes flight away from Moscow? Do you know what it means having enemy nuclear missiles four flight minutes away from your capital? Does “Cuban Missile Crisis” ring any bells? The Soviets got cocky back then and John Fitzgerald had its hand full keeping others peoples hands of “the button” – and that was without Soviet planes flying excursions into US airspace and without a Soviet military exercise right in front Washington’s doorstep. So what do you think could have happend in 1983, when the Soviet early warning system registered an US missile launch? And then another one? And then two more? Tell me, the clock is ticking, you have four minutes to answer.
But one think that astonishes me, is how people just refuse to learn anything unless you spell it out exactly for them. Well, I guess that is the stuff the military needs, so then it is the kind of people the state produces…
Comment by Tony — December 12, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
So Yuri, Anton- why don’t you submit some “Why Russia is paranoid” maps, and we can discuss them?
Comment by baptist nunn — December 12, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Birdseed wrote: “Do the significant Ruthene and Hungarian minorities in [Transcarpathia] really support Janukovich’s orthodox/russian-oriented vision or was there a third candidate?”
There were several candidates in the first round in October, but only the two in the November run-off (and the December re-run-off). The above map, according to the Wikipedia source, is for the November run-off.
I do find one thing odd about it, given that there were only the two candidates in this round; why is one province (near the middle) marked Yushchenko 47.08%? Would that not be Yanukovych 52.92%? Or was there some way in which some ballots were not for either candidate, so Yuschenko’s 47.08% is a plurality?
Comment by Ken — December 12, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
I second Birdseed’s and Ken’s remarks.
I also supposed there must have been some third candidates…
Could it be the map is from the 1st round rather than the 2nd?
Comment by igor — December 12, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
The faultline in Ukraine is very old. I first read about it in Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” where it listed Ukraine as an example of a country with a civilizational split – one part leaning towards the West, and the other towards Russia/Eurasianism.
All Ukrainian elections mirror the map with the western portion backing one candidate, and the East the other. Whoever wins the middle – either by popularity or fraud – wins the election. Interestingly, during the last parliamentary elections, Yulia Timoshenko’s Bloc showed an ability to appeal throughout the country. This has great importance if Ukraine is to remain a single state (as opposed to the Eastern portion eventually leaving).
Ukrainian nationalism is based in the west. It was the part of Ukraine that used to belong to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as others have noted. However, that part of Ukraine rebelled in mid-17th century and created an independent Cossack state. It is the memory of this state that fuels Ukrainian nationalism. Later, the Ukrainian cossacks made a deal with Moscow that ultimately saw them lose their independence.
Crimea, however, was never part of the Ukraine. It was part of the Muslim Crimean Khanate and was conquered by Russia independently. To be honest, the best thing for Ukraine would probably to sell it to Russia. It would eliminate a huge headache for their nationalist aspirations and net them some cash. A possible drawback is that it may set bad precedent.
Comment by Chris Durnell — December 12, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
One other comment. While it is predictable that Russia retains anti-American sentiment as a legacy of the Cold War, and an understanable desire to forget the bad years of the 1990s which they associate with Yeltsin and his policies, the current state of Russian nationalism is due to Putin’s needs to have a foreign threat he can rally domestic support.
Putin’s reign has been based on behind the scenes mafia like deals with other power brokers. They keep their money and get sweet heart deals in return for their support of his rule. Putin cannot tolerate any actual opposition (as opposed to the ineffective or potemkin opposition by the Communists or Vladimir Zhironovsky’s Liberal Democrats).
Therefore, he was really bothered to see the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. There, democratic movements deposed corrupt regimes similar to his own. The deterioration in US-Russian relations date from this time, not before. NATO expansion is merely a ruse. The Russians were not happy with NATO expansion, but the idea NATO posed a threat to Russia is overblown. Russia deals with NATO at an extremely high level. That NATO undermines Russian security is a joke.
Furthermore, the drive to join NATO does not originate in Washington who cajoles or threatens Russia’s neighbors to join an alliance so NATO can place troops closer to Russia. Instead, Russia’s negihbors – based on their past experience with Russia – banged on the door of NATO to be let in so they can be sure Russia can never again threaten them. It has been Russia’s own policies – past and present – that fuel the desire of their neighbors to join NATO. Whose splinter, and whose log?
What Russia does not want to see is its “near abroad” pursuing their own interests. It wants them subservient to Russia as semi-vassal states. Corrupt governments are willing to play by Putin’s rules. Democratic ones want a law-based regime not dependent on behind the scenes favors. And he does not want the example of a former Soviet state based on the rule of law and strong democratic traditions that could undermine support for the way he does things. He can always ignore the Baltic states as small and anomalous. But if the Ukraine is a law abiding democracy, then there is obviously no reason Russia can’t be.
Tony’s accusation of “coordinated revolutions” implies that the Rose and Orange Revolutions were secretly manipulated by the West to control those countries. That is ludicrous. While certain Western NGOs did provide some training and resources to democractically inclined organizations in those countries that helped those Revolutions succeed, it is not true that they were trojan organizations controlled by the West to seize power. Although due to Putin’s KGB training, it is possible to understand why Putin might really think so as the KGB often supported such “popular movements.” But any real look into both the Rose and Orange Revolutions reveal that their support was indigenous and popular. The NGO training simply made it effective. In contrast, we know that someone attempted to murder Yuschenko to prevent him from becoming President, that earlier anti-government journalists were murdered, and that after the Orange Revolution Moscow cut off gas supplies in an attempt to re-assert their influence in Ukraine. If anyone is attempting to subvert Ukraine, it is certainly not anyone in NATO.
I enjoy the various non-sequitors in Tony’s arguments. And the isolated incidents – like the Able Archer war games in 1983 – without any other information in context. Let’s pretend that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 didn’t happen, or that the USSR show down KAL007 a few months before. Or the general paranoia of the Soviet leadership. Nope – any heightened US-USSR tensions are ONLY the result of US actions or statements.
Furthermore, the current analysis totally ignores all the ways the West tried to help Russia and bring them into Western institutions. Besides Russias’ participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace, there is the NATO-Russia Council. Russia was also invited and joined the Council of Europe. And Russia was invited and joined the G-7 (now the G-8) despite not being economically important enough to actually qualify. All because the West wanted to cooperate with Russia.
But because Russia under Putin wants to return to Great Power politics, it either ignores these reach outs by the West, or claims they are an attempt to “constrain” Russia because Russia no longer wants to work within a cooperative framework.
Comment by Chris Durnell — December 12, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
“the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) .. each harbours considerably large Russian minorities.” Not true for Lithuania: only 6% are Russians, 25% in Latvia and Estonia
Comment by L — December 13, 2008 @ 1:18 am
“So Yuri, Anton- why don’t you submit some “Why Russia is paranoid” maps, and we can discuss them?”
Well, it’s not only Russia that is “paranoid”. For maps google Thomas Barnett, Mackinder, Mahan. As for Russia you can just envision the moves of NATO since the US promise to not move NATO. I’ll leave the maps to Strange Maps.
Frankly, I think Russia is dead tired of ideologies which almost always include claims on other people’s lands, though she certainly has interest in her ‘near abroad’, as does any nation that hasn’t been subsumed into a New World Order. Hey, maybe that’s why the propaganda against Russia is so f**king blatant?
HOW I BUSTED THE WASHINGTON POST’S OP-ED PAGE EDITOR
By Mark Ames
http://tinyurl.com/5wsln2
The evil Vlad on ideology:
“Tragedies like this have occurred multiple times in the history of mankind. All this happens when an idea, attractive at first sight, but empty in practice, is put higher than fundamental values – human life and human rights and liberties,”
– Vladimir Putin visiting the Butovo firing range where some 20 thousand people, including priests and artists were killed in 1937-38 alone.
Isn’t it strange, but no one seems to realize that the Russian’s also suffered under the Soviets. Remember that.
Chris, where to begin. The color revolutions were manipulated, admittedly so: “You know you work behind the scenes and do things and suddenly people are in the streets, that’s amazing. It’s like science you know. We do the experiment in test tubes and a little tinkering and then something big comes out of it.”
– Alex Goldfarb, Berezovsky’s right hand man.
There is of course more than just one quote if you look.
Popularity really has little to do with it. Obama was popular too among anti-war folks, only the duped remain. Ukraine’s orange has turned into something of a lemon, no?
KAL007 is not quite what it seemed either. Isn’t KAL where we first heard the use of “Evil Empire”? The Soviet war in Afghanistan was planned by the US, admittedly so again! Did Russia entrap Georgia, possible, but the timeline of events says no rather conclusively.
See the BBC’s “Russian Godfathers”, see Brzezinsky boasting about the Afghan war, not printed in the US. Hmmm, no wonder your views are, well… do you look into Putin’s eyes and see KGB, what do you see when you look into George H W’s eyes, do you see “CIA” or perhaps you see further to his father’s support for the Nazis thru Union Bank?
Don’t you find it awesome the Zbig is an advisor to Obama.
Zbig Brother:
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
KAL007
http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C177199123/E20051016010817/index.html
It’s true, Stalin, hometown Gori, Georgia BTW, moved populations around, in fact it is he who gave Ossetia to Georgia.
Well, as honest conservative Bill Kaufmann has said: “McCain cares more about the Georgia of Josef Stalin than he cares about the Georgia of Ray Charles”.
Also not published in Western MSM:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17855.htm
It’s a long read, but it addresses all of your points and more.
For Medvedev’s Valdai speech you can find it here:
http://idisk.mac.com/kaaawa-Public?view=web
Comment by yuri — December 13, 2008 @ 8:12 am
A side note, just look at the automatically generated ‘possibly related’ posts, not to mention the ad by google at the top. Who picks those, who writes the algorithm?
No, they won’t shut down the net, they’ll subvert it.
Comment by yuri — December 13, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Czechoslovakia simply split into two … that map could make you think everyone would be happier if they made two countries.
Comment by Breen — December 13, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
I wonder if the more even balance in Transcarpathia has to do with the massive amount of Ruthenian economic immigration to the Americas. Did settlers from further east replace them?
Comment by Charlene — December 14, 2008 @ 12:55 am
Transcarpathia has a fairly strong separatist movement. The region doesn’t have a lot of historical ties to Galicia and the idea of an independent state has had significant support since the Hapsburg Empire broke down (it actually was its own country for a few days in 1939 after the invasion of Czechoslovakia).
A few months ago, a group that has received some support from Russia tried to declare independence for the oblast as “the Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia.” So it makes sense that a significant minority would prefer the pro-Russian candidate to the Ukrainian nationalist one.
Comment by Kelly — December 15, 2008 @ 12:34 am
@31 “Czechoslovakia simply split into two … that map could make you think everyone would be happier if they made two countries.”
They were already separately existing nations before they willing joined each other for protection.
Comment by BAT — December 15, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
[...] map showing the electoral divide in Ukraine (#343) is quite interesting, and put me in mind of a similar one that I saw last year, that prompted me [...]
Pingback by 348 - An Imperial Palimpsest on Poland’s Electoral Map « Strange Maps — December 15, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
I guess almost every state in the World espacially democratic as Ukraine now is can be presented with a splited map.
Comment by Stanislav — December 16, 2008 @ 12:26 am
[...] map showing the electoral divide in Ukraine (#343) is quite interesting, and put me in mind of a similar one that I saw last year, that prompted me [...]
Pingback by jbuhler.com/synecdoche » Blog Archive » 348 - An Imperial Palimpsest on Poland’s Electoral Map — December 16, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
@19 & 20:
Lets look at the etymology of the word Ukraine, pronounced Ooh-cry-ee-nah, and how it relates to the term “near abroad”. The “ooh” means “near” or “next to”, while the “cry” means “the edge” or “border”. Ironically, what was once the center of the old Kievan Rus, and is still considered the original birthplace of the Russian people, has come to mean roughly “The Land Near the Border”. This is a Russian name that was coined when Russia was expanding its borders southwest into the region and pushing the Turkish and Polish states out.
“Near abroad” is as semantic of a name as the term “overseas” in the US. Near abroad relates more to historic and emotional attachments to certain regions rather than being a concrete geographic designation.
Comment by The Dirt — December 17, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
[...] wcześniej na tym samym blogu pokazano inny podzielony kraj: [...]
Pingback by » ‘Historyczna’ mapa wyborcza: edycja polska i ukraińska Trystero: O tym się nie pisze. — December 17, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Tony, your desire to teach the U.S. some morals isn’t justified by you making America look worse than Russia. Come live there first.
Chris Durnell. Well, first of – Timoshenko is absolutely nothing but a gang of businessmen (& if you know anything about the means the big business came to be in the post-Soviet times in Ukraine AND Russia – you understand that it is nothing but a group of criminals; from thieves to murdereres, including the main Yanukovich supporter – Akhmetov). The majority of Timoshenko’s electorate – are people who speak one language – & that’s money. Mostly it’s Ukrainian middle class (which, needless to mention, is very different from American middle class), most of whom have good education. While the majority of pro-Yanukovich voters are people with very poor education. Many of whom had to work to survive, unable to study. While the majority of them never cared about going to school. Doesn’t make them bad. They’re just very different people all-together. They sincerely don’t understand the speeches the President does on TV. Most of them are nice people. But, imagine the community of people who were born & raised in prison, living by its rules & being brain washed all their life. Doesn’t make the Western Ukraine electorate perfect. But if Eastern part has been a prison – the Western was a battle field. You see, people in the Eastern part sincerely don’t understand how the people in the Western part were sheding their blood to be free. You mentioned how Cossacks dwelled in the Eastern Ukraine & how they had lost their freedom. Very true. But, you see, in the Southern Ukraine they just built a monument to the Russian queen that has exterminated the Cossacks completely…
Oh, yeah, Yuchchenko. One Polish journalist a couple years back had said that Ukraine simply isn’t ready for a President of such level. He said Yushchenko would be great for a country like Sweden, but not Ukraine. Not yet. & that seems to be true.
Chris, you might be right about selling Crimea to Russia. Except for that would less like getting rid of a headache & more like letting the Big Brother only 17 years after escaping from under his “caring” hand. Which, by the way, so far is the longest term within the last 300 years Ukraine has maintained its independance from Russia, while proclaiming independance eight times through these 300 years.
THE Ukraine.
It is pretty hard to explain the whole deal with the difference between “Ukraine” & “The Ukraine” when you don’t speak Ukrainian or Russian. It’s possible, just takes awhile. Apart from the main reason “the Ukraine” is offensive – it’s cause it also implies that Ukraine is one of the U.S.S.R. republics.
Comment by Alexander — December 18, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Errm… there is no difference between “The Ukraine” and “Ukraine” in Ukrainian or Russian. The only thing that would be comparable is the dispute on which proposition (v or na) to use in order to express “in (the) Ukraine”.
Comment by lukas — December 19, 2008 @ 3:43 am
Since this has degenerated into YAPA (yet another political argument) I’d like to suggest that the dynamics of Russia vs the Near Abroad may change radically, soon. Putin’s Russia could flex economic, political, military muscles when lots of petrol revenue flowed into the Kremlin’s coffers. But oil is now not at US$150 or $100 or even $50/bbl (per barrel), but US$35. Putin’s options become much more limited when there’s much less cash to throw around.
Here [ http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991/pub_detail.asp ] former Russian PM Yegor Gaidar traces the collapse of the USSR and shows that, like old Spain, a “resource state” (which supports itself by selling resources to others, rather than adding value itself) is poorly placed for imperial ambitions. The world doesn’t buy Russian products or technology, except weapons. (And I’ll admit a weakness for FSU camera lenses.) Until global macroeconomics change, and oil becomes valuable again, Russia just can’t AFFORD to dominate the Near Abroad.
It will be interesting to watch where and when the post-economic-collapse coups and revolutions occur. Maybe Ukraine WILL subdivide into culturally distinct blocs. We’ll see.
Comment by RioRico — December 19, 2008 @ 8:53 am
The only way Ukraine could devide into two parts – would be a civil war. Which is extremely unlikely to happen in Ukraine.
Though there is no “the” or “a” in Ukrainian or Russian langages – the pronounciation problem lays in the accent on the word. While “Ooh-Cry-Ee-Nah” with the accent on the second syllable means “The Land Near The Border” as The Dirt has written; the name of the country is properly pronounced with the accent on the third syllable. Which most Russians & a lot of Ukrainians don’t bother to pronounce it properly.
Another thing about it are “in” & “at”. It is the “at” – “na” in Russian & Ukrainian languages & “in” – “v” that makes the whole difference here. & that’s where people make the mistake, saying “at” & not “in”. That’s how: improper pronounciation & improper preposition that make the difference. A heck of a difference.
Comment by Alexander — December 21, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Often overlooked in the question of Ukrainian NATO membership (and Georgia, for that matter) is that unlike the Baltic and Eastern European states, popular support is intensely divided, and along the same lines illustrated by this map. Entering into a security arrangement with such unstable partners is unwise.
Comment by ed — January 15, 2009 @ 9:16 am
[...] "To which Viktor the Spoils? A Tale of Two Ukraines " [Strange Maps] (tags: Ukraine) [...]
Pingback by Life of Alan » links for 2009-01-20 — January 21, 2009 @ 4:01 am
hy man gooood maps
thanks
Comment by top — January 23, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
It looks like a terrier attacking a chicken.
Comment by Walt — January 26, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
@Victorian:
There’s also The Sudan, The Gambia, The Philippines, and The Netherlands. Plus “El Salvador” might count since “El” is just a definite article.
Comment by Wilson — February 17, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
[...] Es zeigt die Spaltung des Landes Polen – wie wird das z.B. durch Samuel P. Huntington auch von der Ukraine kennen – bei der Parlamentswahl von 2007, bei der die westlich ausgerichtete PO (Bürgerplattform – [...]
Pingback by Wahlen in Polen 2007 | schonleben mittendrin: subjektiv, subversiv! — March 9, 2009 @ 10:38 am
[...] hails from Crimea says a lot about his background. Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking, and voted overwhelmingly against Yushchenko in the most recent presidential election. (This is somewhat ironic in that these were the regions [...]
Pingback by ComingAnarchy.com » Genoice Debated, Yet Again — March 20, 2009 @ 1:24 am
“pro-western and pro-Russian sentiments are almost completely in balance.”
That’s not true at all. Just look at this gallup poll conducted last year. The country is by and large pro-Russian when push comes to shove.
The only reason the orange revolution succeeded is because it was funded and supported by the west and enemies of the Kremlin (ie. the oligarchs that Putin pissed off when he took back control of the country). Their orange propaganda was on a whole new level compared to the obvious stuff people were used to in Soviet times. The Ukrainian people were essentially coaxed into voting for “democracy”. Now their president has an approval rating of 2% and it’s been like that for over a year (no joke, look it up). Why? Because they didn’t get democracy. They got a crazy corrupt Russophobe who’s only obligations were pleasing his western overlords at the expense of the Ukrainian people.
It’s all just been a big post-cold war game, Ukrainian leadership just another pawn. But that game has begun to come to an end, as we saw last year in Georgia, as we saw last month in Kyrgyzstan, and as we’re going to see in Ukraine be it through collapse, revolution or election.
Comment by Jack Black — March 30, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:59 am