Names of Ukraine

 

In my previous article I mentioned how Russia insisted that Ukraine stopped using name Rus' for itself. Khmelnitsky only agreed to it out of necessity and used a cumbersome name of Territory of All Great Zaporozhian Army for the country. Very likely they intended to resume calling themselves Rus' once they untangled themselves from Moscow.

However, time went on and countries around them got accustomed to call former Muscovy Russia. That trend only grew stronger when Russia moved its capital to St Petersburg. By 19th century of Nationalism calling Ukraine Rus would be understood as not as sovereignty and independence affirming but rather pro-Russian. Thus, Ukrainian nationalists needed a new independence affirming name to call their country by.

For its part Russia decided to call this land Malorossia, lesser Russia, while calling areas around Moscow and St Petersburg Velikorossia, Greater Russia. It mirrored Polish approach where areas around old capital Cracow were called Malopolska and areas around new capital, Warsaw, Welikopolska. That echoed Russian view on the history where Kyiv was original capital of Russian state and Moscow was next one. In addition to Malorossia and Velikorossia they also had Belorussia (modern Belarus) and Novorossia (modern southern Ukraine that they took from Ottomans and Crimean Tatars).

Ukrainians however found this term derogatory and contrary to their nationhood aspirations and refused to use it. Eventually as 19th century progressed, Ukrainian nationalists settled on the name Ukraine. 

However, what this name means and how they got it. There could be several theories for that. 

One is that this name is an evolution of the word Okraina that means Borderlands or Fringe lands. That however is unlikely, as from Ukrainian point of view their country is located rather centrally between Tatars and Turks to the south, Europeans to the west and Muscovites to the northeast. Someone even suggests calling the country Central Consular Republic when Ukraine regained its independence in 1991.

However, there is one area in modern Ukraine where that word indeed could have mean Borderlands or Fringes and that is Kharkiv. That area is also known as Sloboda Ukraine or Slobozhanschina and was first to use this term for itself. Sloboda Ukraine was started by then Muscovite government on its southern borders for settlers from other parts of both Muscovy itself as well as Poland. Because of that such etymology would make sense for this area in particular.

It might as well be that this term gradually spread to the rest of what is now Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalists simply stole it from this area and begun using it to call their country.

Yet I have yet another theory for the name origin. The name simply means "in the country" U Krainy in Ukrainian language. "V Kraiyu" in Russian for those who do not understand Ukrainian. 

While that sounds rather far-fetched there are other name places with very similar etymology. For example, Istanbul in Turkey originated from a phrase "is tam pol" which meant "to the city", at that time named Constantinople or Kostantiniyye. Eventually informal phrase that was frequently used by the residents became the official name.

In case of Ukraine Cossacks in Sich likely used phrase "in the country" frequently. Cossacks regularly moved between the settled areas in the north and Sich in the south, thus a simple way of referring to either of these areas was needed. It was used to refer to things peculiar to life in the settled civilized area as well as when talking about girlfriends, families and relatives that were left behind "in the country". In contrast "U Sichi" or "U Stepi" would be used to refer to life in the wild steppes. Overtime phrase "U Krainy" came to be understood not as phrase but as a name of the country.

A final note. The paragraph above does not necessary negates etymology for Slobozhanschina area of Ukraine. It is possible that Slobozhanshina came up for a name for itself in 17th century based on the meaning of borderlands. Later the rest of Ukraine in 19th century came up with near identical name entirely by accident based on its own reasons and etymology. Both words are based on rather simple common root word "Krai" that has many different meanings and used for variety of places in both Russia and Ukraine.

Khmelnitsky Uprising

Khmelnitsky Uprising was an event that in many ways defined modern Ukraine as the country we know today. Events and decisions of that time continue to echo in Ukraine even nowadays. There are many lies connected to these events as well. Russia twisted many historical facts to suit its imperial ambitions and misinterpreted these events as war for unification with Moscow rather than war for independence that it actually was. So here I will retell the story and connect it to modern times.

Before the uprising Bogdan Khmelnytsky was a nobleman in a Polish Lithuanian state, he owned land and was doing pretty well. However, some of his neighbors coveted his land and used their connection in the Commonwealth government to disposes Khmelnytsky. Frustrated Khmelnitsky decided not to take this offence lightly and due to lack of legal avenues to dispute it decided to rely on military force, Zaporozhian Cossacks. Khmelnitsky made his way into the Sich and convinced Cossacks to join his uprising against Polish Lithuanian government.

Zaporozhian Cossacks had their own grievances against the government. Number of Cossacks in Sich is ever increasing but government refuses to expand its payroll and pay them all, dividing Cossacks into paid registered Cossacks and unpaid unregistered ones. Appearance of Khmelnitsky galvanized them into action.

The final ingredient of the uprising was Crimean Tatars who also agreed to support Khmelnitsky and the Cossacks. Polish government paid Cossacks to keep Tatars at bay. However, Cossacks had more nuanced relationship with Tatars, with whom their shared steppe lifestyle and its many hardships as Polish government lived cozily in Warsaw. However, Tatars supported Cossacks mostly for the opportunity to pillage. Both Tatars and Cossacks supplemented their income with well-organized military raids on their many neighbors.

With that a joint Cossack-Tatar army took on the Polish Lithuanian State. At first demands of Cossacks and Khmelnitsky were modest. Khmelnitsky wanted his lands restored and Cossacks wanted to expand the register of Cossacks paid by Polish state to three times of it then current size. 

Polish state ignored them, believing their regular troops would me more than enough to stop them. They were not enough. After several victories over government Khmelnitsky managed to take Kyiv. That made him think that as things stands there is no point in asking for a few concessions from Polish state when he can have as state of his own. With that Khmelnitsky declared himself Hetman of all Rus'. Back then Ukraine was called Rus' and what is now Russia was called Muscovy.

War continued and ended with Khmelnitsky total victory. In a peace treaty Polish King had to recognize him as Hetman of Rus' on both left and right banks of Dnipro. That territory was less than what modern Ukraine, it notably excluded both Lviv and Kharkiv, has but was very significant. Happy End?

Not so much. Polish King used peace treaty as a stopgap measure to consolidate its military and strike a deal with Tatars. In less than year hostilities resumed, and this time joint Polish Tatar Army was pushing Cossacks back. Tatars found it convenient to play both sides against each other. Khmelnitsky tried to make Tatars switch back to his cause but ultimately failed. Eventually Tatars committed themselves to Polish cause of returning it all to how it was before the uprising.

Khmelnitsky urgently needed something to supplement his army instead treacherous Tatars. If he would not find some help urgently, Poles would win and hang him and his close allies in the middle of Kyiv. There was only one other force in the area that could be willing to lend soldiers to his cause and that was Muscovy.

Moscow was a longtime rival of Polish Lithuanian State and fought many wars against them. Most of these typically end up in Smolensk switching sides again and again and sometimes with other minor territorial adjustments. Smolensk was changing countries near as regularly as US changes its Presidents.

However, Moscow wanted much more than just Smolensk but could not win it with their own military alone. Because of that Khmelnitsky thought they would be willing to help Cossacks in exchange of some land from the Poles.

Khmelnitsky send his envoys to Moscow in an attempt to negotiate an alliance. That went not so well. It's not that Moscow was not willing to help but it was the conditions they placed on their help. Moscow seemed realized that Khmelnitsky is desperate, so they decided to demand a lot.

Moscow Knyaz recently started calling himself Tsar of All Rus and therefore wished to annex all former lands of the former Rus of the past, including the entirety Khmelnitsky's state. Khmelnitsky of course would not just hand it over.

However, Moscow could not beat Poland without Cossacks just as much as Khmelnitsky could not win against Polish Tatar joint army on his own. Thus, after extensive negotiations and compromise finding they reached a deal.

The deal functioned much like Hong Kong in one country two systems arrangement with China. Tsar would appoint Hetman of Zaporozhian army but only out of people elected by Cossack elders. Hetman would be subordinate to Tsar but be free to run his country as he sees fit. There is a lot more in that document. 

Moscow insisted that population of territory under Hetman control will swear allegiance to the Tsar, the part of the Pereiaslav Agreement that Russia later glorified as proof of "voluntary" union as they carefully overlooked the rest of the agreement.

One peculiar detail that important even today is the fact that Moscow insisted that Hetman do not call his country Rus' as they did not want there to be two Rus' like North and South Korea. Thus, in agreement, it is called Territory of All Great Zaporozhian Army. A clear snub wording from a Hetman that shows he is only signing it for the lack of better options. Historians typically call this state Hetmanate.

Moscow aims with the treaty were to eventually annex all of the Ukraine. They viewed the agreement as a temporary concession to Cossacks and Khmelnitsky and planned to later phase out Hetman and Cossacks and turn their territory into regular provinces.

Cossacks plans were even simpler. They though to promise just enough to get Moscow Army on their side and once it's all over and they win to simply screw the Muscovites. Because what they going to do about that: invade and fight Cossacks on their own soil?

Despite that the agreement worked and Moscow army joined Cossacks in their war. The war soon turned much bigger that either Khmelnitsky or Moscow has anticipated. At one point Sweden and Moscow nearly conquered all of Poland Lithuania but then Moscow went against Swedes helped Poles to regain their land. At the same time Ottoman Empire with its vassals interfered. The Deluge as Poles called it needs its own article to fully cover it.

Concerning Ukraine in particular sometime during the Deluge Moscow and Poland made a deal to split Ukraine along the Dnipro and eventually made it official in Treaty of Andrusovo. Cossacks felt betrayed because they were not even involved in the negotiations or signing. In contrast Moscow managed to make its vision of annexation of Ukraine closer to reality by making Poland treat Cossacks as mere subordinates who have no say in geo-political matters.

Split Hetmanate was much weaker than in its original borders. Both left and right back had their own Hetman who controlled half to Cossack army each. Neither or these halves were strong to take on either Poland or Muscovy on its own. At times Cossacks tried to elect the same Hetman on both sides to unite the Hetmanate, but Moscow and Poland would interfere and prevent him from taking control. At one point even Ottomans would interfere on behalf of Cossacks. Overall peace between Poland and Muscovy meant a civil war between Cossacks and therefore called The_Ruin. 

However, while foreign powers did meddle in Hetmanate affairs, local ambitious leaders squabbled with each other and often allied themselves with either Poland, Russia or even Ottomans to help them take control of the whole Hetmanate. All that further fumed the flames of war during The Ruin. At the end of Ruin Hetmanate was still divided on the Dnipro River. Poland abolished Hetmanate on its right bank and Muscovy planned to do the same eventually.

The last major event that could have changed fate of Hetmanate was Great Northern War. When Charles XII of Sweden defeated Russian Army of Peter I of Russia. Then Hetman, Ivan Mazepa, thought it was his chance to realize the original goal of Khmelnitsky Uprising, independence. Charles XII did not want to control Hetman's territory and was happy to recognize independence of Hetmanate in exchange for Mazepa and Cossacks joining the war on his side. Mazepa had his deal.

However, things started to get worse from there on. Moscow influence in Hetmanate was already too strong, and too many Cossacks deserted Mazepa to Peter I army. Mazepa continued with the alliance though. 

Charles XII brought his army into Hetmanate to spend winter in resupply in Poltava, but city unexpectedly deserted to Peter I and let his army in before Charles XII and Mazepa armies could get inside. Charles XII then tried to take city by force and almost won, but to no avail. Charles XII escaped even if his army has surrendered to Peter I and Sweden effectively lost what is now St Peterburg, Riga, Estonia and eastern Latvia. 

Mazepa fled with Charles XII and without him or his supporters Hetmanate was at near complete mercy of Russians. Due to dysfunctionality of Russian state, Hetmanate continued semi-autonomous existence for another 60 years before it was gradually abolished and turned into regular Russian governorates.

Despite that idea that Ukraine is a separate country, and Ukrainians are separate people from Russians continued despite Russian efforts to promote unified identity. Eventually Ukraine re-emerged as an independent nation with a new name, as its original one because so associated with Muscovy that using it would give everyone false sense of loyalism to Moscow.

Differences between different Central Asian Ethnicities

Current borders and nations in central Asia exist only since 1930s and were created by USSR. It would be simple to dismiss them as simply Soviet invention yet, there is more to it than just that.

To begin with I need to point out that Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Turkmen are Turkic people or at least speak Turkic language. Their languages are partially mutually intelligible though there are some differences between them. 

Tajik is the only outlying language. It's an Iranic type language similar to Parsi one spoken in Iran or Kurdish. There are many speakers of this language in Afghanistan where it's called Dari. 

That explains what divides Tajiks from the rest, now I will explain what divides the rest of them from each other. I will begin with Uzbeks and Kazakhs. 

Both Uzbeks and Kazakhs are Turkic people, so they are pretty similar to each other in both appearance and culture. The difference is that Uzbeks adopted sedentary lifestyle much earlier than Kazakhs. They diverged in 12th to 15th century something. 

Uzbeks are those who settled in conquered fertile lands in the south that used to belong to Iranic people. Kazakh instead continued to lead nomadic life all the way until USSR decided to make them sedentary in 20th century. Due to long period of development in relative isolation from each other, there is some differences between Kazakh and Uzbek languages. Also, they belong to different branches of Turkic languages which possibly explains why Uzbeks would not want to share the lands they conquered with their northern cousins. 

Of all Central Asians, Kazakh have the most Sovietized culture. They are the most found of Soviet times as well. Kazakhs adopted a lot of Soviet culture and integrated it with their nomadic past into their current Kazakh cultural identity. In contrast Uzbeks cling towards their pre-Soviet identity with its Persianified culture and architecture they conquered from locals back in the days.

Tajiks are remnant of the conquered Iranic people, that before 10th century used to live in fertile lands between Syr Daria and Amu Daria as well as Ferghana Valley. However, after conquest Uzbeks partially displaced them and pushed them out into mountains in the east and south few of them left nowadays. That explains why Tajiks and Uzbeks are often live in the same areas and there is more overlapping between them than between other ethnic groups despite the biggest differences in language. Hard to tell how close Tajiks are to the original culture of these areas. It is very possible that their culture significantly changed since these times and morphed into something distinct under pressure from their Uzbek rulers.

Kyrgyz speak language of the same branch as Kazakhs and used to be nomadic until the USSR just as Kazakhs. That raises the obvious question of what makes them different from the latter. The reason Kyrgyz are not Kazakhs are the fact that back in the days Kyrgyz formed a strong tribal federation for the purpose of controlling fertile lands around Lake Issyk Kul. Lands around such large lake are fertile but there is not enough of them for every nomad out there. So, an alliance of 40 tribes decided to hog it all up for themselves. They later became Kyrgyz. Those the alliance pushed aside and kept away from the lake became Kazakhs. Of all Central Asians Kyrgyz are probably most traditional and have a lot of elements of traditional nomadic life such as Yurts, musical instruments and Mongol style hats.

Final and the strangest ethnicity of Central Asia are Turkmens. Likely they were former Iranic people who decided to adopt nomadic lifestyle and Turkic language after Uzbeks conquered the fertile lands. In that respect they are partially similar to Cossacks of Don and Zaporizhya. However, unlike Cossacks that only went nomad for practical reasons and maintained a culture and identity distinct from Turkic nomads around them, Turkmens seemed to be more found of nomadic life and wear their Turkness with pride. Turkmens are people from whom most of the strange and colorful cultural elements of Central Asia originate, like big hats of sheep skin and such.

More on The US Democratic Party

I thought about it more and reached a rather unorthodox conclusion on the US Democratic Party. The party was taken over by some radical insane cult. The cult works to silence its opponents and then propagate its brainwashing. It that was not the case then there would be no point in shutting down Bernie Sanders and other Social Democratic voices as ham-fistedly as they did. Someone who wants to represent population and win elections would not do something so deliberately hurtful to this goal. Yet Dems did it in 2016 and then again in 2024 The only explanation for their action was desire to force their views on people no matter if they want it or not.

Even the whole demeanor of Democratic Party and Harris supporters was dictatorial and preachy. They were not trying to win vote and convince you they will work for your interests. They were dictating their Orwellian views to the people they looked down upon. This was utterly disgusting and undemocratic. 

Internet comments in support of Harris were not much better. They too blame Trump, white men and what not. White men do not owe these woke cunts anything. We will not change to fit their stupid ideas on how men should be.

It almost felt we needed to vote Trump to save democracy, America and Western World as we know and love it.

Democratic Party is broken, possibly even beyond repair. If that is the case Social Democratic voters has to switch to a different party. Yang's Forward sound like a good choice. In fact, possibly even Republicans are better choice, at least while Trump leads them.

Why Russia is like Kodak

 

Recently I watched a documentary about Kodak and noticed some parallels with Russia. Many discissions Kodak executive made are similar to these Russian government does nowadays, just scaled down to their size and scope. Even very large corporations are much smaller than entire countries, their lifespan and impact on broader world is smaller as well. However, because of that they could serve as a model that emulates and predicts what will happen with other organizations in a similar situation.

Kodak actually invented digital camera, but its own management decided to bury the project and prevent it from seeing light of the day. A person who was behind this development later went to work for Apple and introduced digital camera with them instead.

In modern world digital cameras are ubiquitous and old film cameras are but 0.1% niche gimmick only few would bother with. From that perspective one can call decisions by Kodak executives to bury digital camera not only shortsighted but downright stupid. This decision turned a huge corporation with more than 90% market share into a bankrupt organization that is but shadow of its former self.

However, there is one little thing that explains why Kodak executives did what they did and that is money. Most of Kodak profits used to come from selling film for analogue cameras. A digital camera that does not need film would therefore jeopardize their profits. Sure, we now know that the future is with digital, Kodak executives probably knew that even back then. However, when it comes to a choice between profits now and being relevant somewhere down the line in future they choose the profits. Choose pretty much deliberately and with full understanding of the implications.

How all that relates to Russia. That is how: Just like Kodak executives' Russian leadership deliberately priorities their corrupt gains over the country future. They fully understand that their decisions condemn the country to a complete collapse in eventual future. However, they do not care that Russia falls sometime after they have plundered it and then retired with their ill-gotten gains to French Riviera or Chelsea borough of London.

Parallels do not end there. Just like Kodak shut down its digital camera project, Russian government shuts down any attempts to democratize the country, they kill whistleblowers as well. Just like with Kodak the only way forward is to leave the sinking ship and offer your ideas elsewhere.

That is not all. As surprising as its sounds back in the days in 18th century Russia actually was an innovative country where many exiles from Western Europe made name and fortune for themselves. Together they expanded once backward country on the edge of Europe into a huge superpower. Then in 19th century next generation of Russian rulers have forgotten these important lessons from its own very recent history. In 20th Lenin erased all remaining vestiges of the past as he attempted to modernize the country. 

Nowadays people think Russia always was big and important even if just 300 years ago it was much smaller and less significant than all three of its neighbors: Ottoman Empire, Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. 400 years ago, Russia almost ceased to exist.

US Democratic Party Problem

I write this before US 2024 presidential election have been called but Trump is clearly winning. The 2024 elections were full of nasty smear campaigns. Most importantly however there was no candidate that addressed any issues I cared for in any meaningful way. If they do not want to do anything I care for, why would I vote for any of them? 

World goes haywire, homelessness and poverty are rampart, housing is unavailable and unaffordable homeless build literal tent cities... So many pressing issues that has to be addressed urgently and all major candidates are talking about is abortion. So pathetically useless, so useless that vote for either of them is a vote wasted.

Here I can partly understand Republican Party, they supposedly represent a more well-off segment of society who does not suffer from these problems. Despite that Trump at least talks about these and many other problems that plagues the country.

The biggest issue is what Democrats are doing. Not only is they do not do anything, but they also even deliberately work to silence the problem, accusing those who talk about these issues of negativism or bigotry. Instead, they prefer to focus on token issues that anyone outside of privileged well-off section of society could not care less about.

Back in the 2016 they had Bernie Sanders who talked about these issues and wanted to address them when in office. Dems silenced him, removed from the race and ignored everything he was talking about as if it was some boogeyman. 

In 2016 Dems lost to Trump. It was a well-deserved loss for a deaf and blind party that ignores need of people it supposedly represents. They learned nothing from that but despite that ended up winning in 2020. Now they hope to win again in 2024.

Dems think the problem is in Trump but in reality, problem is with Dems themselves. The party is deeply out of tough from people it supposed to represent. Not even BBC could find enough difference in political stances of two candidates.

If people consistently vote for a person, you keep calling devil incarnate then it's not them who are stupid, it's you who do not understand or care for people or issues that matter to them. 

People voting for Trump does not mean they like Trump or even agree with him, it just means they hate him less than the Democratic candidate. Biden could win because there is nothing to hate him for. Hillary or Harris could not because they have nothing to offer the people, and they get endorsements from celebrities who spend more money on their hair than most earn a year. It's like Marie-Antoinette and her eat cakes.

Issue with parties being out of touch is not new, many parties suffer from such problem. However, the US Democrats are especially prone to being out of touch. One possible reason for that is that this party did not begun as a Socialist or Labour movement that represented people who work hourly wage and whose members are also worked hourly wage. FDR and his reforms were measures that benefitted working class, but they were measures from above: measures made by a person who himself was not a working-class person and had a socio-economic status and lifestyle much better than those of whom he helped.

After FDR Dems continued to sort of look after working class to keep themselves electable, but it was from the above. Overtime they grew to take working class vote for granted. They stop thinking of what these people need and instead begun to think in terms of what we want from them. They replaced care for actual working class with care for some token minorities, women and other such picture perfect disenfranchised that would make a champagne socialist look good among his peers. 

All the while a common average boring Walmart or McDonalds employee with an enormous debt is simply forgotten and ignored. However, these people are many and they matter because they vote. When you remove Bernie Sanders whom many of them supported, they were angry and voted against you. Now when you cannot cancel student debt and instead focus on abortion issue, they are angry again.

No matter how right maligned Obamacare, it actually helps a lot of people with their expenses on health and made many people more well off than what they were before. 

Ever since Obama there was not any proposal from Dems that would see significant portion of poor people being better off than what they were before him. Biden Administration tried to cancel some of student debt, but Supreme Court have blocked it. Kamala Harris have not mentioned what she will do to get it passed.

As a little final extra: Tweedledee and Tweedledum illustrates well how two main candidates differ from each other. I guess red one wins this time. I already mentioned somewhere how some of Kamala Harris speeches make you feel she is right wing candidate. She talks more of tax relief compared to student debt of minimal wage. In contrast Donald Trump feels very left wing when he criticizes establishment and the rich.

In a choice between bad and even worse than that, bad won. I am not sure if it's something worth celebrating though.

On Differences Between Max Stirner and Ayn Rand

It's more of a difference in perspective, however there are some substantial differences as well.

I did not read enough of Ayn Rand, but from what I can gather objectivism is just a narrow-minded perspective on work and business. Just a world view from a perspective of a business owner who thinks all he has is solely due to his own effort and overlooks other factors that contributed to that. In the end objectivism just underpins interests of business owners by wrapping them into a somewhat palatable ideology that would justify these interests as something good and benevolent and nothing else.

Any Rand saw Russian Revolution and grew to reject everything it was, the main beef was with Leninist. Thus, Ayn Rand created her philosophy out of rejection of everything USSR and Bolsheviks are. Its die-hard anti-Leninism to to be more preside a reversed Leninism: it's bad because Lenin said its good, its good because Lenin said its bad. Lenin's ideology boils down to benefit for the majority taken to the extreme end often absurd end. Rand replaces it with certain individuals are better than others and the rest should just exist to pave way for such individuals. She also takes this principle to the extreme even absurd end.

On one hand you can sympathize with Rand's opposition to abuses of Soviet approach but at the same time she justifies the abuses coming from the other end that led to October revolution in the first place.

In contrast Stirner's main issue was not with collectivism but with moral that dictates what one can or cannot do. Striner rejects moral and asserts completely unrestrained right to do whatever one wants. Unlike objectivism is not just about business owners and their needs but about everyone.

Stirner opposed to both, people Ayn Rand opposes, but also to people she hails as heroes. According to Stirner there is no need to listen to the likes of Ellsworth Toohey and do good for everyone. On the other hand, there is also no reason to not leech off Dagny Taggard and Hank Rearden if that is in your self-interest.