Posted on 03/02/2014 5:43:04 AM PST by Kaslin
Ukraine is in the news and that’s not a good thing.
I’m not a foreign policy expert, to be sure, but it can’t be a positive sign when nations with nuclear weapons start squabbling with each other. And that’s what’s happening now that Russia is supposedly occupying Crimea and perhaps other parts of Ukraine and Western powers are complaining.
I’m going to add my two cents to this issue, but I’m going to approach it from an unusual angle.
Look at this linguistic map of Ukraine. The red parts of the country show where Russian is the primary language and most people presumably are ethnically Russian.
Now look at these maps (from here, here, here, and here) showing various election results in the country.
Like I said, I’m not overly literate on foreign policy, but isn’t it obvious that the Ukrainians and the Russians have fundamentally different preferences?
No wonder there’s conflict.
But is there a solution? And one that doesn’t involve Putin annexing – either de facto or de jure – the southern and eastern portions of the nation?
It seems there are two options.
1. Secession - The first possibility is to let the two parts of Ukraine have an amicable (or at least non-violent) divorce. That’s what happened to the former Soviet Union. It’s what happened with Czechoslovakia became Slovakia and the Czech Republic. And it’s what happened (albeit with lots of violence) when Yugoslavia broke up.
For what it’s worth, I’ve already suggested that Belgium should split into two nations because of linguistic and cultural differences. So why not the same in Ukraine?
Heck, Walter Williams has argued that the same thing should happen in America, with the pro-liberty parts of the nation seceding from the statist regions.
2. Decentralization - The second possibility is for Ukraine to copy the Swiss model of radical decentralization. In Switzerland, even though there are French cantons, German cantons, and an Italian canton, the various regions of the country don’t squabble with each other because the central government is relatively powerless.
This approach obviously is more attractive than secession for folks who think that existing national borders should be sacrosanct.
And since this post is motivated by the turmoil in Ukraine, it’s worth pointing out that this also seems to be a logical way of defusing tensions across regions.
I confess I have a policy reason for supporting weaker national governments. Simply stated, there’s very strong evidence that decentralization means more tax competition, and when governments are forced to compete for jobs and investment, the economy is less likely to be burdened with high tax rates and excessive redistribution.
Indeed, we also have very strong evidence that the western world became prosperous precisely because the proliferation of small nations and principalities restrained the natural tendencies of governments to oppress and restrain economic activity.
And since Ukraine (notwithstanding it’s flat tax) has a very statist economic system – ranking only 126th in the Economic Freedom of the World index, maybe a bit of internal competition would trigger some much-needed liberalization.
P.S. If you’re intrigued by the secession idea promoted by Walter Williams, you’ll definitely enjoy this bit of humor about a national divorce in the United States.
P.P.S. If you think decentralization and federalism is a better option than secession, the good news is that more and more Americans have unfavorable views of Washington.
P.P.P.S. The tiny nation of Liechtenstein is comprised of seven villages and they have an explicit right to secede if they become unhappy with the central government in Vaduz. And even the statist political crowd in the United Kingdom is considering a bit of federalism.
Henry Wallace, the Vice President during FDR's third term, was a real doozy--if FDR had died a year earlier and Wallace had then won the 1944 election, there would have been no Cold War because Wallace would have done everything Stalin wanted.
Your points are all valid and consonant with mainstream explanations of Yalta. Red Army occupation of Eastern Europe, coupled with FDR’s desire to move along, was the decisive factor there; Putin did not miss the lesson.
Whether it mattered more that FDR wanted to placate Polish-American voters, or he was following Stalin’s advice via Alger Hiss is hard to say. The amazing thing is that Stalin could keep a straight face while pretending it was a concession to expand a Poland he knew he would control. (Perhaps FDR gets the Oscar for acting like he didn’t know every bit of it.)
You have no doubt seen claims that FDR thought he could win Stalin’s trust by giving him everything he could want. I do not know if that was true, but Obama seems to like the concept.
Some of the bad deals at Yalta were a result of FDR's earlier failures to drive hard bargains, going back at least to the Teheran conference of December 1943 (the same month as our traitorous Secretary of State was born).
Obama's weakness is much less excusable--he inherited a position of relative strength, and had the history of the last 70+ years to learn from. Plus at least FDR was getting Stalin's help in beating Nazi Germany--all those Soviet soldiers killed meant fewer Americans had to die in the war. So at least there was a short-term benefit even if it created problems for the post-war world.
If there is partition then ethnic cleansing will follow. Thanks Putin and Obama.
similar, but not the same. Imagine if the US had been colonized by Mexico for 300 years and then the analogy is complete
To understand this, you need to go back to the 13th century. At that time there was Kievan Rus, a group of duchies in what is now ukraine, Belarus and western Russia.
They battled against the Khazars, byzantines, poles, bulgarians etc. but they were destroyed by the Mongol invasion
THAT was the start of the separation of "Russians" (more properly called Muscowites), Belarusyni and Ruthenians (Ukrainians).
Moscow in the 13th century was an outpost of the state of Vladimir-suzdal and got it's prominence by agreeing to be the tax-collector for the Great Khan.
As the Mongol power waned, the Lithianian Grand Dukes (pagans) came to power and took over western Ukraine and Belarus.
Then in 1410 they joined with the POles to form the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (a multi-national state that was larger than the Holy Roman Empire at that time).
As time went by the BElarusyni were under Lithianian 'control' but really ruled themselves while the Ukrainians merged with the Poles -- the upper classes became polish while the lower stayed Ruthenian (the languages are roughly compatible, roughly like Flemish and English)
Moscow on the other hand grew in power as a tax collector and then 100 years later threw off the Mongol yoke. ARguably they absorbed a lot of the Mongol system of governance while the Ruthenians/Ukrainians absorbed Poland's chaotic democracy.
The Muscowites then, after the fall of Constantinople, decided that they were not only the "third Rome" but they also had the divine task of "the gathering of the Rus" -- gathering all the Eastern Slavs (and then all the Eastern Orthodox) under Caesar/Tsar.
In the 1700s the Cossacks in what is now Ukraine revolted against the Poles but jumped out of the Polish sizzling pan into the Russian fire. They wanted to keep their culture and language intact but Polish culture and langauge was too advanced and culturally compelling. Russian on the other hand was not so advanced but had a state that didn't care about human life.
and that was Ukraine's faith for 200 years, slowly Russified
The "Russians" in the Ukraine are those who speak the Russian language while Ukrainians are mainly just based on language.
Ukraine never had a chance to build up a higher culture as it was surrounded by more advanced cultures...
ah! so Ukrainians are stupid, a bit backward wouldn't you say? Makes sense though since other cultures stole from them.
Unlike what you think, Ukrainians are NOT stupid - by "higher culture" I meant literature, composers, poets etc. -- Ukraine has a lot of diverse and RICH folk culture, and if the Mongols had not invaded, they would have developed the literature etc.
But they didn't get the chance.
"Other cultures stole from them" -- incorrect. The Russian culture see's itself as an extension of, or a greater part of Ukrainian culture -- it is as a whole, Eastern Slavic culture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
