tdaxp

"Ukraine vs. The Ukraine," by Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, 30 November 2006, http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/10/28/ukraine-belongs-in-europe.html.

The name of a certain European country is in the news:

A Seventh Circuit opinion remarks on what to call the country (which happens to be where I was born, though it wasn't an independent country back then):

There continues to be confusion over whether to use the article “the” in connection with “Ukraine.” In the briefs, Gutnik’s counsel uses “the Ukraine,” while the government uses “Ukraine.” Likewise, at joint remarks in January 2005, Vice President Cheney used “the Ukraine,” while President Yushchenko, the elected leader of the country, used “Ukraine.” See Press Release, Office of the Vice President, Vice President’s Remarks with Ukrainian President Yushchenko (Jan. 26, 2005) (Villa Decius, Krakow, Poland). We will use Ukraine, which is not only correct but is also preferred by Ukrainians themselves, see Associated Press, Terminology of Nationalism, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 1991, at A10, and is the grammatically consistent choice, see Andrew Gregorovich, Ukraine or “The Ukraine”?, FORUM Ukrainian Review No. 90, Spring/Summer 1994.

I say "The Ukraine," because that's how I learned it; I take it Cheney learned it this way, too. Interestingly, though Russian doesn't have articles such as "the," there's a similar controversy there — for most areas, you'd say something is in the area ("v Pol'she, v Angl'ii," "v" meaning "in"), but for the Ukraine, you'd say something is on it ("na Ukrain'e," "na" meaning "on"), or at least that's how you said it when I was growing up during the Soviet era. Nor was it just a country vs. area-in-a-country distinction; you'd say "v Litv'e," or "v B'elorussii," but "na Ukrain'e").

Catholicgauze, meanwhile, is standing against the tide of linguistic history.

Mark at Zenpundit linked to my better posts on 4GW. This post is an attempt to explore the evolutio of Fourth Generation War and how it may be fought today. The post is based on The Sling and the Stone, as well as a blog article I can no longer find. Basically, I'm thinking out loud.

4GW way invented by Mao. Roughly it had three stages

1. Terrorize the Government
   
2. Contest Land
   
3. Seize the Government
   

Different parts of the country may be in different stages at the same time. This continues until victory. It may be shown as



It worked. The Communists won.

This is not a perfect diagram. It is possible to enter 4GWS3, fail, go back to 4GWS2, and try again. But the chart gives a good idea of the stages involved.

The Vietnam Wars were also 4GW. Ho's contribution was to add a new component -- a political effort against the distant enemy. He directy targeted the politics of his enemy's homelands. He told the Left that his cause was just ("They are brutally fighting poor revolutionaries!"), and the right that his opponents were not anti-Left enough ("They are corrupt and take money meant for anti-Revolutionary activities!").



It worked. The Communists won.

Ortega's Sandinistas in Nicaragua were the next to try 4GW. And again, they changed it. The swapped the final conquest for coalition politics. This allowed them to take Nicaragua with little conventional fighting. That they lied to their coalition partners and kept power for themselves is irrelevent.



It worked. The Communists won.

Now comes the greatest departure. The Sandinistas jettisoned 4GWS3. The Infifada Palestinians would ignore 4GWS1. The first Palestinian uprising saw neither final battles nor government terrorizing. It saw contest land (stone throwing teens keeping Israeli Defense Forces out of refugee camps) and political efforts against distant enemies (propoganda aimed at world opinion and the Israeli Left). It took decades less time than Mao's or Ho's version, and years less than Ortega's, but it worked. This refinement, which Colonel Hammes still calls 4GW, looks like



The Israelis lost, but the fighters did not win. The hard-won land was given to Yasser Arafat's corrupt regime which proved worse than the Israelis. No peace treaty was signed and progress was lost. But the Infitida drove the Israelis out of the West Bank.

Perhaps a victory could have been won if there was true coalition politics, instead of a spontaneous movement and then Arafat. Perhaps if the political effort and coalition forming had preceeded the Intifadah it might have been successful. It would have looked like:



This last graphic describes Ukraine's Orange Revolution.

First, a foreign enemy was politically attacked while coalitions were formed. Year's of criticism against Yelstin's and Putin's Russia delegitimized Kuchma's Ukraine's main sponsor. These attacks occured in Ukrainian and Western media. Hand-in-hand with this, would-be revolutionists formed common bonds. Alliances were formed between regime elements like Yushchenko, antiregimists like Yulia Tymoshenko, and most other Ukrainian-language organizations.

Both efforts manifested themselves in Leonid Kuchma's choice of Victor Yanukovich as his successor. Successful political efforts to weaken Kuchma meant he had to rely more on Russia and the Russian-speaking east. However, successful efforts to weaken Russia meant this support was observed skeptically by the Ukrainian people.

The last stage was contested terrority. Kiev and other cities were contested as Palestinian refugee camps were. Popular on-the-ground organizations prevented the police from doing their job. At one point during the Orange Revolution Yushchenko appealed to his followers to let the President enter his own capital building. The country was never conquered, but the capital was fully contested by an unconventional force.

Also like the Palestinian Intifada, the Orange Revolution was short. Indeed, its successful use of coalition building (not to mention the absense of an Arafat equivalent) allowed the revolutionists to peacefully acquire their land more fully and quicker than the Palestinians were able.

The success of popular regime tranformation in Ukraine, George, and Kyrgyzstan shows that the formula can be repeated. .

I may be wrong. How?

"Tilting Westward," The Economist, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3599661, 27 January 2005.

"EU plans special envoy to help end Moldova strife," by Sebastian Alison, Reuters, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B686612.htm, 8 February 2005.

"Moldova Ends Iraq Mission," Baku Today, http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=12349, 10 February 2005.

Putin's incompetence sends another piece of the old Empire hurtling towards Brussels

When Victor Yushchenko won the Ukrainian presidency, many Russians declared that Russia had “lost” Ukraine thanks to western meddling. Yet in Moldova, Russia is proving quite capable of losing an ally without western help. Four years ago, Moldova's Communist Party won election by promising pro-Russian policies, including eventual union with Russia and Belarus. Now they are chasing re-election in March by promising pro-western policies, including integration with the European Union. They changed course because even they could not stomach Russia's strategy of keeping Moldova divided and weak.

If there was any hope for pro-Russia factions before the governments about-face, Romanian-Ukrainian joint action would torpedo it

A better and more open government in Moldova will deserve a lot more international help, starting with the neighbours. Romania is already offering diplomatic support. Ukraine could offer vital practical help. Transdniestria's smugglers and arms salesmen—the backbone of the economy, along with a big Ukrainian-owned steelworks—trade through Ukraine, especially via Odessa. The Ukrainian government could cripple Transdniestria by policing the common border tightly. But that would upset Ukrainians.

The now anti-Russian Communist Party decides on an election stunt: withdrawing all twelve soldiers from Iraq.

A group of 12 Moldovan minesweepers returned from Iraq Thursday, ending a six-month deployment in the US-led coalition forces, defense officials said here.

...

Moldova is in full swing of an election campaign ahead of parliamentary polls early next month and therefore the question of sending more troops to Iraq cannot be raised at the present time, the ministry said.

Europe worries about another "Kaliningrad," named after the Russian Baltic State spiraling into misery. Kaliningrad is surrounded by the EU already, and talk of geographical determinism certainly doesn't hurt Europe's case.

If Moldova is to achieve deep and irreversible change, however, the EU must offer it a clear path towards eventual membership. It has done this for the Balkan countries, which are no more European and no less troubled than Moldova. Its reluctance to talk of membership for Ukraine looks short-sighted: when Ukraine joins the queue, geography will dictate giving a place to Moldova too. The sooner the process is started, the less the danger of either country wobbling off-course.

This assumes that the Transdniestrian problem will, in effect, solve itself, as the future benefits of EU integration outweigh those of separatism. But Russia will be a big obstacle. At worst, it might even step up its military presence in Transdniestria, to make a second Kaliningrad: a Russian fortress in south-east Europe. The best counter-strategy would be to confront the Russians openly over what they are protecting in Transdniestria: a big, ugly smuggling racket, with a piece of land attached. Even Russia may not want to spend too much political capital in such a cause.

To head it off, the EU prepares for peaceful annexation

The European Union plans to appoint a special envoy to Moldova to help end a frozen conflict in the breakaway Dnestr region as EU interest in the tiny ex-Soviet state picks up, diplomats said on Tuesday.

The move signals Brussels' desire to bring about an end to the disputed Russian military presence in Europe's poorest country before Moldova's neighbour Romania joins the EU in 2007.

"There is no doubt that there is an increase in interest and attention in Moldova," Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, told Reuters. "The role of the European Union can only be useful."

More and better connectivity with Brussels than Moscow. The EU is useful as a force for Russian dissolution.

"Photo Album," Yulia Timoshenko - personal web site, http://www.tymoshenko.com.ua/eng/photo/ (from South Dakota Politics).


The peacefully rising of the Ukrainian people, especially those in the Catholic west, called the "Orange Revolution" was important. The Clinton-McCain Statement was important. That Ukraine is now on the border of the future is important. Partially for democracy in that land. Partially for democracy throughout the former Soviet reich. And partially to bring the world Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko.

This photo, and more, available from Madame Prime Minister's gallery. Is it possible for any human being to be more like the ideal Dagny Taggart?

"McCain, Clinton Nominate Presidents of Georgia And Ukraine for Nobel Peace Prize," by Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Online Office and U.S. Senator John McCain, http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2005/2005126715.html and http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1509, 26 January 2005 (from South Dakota Politics).

Two politicians, neither of whom I want to be President, are both clear strategic thinkers. Either of them would be a good leader in the Global War on Terrorism

Both presidents have displayed a commitment to peace and the rule of law in removing authoritarian governments. Their leadership has allowed millions in Georgia and Ukraine to reclaim their democratic system and to build a society based on law and individual rights.

We believe that the actions of Presidents Saakashvili and Yushchenko testify to the power of peace and human rights in their battle against oppression. Recognizing these men with the Peace Prize would honor not only their historic roles in Georgia and Ukraine, but would also offer hope and inspiration to those seeking freedom in lands still denied it.

The peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine are heartening. It shows the continual yearning of eastern Europeans for democracy. From 1989 to 1991 they threw off the bonds of Communism. And now they are liberating themselves from goonish Russian influence. Perhaps soon the peaceful revolutions will spread to Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Muscovy itself.

Good for them. For the Clinton and McCain for coming together to reward them. And good for the world.