Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Thanks, Disco. That was really helpful. I've never been to Eastern Europe, only Western, but I have traveled a lot in Latin America and your description of the Ukraine reminds me of a lot countries there. It is ingrained into the worldview.

I hope that Yushchenko can succeed in transforming a culture. That's a tough row to hoe.

What about his foreign policy? Views of the US? War on terror? As Elrond said to Gandalf, "...Our list of allies grows thin." Do we have friends in the Ukraine (other than you and TulipGirl)?

There remains much confusion in the world whether it is "Kyiv" or "Kiev", and "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine". Locally, it has always been the Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation, "Kyiv". Perhaps when Ukraine was a territory under the control of Russia, it was referred to as "the Ukraine". Certainly since declaring independence, it is a sovereign state with its proper name simply being, "Ukraine". Old habits sometimes die hard. Some additional info on the matter may bring further clarity.

Taras:

I wish that reference to "Ukraine" was based on a nuanced and worldly understanding of the vagaries of Eastern European geography and history.

Unfortunately, it's not so. I am one of those ignorant Americans with big, fat, clumsy fingers who pounds on the keyboard, posting on blogs while working and sneaking peaks at the Druge Report while muching tasteless fast food. Oh, and occasionally I take a break from the computer and go heat up the globe by driving around in my Ford Explorer.

And I don't proofread my blog posts...

Greg-

Hi pal. . .

I agree, it's hard to drop the article when you've grown up saying "the Ukraine." I think it's connected to the two ways to say it in Russian -- V Ukrainye and Na Ukrainye. Patriotic Ukrainians often take the second to imply Ukraine is a territory rather than a country.

As for Kyiv, Kiev, most of the people I know write the Ukrainian style -- Kyiv, but actually say it in Russian -- Kiev. 70% of the population of Kiev-Kyiv speaks Russian at home, after all.

As far as foreign policy, it's late here, so I'll write something up tonight for ya.

Your friend,
John

I agree that Yushchenko won't go picking a fight with Russia. But that doesn't mean there won't be one - I wouldn't be at all surprised by a descending spiral of petulant moves by Russia (introducing visas for Ukrainians would probably be one of the first steps). Ukraine's need for oil and gas (and Russia's need for transit routes) will keep things from falling apart entirely, but I bet the mood is gonna get ugly...

LM,
Not sure that Russia is likely to introduce visas for Ukrainians, actually. It would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect. Ukraine isn't Georgia, you know.; the ties, both historical and in terms of family connections are too strong. Also, don't forget that, in general, the border is barely demarcated, let alone fenced, for most of its extent. (This would be a major problem were Ukraine to aspire seriously to join the EU.)

As for the "na Ukraine/v Ukraine" thing, I find it quite puzzling that a political status has been attached to it. Other place-names take "na" without any "colonial" implications. Also, linguistically, (getting somewhat technical, trying to remember things I studied several years ago), slavonic "v" and "u" (ie. "v" and the first letter of "Ukraine") are the same character historically. And, in current (west Ukrainian, particularly) Ukrainian usage, they can mutate, depending on which sound they follow or are followed by. (Wish I could think of a concrete illustration of this, but my mind is currently elsewehre, on Albanian poltiics)

I think therefore that "V Ukraine" just sounds wrong...but languages do evolve....

The reason the use of the article "the" is offensive and condenscending to Ukraine is because it is implying that "Ukraine" is a geographic region ("the ukraine") perhaps of Russia rather than an ethnographic state or country ("Ukraine").
If you take, for example (and not a good one at that), "the heartland" and then declared it "Heartland" and use it in a sentence, that would be an entirely different meaning. Of course, you could also call it "Jesusland" - bad joke.

Originally, "ukraine" meant "borderland" but at the end of the 19th century the people on the land of Ukraine called themselves "rusyny" as in from "Kievan Rus". They knew they were different from the people in the country northeast of them who called themselves "Russian", but "rusyn" was too close to "russian", so the old historic and geographic term "ukraine" was adopted in order to contrast to "russian".

It is really a pity though, because "Rus", "rusyny", and "Russia" are terms that rightfully and historically belong to Ukraine and the Ukrainians since it occupied the heart of Kievan Rus. As a side note, at the time that Kiev was the 2nd biggest city in Europe, Moscow wasn't yet even a village and didn't yet exist for another couple hundred years.
The Mongols laid waste to Kiev in 1240, and took up residence in the northeastern fir forests of "Russia". Through intrigue and aggression, Moscow rose to become the strongest of the Mongol vassal cities and was able to overthrow the Mongol yoke. The hundreds of years of Mongol occupation gave rise to an east slavic Oriental despotism.

Until the reign of Peter I, this entity was called "Muscovy" and was simply a city state that wanted to be an empire. Peter I wanted to give Muscovy a face lift and propagated the mythology of Moscow being the successor city to Constantinople, or the "third Rome". He adopted the triple headed eagle as his standard (whereas the Ukrainian standard is the trident - the standard of Kievan Rus). Peter I also propagated the argument that Muscovy was the successor to Kievan Rus. With this, Muscovy and the muscovites adopted the name "Russia" and "Russians", effectively usurping that designation from their neighbors from the southwest.

As such, it is ironic that there is this argument about "Ukraine" and "the Ukraine" when really Ukraine is "Rus". Belarus is going by its rightful name, while Russia should be called "Malorus" or "little Rus" since Moscow is much younger than Kiev.

Not a bad agenda. Think we could ge thim to institute it in our State Department?

I don't know much about the parliamentary reforms that were signed by Kuchma when he also signed election reforms, but didn't they take away many former presidential powers? How can Yushchenko get all that accomplished with a corrupt parliament? Is there hope that he really can "save" Ukraine?

I'm not surprised by the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Iraq, nor especially disappointed. Actually, I was never quite sure what they were doing there -- or more precisely, what Kuchma got from Washington for sending them. It's not as if we Americans weren't glad to have them there; they did good service as far as I know. I just assumed there was some kind of quid pro quo involved, as desperate as the Bush administration was to demonstrate international support for the Iraq operation, and I never found out exactly what it was.

Zathras,

In the world of realpolitic I suppose you're right: they would be there in return for something.

I hoped that maybe -- just maybe -- they'd be there because it was the right thing to do. And maybe that they'd stay for the same reason.

It's no small thing to be on the right side of history.

Little Miss-

There have been at least 50 defections from the oligarch parties, and Yushchenko has a functional majority for the time being. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. And if the economy keeps chugging along, the Oranges should clean up in 2006 quite nicely. Never underestimate self-interest -- the oligarch coalition started fracturing almost as soon as people saw which way the wind was blowing. There are some real devils in the parliament, and then there are those who are just unpleasantly pragmatic. . .

Little Miss-

There are also plenty of decent reformers there as well. I meant that among the "bad" guys there are gradations -- from the truly evil to the merely craven.

Greg-

Unfortunately, Kuchma wasn't like the leaders of Poland, Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Australia and others. They really believed in democracy and the liberation of Iraq. Kuchma wanted only to deflect heat from both the Gongadze murder and the allegations that the Defense Ministry sold weapons to Saddam.

To its credit, the US didn't let his cooperation in the Coalition distract them from the human rights abuses here. They continued to keep the pressure on, and made it clear that relations would be cool between the two countries so long as a kleptocrat like Kuchma was in office.

The motives behind sending the troops are one reason why it's so darn unpopular here. That and the unrelenting propaganda campaign the media waged against the war. People heard only one side for at least a year. Their opinion isn't about to change any time soon. . . Sadly.