Would eastern and western Ukraine be better off going their separate ways? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:02:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Would eastern and western Ukraine be better off going their separate ways? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would eastern and western Ukraine be better off going their separate ways?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 89

Author Topic: Would eastern and western Ukraine be better off going their separate ways?  (Read 20269 times)
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« on: February 23, 2014, 06:43:54 PM »

The idea that more borders could solve problems has already too often proven fatal in European history. Ireland, former Yugoslavia (especially Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo), also Czechoslovakia with the Sudeten Germans, are only a few points in case to demonstrate that each new border tends to bring forward the next minority-majority issue, just on a reduced geographical scale. You can then continue territorial split-ups ad infinite, or solve the issue once and for all through ethnic cleansing. Neither is a particular good solution to me.

Instead of creating another border, both Ukraine's western and eastern borders need to become more permeable. Finding a workable solution for this will be politically and technically challenging, since it is closely interlinked with the overall relation between the EU and Russia/ Belarus, but is definitely worth a substantial effort. Any discussion of potentially splitting up Ukraine just distracts from the real task at hand.  
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2014, 08:08:54 PM »

I'm going to assume western Ukraine is more fiscally conservative, and eastern Ukraine is more socially conservative?

Western Ukraine is fiscally conservative but socially liberal whereas eastern Ukraine is split between constitutional conservatives, bold progressive voices, and straight-talking mavericks with independent streaks a mile wide. Geopolitics 101, my friend.

Remember, however, that in a post-socialist context, fiscal conservatism is less about "I want to keep my hard-earned money to myself instead of it being spent on people that are too lazy to work", and more about "I prefer to have my hard-earned money with myself in order to grow my small business, instead of handing it to a government that is obviously corrupt and incapable of getting problems solved - asides, there are already more local officials asking me for bribes than I am able to pay."
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2014, 11:16:38 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2014, 11:18:16 PM by Franknburger »

Just to add a bit: A main feature of Central Ukraine (I experienced it when working in Cherkassy, but it extends further south towards at least Zaporozhe)  is the Cossack history and identity. Cossacks were free, independent farmers with the obligation to defend Russia's southern border against the Osman Empire, in exchange for the right to local self-rule. Unlike most of the rural population in Russia proper, they were never subject to servitude.
The status changed massively with Stalin's collectivisation in the mid-1930s, and a good part of the local elite (which were rather medium-scale family farmers than large-scale landowners) was sent to Siberia. This is one of the reasons German troops during WW II were initially, as in the Baltics, often cheered as "liberators", though that appreciation changed over time. In any case, the fact that collectivisation took place considerably later than in other parts of the Soviet Union means that many people have still been able to learn from their grand-parents about the family business/ farm, and local self-rule in pre-Stalinist times. As such, Central Ukraine is in many respects closer to Central Europe and the Baltics than to other parts of the Soviet Union that neither had such traditions, nor the opportunity of the current generation to learn from their grand-parents experience how life before Stalin was different.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2014, 05:16:31 AM »

I really want to be mistaken. I would give A LOT to be mistaken. But...

Anyway, the Russian ambassador has been recalled from Kiev. There are certain (admittedly, unconfirmed) reports that the military is getting ready. I would not at all be surprised, if within the next week we are going to have Russian troops in Ukraine (at least, in Crimea - possibly, elsewhere as well).

God, I really want to be proven wrong on this one...

The Russian ambassador being recalled may mean various things, e.g. simple reporting on the current situation, and discussing what to do now (with the side effect of having him out should the situation in Kiev escalate again). I could also imagine some leading politicians in Moscow not being too pleased with his performance - he obviously bet on the wrong horse.

Spiegel reports about a longer telephone talk between Putin and Merkel yesterday afternoon. According to Merkel's speaker, both have agreed that "Ukraine quickly needs to get a government that can take action, and Ukraine's territorial integrity shall be maintained". She also phoned to Timoschenko, encouraging her to "engage in favour of Ukraine's cohesion and reach out to the people in the east (of Ukraine)". She furthermore suggested Timoschenko to focus on recovering from her health problems and invited her for medical treatment in Germany. Anybody who has yet missed the message is invited to look at this Spiegel article headlined "Merkel regards Timoschenko with sceptics" (even if you don't understand German, check out the photo!)

German foreign minister Steimeier meanwhile has in a Spiegel interview lauded Putin's special emissary, Wladimir Lukin, who arrived in Kiev at 2 am on the night from Thursday to Friday, for constructively having participated in the search for solutions of the crisis: "The Russian delegate has helped to build bridges and co-signed the joint resolution (that effectively ousted Janukovich)". Steimeier's, Fabius' and Sikorski's trip to Ukraine has apparently been decided on short notice, following Steinmeier's visit to Moscow last week. Polish foreign minister Sikorski is reported to have interrupted his winter holidays in Austria for the trip.

All this is rather indicating a more relaxed Russian approach towards regime change in Ukraine, than intention for military intervention.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2014, 06:42:58 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2014, 08:38:38 AM by Franknburger »

For all those enjoying to draw new borders, here another case: Schleswig, the northern part of which was returned to Denmark after WW I. To enhance the fun, you get several maps:


1838 linguistic map (large PDF here). Blue=German, Red=Danish, Yellow=Frisian, Light Greeen: German prevailing, Dark Purple: Danish prevailing, Dark Green: German as church language.


1867 election map (Constitutional Assembly of the North German Federation) for the Danish Party.


Danish mother tongue as per the 1905 census


Outcome of the 1920 plebiscite (a masterpiece in gerrymandering, btw., conveniently ignoring county borders). I have seen other, smaller maps showing the northernmost tip of the island of Sylt voting >75% Danish.


.. and how the Danish (blue) and German (red) governments felt the results should be interpreted.

Frisian independence wasn't a ballot option, btw.

Edit: Any further discussion on the Schleswig-Holstein issue should be continued here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188333.0
I have removed my respective follow-up from this thread.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2014, 07:22:58 PM »

[
Macedonians are of course somewhat serbish bulgarians.

Or are they somewhat Bulgarianish Serbs?
Depends which one you are talking about (bonus map in the link!).
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2014, 07:41:26 PM »


Macedonians are of course somewhat serbish bulgarians.

Or are they somewhat Bulgarianish Serbs?
That depends upon which consul is asking.
Another question: are they Slavic Greeks?
The answer is simple. Just take a look at this 1892 map:
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2014, 09:39:32 PM »
« Edited: February 26, 2014, 09:53:19 PM by Franknburger »

Sorry to have lead away the discussion towards other parts of Europe..

Going back to Ukraine, I think it is time for a few more maps:

The population density map above shows one of the roots of the problems: Ukraine is essentially a polycentric country, with a relevant, but not particularly strong centre. Kiew and its surrounding house some 3 million people, which is just 7% of Ukraine's total population (for reference - the Paris agglomeration accounts for close to 20% of France's population). Population concentrates in the East and the West, which are themselves each polycentric in nature. Further centres are Odessa and the Crimea (Sewastopol) in the South.


This observation needs to be put into context, though. First of all, note that Ukraine's population structure is less fractured than, e.g., Spain's (not even speaking of Norway or Sweden here). As such, while centrifugal forces make regionalism an issue, they don't necessarily imply that nation-building is impossible.
Secondly, it is not really SW Russia demographically pulling SE Ukraine, rather to the opposite. Russian Belgorod, 70 km NE of Kharkov, has some 400,000 inhabitants including suburbs. Not small, but less than a quarter of the population of the Kharkov agglomeration. Rostov-on-Don, some 100 km south of the Ukrainian border, isn't a small-town either, with more than 2 million inhabitants in the agglomeration. But the Donezk basin (including Luhansk and Mariupol) hosts more than 6 million people. As such, SE Ukraine forms an economic and population centre in its own right - with every reason to strive for the border with Russia being permeable to goods, services and people, but not depending on it for economic survival.


As the above map based on 2001 census results shows, Russian language (red) - or better the fact that Russian is not accepted as official language - is an issue not only on the Crimea, but also in the Donezk basin. But most of SE Ukraine, including Kharkov proper (not its surrounding), and even more so the Dnepropetrovsk area, is predominantly speaking Ukranian (dark blue). Reducing the political rift between East and West to a language issue is a gross over-simplification, and (as always), linguistics aren't much of a help when it comes to geographical delineation.
There are further linguistic minorities along the corresponding borders: Romanian/Moldavian (green), Hungarian (orange), judged by the map legend there should also be some predominantly Polish-speaking communities (light blue), though I have been unable to spot them. In any case, should Ukraine's borders start to being discussed in earnest, those minorities might want to also take their turn, and that could create various sorts of troubles for the EU. Note also Budjak (southern Bessarabia) with a classical post-Osman Empire mix of Bulgarians (purple), Albanians (light orange), Gagauz (olive) alongside Moldavians, Ukrainians and Russians. I don't know enough about the region to propose how can be dealt with this mix, but I am pretty sure that, whatever problems exist there, splitting up Ukraine is not going to solve them.


Finally, a map on post-independence population change, taken from this excellent Wikipedia article with many more great maps. It's first of all a map on low birth rates during the economic transition crisis, and elevated death rates. Because of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, northern Ukraine has been especially affected by both. Natural population decline is higher in the East than in the West (coal mining and steel working are neither particular healthy professions, nor conducive to air quality). However, it is also a map on (sub-)urbanisation and migration, and the latter is an indicator of long-term economic trends. So, where is the music playing? Obviously in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, the Crimea (that one is exaggerated by the Tartar's remigration), and several areas close to the EU border, especially Lviw and Chernitsvy - but not in the Donezk basin and in Kharkow. The EU has put an offer on the table (as insufficient as that offer may be in some respects). Putin will need to provide more than cheap gas and protection of Russian-speakers, otherwise it is obvious which direction Ukraine will ultimately take.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2014, 01:07:58 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2014, 01:16:27 PM by Franknburger »

Re the Crimea situation it ought to be noted Crimea was never a part of Ukraine before the 1950s.

Soviets loved to play with the borders.

Crimea was an Autonomous Soviet Republic before WW II, thus neither part of Russia nor of Ukraine. It only became part of Russia in 1944, and was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
In Tsarist times, Crimea was part of the Taurida Governorate, which also included coastal parts on the opposite mainland. Until 1783, it was an independent Khanat.


Of the three possible claims (Independence, Ukrainian, Russian), the Russian one is historically clearly the weakest.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2014, 06:56:06 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2014, 06:59:08 AM by Franknburger »

Thanks, ag, for having explained my line of thinking better than I did, possibly even better than I would have been able to do. Let me just make two additions:

During the revolutionary years, of course, Crimea was the last outpost of the Russian "Whites". Notably, at the time Ukrainian governments seem not to have made the claim to the peninsula - unsurprising, given that the relatively small Ukrainian population there.

1. The 1917-1921 period (revolution & civil war) was very fluent. After the February Revolution, an Ukrainian independence movement formed, leading to the declaration of the Ukrainian People's Republic on June 23, 1917, which proclaimed its full independence on 25 January, 1918. Crimea, meanwhile, declared independence as Crimean People's Republic on December 13, 1917, and became immediately recognised by the Ukrainian People's Republic. Crimean independence was short-lived. Already in January 1918, Bolsheviks took over and declared the Taurida SSR which, unlike the Crimean People's Republic, also claimed (though apparently never controlled) the mainland part of  the former Taurida Governorate. During the ensuing Russian-Ukranian War, it was overrun, with assistance from Germany, by the Ukranian People's Republic, and dissolved on April 30, 1918. Afterwards, a Crimean Regional Government was established, the formal status of which remained undefined. Germany protected it from Ukrainian claims and control, but promoted talks about a Ukrainian-Crimean federation. When WW I ended in November 1918, allied troops landed on Crimea but withdrew again in early 1919. That allowed for the advance of the Red Army which, on April 2, 1919, dissolved the Crimean Regional Government and established the Crimean SSR. White forces retook Crimea in June 1919 and held out there until November 1920.

In conclusion, between mid-1917 and mid-1919, Crimea's independence had been recognised by  Axis powers, Ukraine, Russia, possibly de-facto also by the Entente. At the 1919-1920 Paris Conference, however, the Ukrainian delegation presented the following map that includes Crimea as part of Ukraine. I haven't yet been able to figure out whether that map has been presented prior to the Red Army takeover, during the short-lived existence of the Crimean SSR, or after re-conquest by White troops.


2. Before WW II, the ASSR status tended to be stronger than afterwards. Point in case is the Moldavian ASSR within the Ukrainian SSR, which in 1940, after the USSR had re-gained control of Bessarabia from Romania, was elevated to the Moldavian SSR.
That is actually another reason why raising the ASSR issue won't become too popular. The original Moldavian ASSR was more or less covering the territory of break-away Transnistria, which is a de-facto independent part of Moldova that, however, isn't formally recognised by any UN member state. This is really Pandora's Box waiting to be opened....
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2014, 08:41:34 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2014, 08:43:18 AM by Franknburger »

After a bit more of research, I have to correct some of the statements in my previous posts:

1. The December 23, 1917 French-British accord on influence zones in the Near East among others designated Ukraine including Crimea as French influence zone. As such, at least in late 1917 / early 1918, France and Britain apparently still regarded Crimea as part of Ukraine.

2. German policy during 1917/18 was marked by substantial conflict between the German Foreign Office and Ludendorff as Commander of the eastern forces. The conflict became most apparent when Ludendorff continued military advancement (including occupation of Crimea) after Russia's signature of the Treaty of Brest-Litwosk, in breach of said treaty and against explicit German government orders. The Treaty of Brest-Litowsk excluded Crimea - it especially did not become part of Ukraine as recognised by Axis powers in that treaty.
A relevant part of German and Austro-Hungarian leadership was attempting to turn Crimea into a German protectorate. Among the first actions undertaken by the re-installed, Axis-backed governments was revoking land reform, in favour of especially German colonists, which in 1914 had controlled  60% or arable land on Crimea, and 38% of all land in Odessa county. As such, the status of Crimea appears to have deliberately been left undefined. Negotiations on a Ukrainian-Crimean federation only commenced in October 1918, when it already had become obvious to Ludendorff that the war was lost.

Having spoken of Pandora's boxes: The next worst thing, after regarding Ukraine in Cold War logics, is falling back on WW I lines of thinking to address the country's future. Let's hope Putin can withstand the temptation to evoke the various parties' WW I hegemonic aspirations (and let's also hope Islamists are not discovering the brave Crimean Tartars as brothers deserving support).  
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2014, 05:57:30 AM »

Russian speaking Party of Regions voters then.

Which are to be identified how (given the fact that, e.g., Budjak-Bulgarians also use Russian)?

In times of unemployment and economic crisis, it doesn't cost a lot of money to get somebody joining a demonstration, and I have seen quite some reports about Putin's party in Russia having paid people there to participate in demonstrations. At the moment, I would refrain from any speculation about popular mood in certain places.

What I am quite sure about, however, is that the mood in Crimea will quickly turn more pro-Ukrainian, once people realise that the 2014 tourism season will be a disaster. Even the most pro-Russian coal miner in Donezk will give more than just a second thought to whether, as usual, load kids and mother-in-law into his Lada to drive to Crimea this summer..,
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2014, 11:38:53 AM »

Time for another map: These are the "yes" votes on the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, which obviously implied separation from Russia:


Even Crimea voted 54% "yes" vs. 42% "no" (and that was at a time when most of the Tartars hadn't returned yet).
Can we please once and for all stop with the myth of Crimea just having become part of Ukraine, and against their will being separated from Russia, by some historical accident back in 1954.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2014, 12:23:24 PM »

That was 23 years ago. It's possible that even with the Tatars that Crimea would want to separate.
Yes, I agree. The current will of the people on Crimea (to the extent circumstances allow for a representative assessment of their will, which I have some doubts about) needs to be respected. But a lot of the discussion is about historical claims, and in this respect, a referendum 23 years ago is more significant that political decisions taken in Moscow between 1921 and 1954.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 14 queries.