|
|
On May 13 2014 21:58 Fjodorov wrote:
Its interesting that many of the far-right extreme parties in europe, including the greek neo-nazis are supporting Putin and have friendly relations with him. How is Putin able to combine this with the rhetoric he is using regarding "fascists" and "nazis" in kyiv?
Yeah,that has been pointed out several times. The rhetoric is pretty ridiculous given the fact that the country itself is on a heavily nationalistic course. Putin has appealed to the "common people" of Europe several times now in his appearances and during the Crimea vote he actually tried to get many of Europe's right wing parties to "observe" the election.
Especially when it comes to antisemitism Russia should take a look at their own situation. The Jewish population of Russia went from about two million at the beginning of the 90's to about two hundred thousand now.
|
It might not be antisemitism as much as a malfunctioning economy.
Why would Jews stay in Russia when they have better options in America or Israel?
|
On May 14 2014 00:54 marigoldran wrote:
It might not be antisemitism as much as a malfunctioning economy.
Why would Jews stay in Russia when they have better options in America or Israel?
Emigration didn't occur to that degree in many Eastern European states, Turkey or other countries with similar standards of living. Not just Jews but minorities in Russia generally aren't off too well due to the heavily anti-liberal course of Russia over the last two decades.
|
|
|
Calling the Ukrainian government a a bunch of fascists thing is such hypocritical bullshit. Makes my blood boil...
How about a speaker at DPR meeting giving a fascist solute and receiving applause?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5b_1399979398
|
I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it.
It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.html
Any thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched.
He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper."
- there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate.
Going a bit too far:
"The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum."
- I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals.
|
On May 14 2014 01:13 Mc wrote:Calling the Ukrainian government a a bunch of fascists thing is such hypocritical bullshit. Makes my blood boil... How about a speaker at DPR meeting giving a fascist solute and receiving applause? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5b_1399979398
nice find. A small description. A young man in Makeevka says he talked to RNE members in Belarus who told them that Lukashenko will support Donbass. He tells people should not listen to provocateurs saying they would be left alone. And that Putin would support them too. He ends speech by "Glory to Donbass. Glory to Russia" while throwing up his hand in fascist manner.
|
On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals.
He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state.
Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better.
|
On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better.
Are you kidding? Please educate yourself at least a little bit on the history of the Ukraine. Do you think the Ukranian language was just made up 20 years ago?
|
On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better.
"Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation.
The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea.
|
@Cheerio/Ukrainians
What are your views on Ukraine minus Donbas/Lugansk? Is there a sentiment amongst some non-separatist/moderate Ukrainians that Ukraine would be better off without those regions?
I feel like Ukraine could move forward and attempt to become a functioning democracy without those primarily Russian-speaking regions. It'd be a tough pill to swallow, but I think it would bring stability. If you really want to become a European country, it's so much more difficult with the constant threat of Russian destabilization from those regions? Also, you wouldn't fluctuate every election from a pro-Russian government, to a pro-Ukrainian government and back. Clearly, this wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for Russian manipulation/propaganda, but you can't really stop or control that. Not to say that Russia wouldn't continue to destabilize Ukraine via other regions
(% speaking Ukrainian by region)
or using other methods. But overall I think it would make Ukraine more resilient to Russian meddling.
Your thoughts?
|
Wasn't that same argument made when it was just Crimea?
|
This "historically I owned it, so now I want it back!" logic is ridiculously stupid. With the same right Turkey could claim Crimea because it belonged to the Osman empire for ages, before the majority of Tatar population was deported. Everyone could practically claim everything. It was a huge step forward when people actually decided that this kind of logic is not leading anywhere.
|
On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea.
Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding.
In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now.
|
On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better.
Yeah Ukraine is such an artificial state.
I can educate you boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution Must read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#The_19th_century
The history of Ukraine, a nation and ethnicity highly contested by everyone, always been under someone rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
It's so funny that some supposed Ukrainians were waiving flags of Stalin, either they aren't Ukrainians, or descendants of Russians, or dumb people who don't even know their own history. Stalin was as mad and as bad as Hitler was and seing people waving his portrait is imo the same as waving Hitler's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Early_history:_Early_settlement_and_Novorossiya
I will pick a good one for you:
+ Show Spoiler +The territory of Ukraine was a battlefield during the World War II, and its population, including Russians, significantly decreased. The infrastructure was heavily damaged and it required human and capital resources to be rebuilt. This compounded with depopulation caused by two famines of 1931–1932 and a third in 1947 to leave the territory with a greatly reduced population. A large portion of the wave of new migrants to industrialize, integrate and Sovietize the recently acquired western Ukrainian territories were ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial centers and military garrisons.[14] This increased the proportion of the Russian speaking population.
Near the end of the War, the entire population of Crimean Tatars (numbering up to a quarter of a million) was expelled from their homeland in Crimea to Central Asia, under accusations of collaborations with Germans.[15][16] The Crimea was repopulated by the new wave of Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the Russian proportion of the population of Crimea went up significantly (from 47.7% in 1937 to 61.6% in 1993) and the Ukrainian proportion doubled (12.8% in 1937 and 23.6% in 1993).[17]
The Ukrainian language remained a mandatory subject of study in all Russian schools, but in many government offices preference was given to the Russian language that gave an additional impetus to the advancement of Russification. The 1979 census showed that only one third of ethnic Russians spoke the Ukrainian language fluently.[6]
It's not that he misses a point, it's just that you don't have a real point because you are using the same imaginary facts hence disinformation Putin and his lackeys use.
|
On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:
He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state.
Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better.
Wow, just wow. None of those were truly artificial states. You can kind of tell by the way that they didn't have straight lines that is characteristic of true artificial states. Divided in nationalities, but to say there is no historical precedent for any of them is just ignoring the entirety of European history. Belgium, UK, Spain, and probably every large European country all have or used to be considered to have different ethnic groups in them; just because you gave examplesof those that were divided due to ethnic or linguistical tensions or strife does not an artificial or failed state make.
|
On May 14 2014 04:14 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. Yeah Ukraine is such an artificial state. I can educate you boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution Must read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#The_19th_centuryThe history of Ukraine, a nation and ethnicity highly contested by everyone, always been under someone rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorIt's so funny that some supposed Ukrainians were waiving flags of Stalin, either they aren't Ukrainians, or descendants of Russians, or dumb people who don't even know their own history. Stalin was as mad and as bad as Hitler was and seing people waving his portrait is imo the same as waving Hitler's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Early_history:_Early_settlement_and_NovorossiyaI will pick a good one for you: + Show Spoiler +The territory of Ukraine was a battlefield during the World War II, and its population, including Russians, significantly decreased. The infrastructure was heavily damaged and it required human and capital resources to be rebuilt. This compounded with depopulation caused by two famines of 1931–1932 and a third in 1947 to leave the territory with a greatly reduced population. A large portion of the wave of new migrants to industrialize, integrate and Sovietize the recently acquired western Ukrainian territories were ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial centers and military garrisons.[14] This increased the proportion of the Russian speaking population.
Near the end of the War, the entire population of Crimean Tatars (numbering up to a quarter of a million) was expelled from their homeland in Crimea to Central Asia, under accusations of collaborations with Germans.[15][16] The Crimea was repopulated by the new wave of Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the Russian proportion of the population of Crimea went up significantly (from 47.7% in 1937 to 61.6% in 1993) and the Ukrainian proportion doubled (12.8% in 1937 and 23.6% in 1993).[17]
The Ukrainian language remained a mandatory subject of study in all Russian schools, but in many government offices preference was given to the Russian language that gave an additional impetus to the advancement of Russification. The 1979 census showed that only one third of ethnic Russians spoke the Ukrainian language fluently.[6] It's not that he misses a point, it's just that you don't have a real point because you are using the same imaginary facts hence disinformation Putin and his lackeys use.
You know, by a similar argument you could easily argue that Russia is an artificial state too!
Russia is composed of many ethnicities that are non-slavic. Large sections of Russia's east is of Mongolian descent. Areas around Chechnya and Georgia are Muslim and non-Slavic, which Moscow is still having trouble with. The areas near Central Asia are of pre-Ottoman Turkish descent. Russia as a nation didn't really exist until the 18th century.
By the same argument you can easily claim Russia is an artificial country, and thus break Russia apart into lots of smaller countries.
"Ethnic self-determination" is REALLY not an argument Moscow should use.
|
On May 14 2014 04:14 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. Yeah Ukraine is such an artificial state. I can educate you boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution Must read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#The_19th_centuryThe history of Ukraine, a nation and ethnicity highly contested by everyone, always been under someone rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorIt's so funny that some supposed Ukrainians were waiving flags of Stalin, either they aren't Ukrainians, or descendants of Russians, or dumb people who don't even know their own history. Stalin was as mad and as bad as Hitler was and seing people waving his portrait is imo the same as waving Hitler's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Early_history:_Early_settlement_and_NovorossiyaI will pick a good one for you: + Show Spoiler +The territory of Ukraine was a battlefield during the World War II, and its population, including Russians, significantly decreased. The infrastructure was heavily damaged and it required human and capital resources to be rebuilt. This compounded with depopulation caused by two famines of 1931–1932 and a third in 1947 to leave the territory with a greatly reduced population. A large portion of the wave of new migrants to industrialize, integrate and Sovietize the recently acquired western Ukrainian territories were ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial centers and military garrisons.[14] This increased the proportion of the Russian speaking population.
Near the end of the War, the entire population of Crimean Tatars (numbering up to a quarter of a million) was expelled from their homeland in Crimea to Central Asia, under accusations of collaborations with Germans.[15][16] The Crimea was repopulated by the new wave of Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the Russian proportion of the population of Crimea went up significantly (from 47.7% in 1937 to 61.6% in 1993) and the Ukrainian proportion doubled (12.8% in 1937 and 23.6% in 1993).[17]
The Ukrainian language remained a mandatory subject of study in all Russian schools, but in many government offices preference was given to the Russian language that gave an additional impetus to the advancement of Russification. The 1979 census showed that only one third of ethnic Russians spoke the Ukrainian language fluently.[6] It's not that he misses a point, it's just that you don't have a real point because you are using the same imaginary facts hence disinformation Putin and his lackeys use.
Thank you for the Wikipedia education.
As you can see in your own links, Ukraine, even on paper only started it's existence in the 20th Century. The closest we've got is Zaporozhye and that state does not directly precede modern Ukraine.
You think if I'm calling Ukraine an artificial state I'm saying it has no right to exist. Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity did not go through the organic stabilisation and establishment that defines other nation states in Europe, just like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia (as a whole, not separately).
In 1991 they inherited national borders that were never meant to function as such. There's hardly any debate to that.
|
On May 14 2014 04:46 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 04:14 Acertos wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. Yeah Ukraine is such an artificial state. I can educate you boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution Must read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#The_19th_centuryThe history of Ukraine, a nation and ethnicity highly contested by everyone, always been under someone rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorIt's so funny that some supposed Ukrainians were waiving flags of Stalin, either they aren't Ukrainians, or descendants of Russians, or dumb people who don't even know their own history. Stalin was as mad and as bad as Hitler was and seing people waving his portrait is imo the same as waving Hitler's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Early_history:_Early_settlement_and_NovorossiyaI will pick a good one for you: + Show Spoiler +The territory of Ukraine was a battlefield during the World War II, and its population, including Russians, significantly decreased. The infrastructure was heavily damaged and it required human and capital resources to be rebuilt. This compounded with depopulation caused by two famines of 1931–1932 and a third in 1947 to leave the territory with a greatly reduced population. A large portion of the wave of new migrants to industrialize, integrate and Sovietize the recently acquired western Ukrainian territories were ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial centers and military garrisons.[14] This increased the proportion of the Russian speaking population.
Near the end of the War, the entire population of Crimean Tatars (numbering up to a quarter of a million) was expelled from their homeland in Crimea to Central Asia, under accusations of collaborations with Germans.[15][16] The Crimea was repopulated by the new wave of Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the Russian proportion of the population of Crimea went up significantly (from 47.7% in 1937 to 61.6% in 1993) and the Ukrainian proportion doubled (12.8% in 1937 and 23.6% in 1993).[17]
The Ukrainian language remained a mandatory subject of study in all Russian schools, but in many government offices preference was given to the Russian language that gave an additional impetus to the advancement of Russification. The 1979 census showed that only one third of ethnic Russians spoke the Ukrainian language fluently.[6] It's not that he misses a point, it's just that you don't have a real point because you are using the same imaginary facts hence disinformation Putin and his lackeys use. Thank you for the Wikipedia education. As you can see in your own links, Ukraine, even on paper only started it's existence in the 20th Century. The closest we've got is Zaporozhye and that state does not directly precede modern Ukraine. You think if I'm calling Ukraine an artificial state I'm saying it has no right to exist. Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity did not go through the organic stabilisation and establishment that defines other nation states in Europe, just like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia (as a whole, not separately). In 1991 they inherited national borders that were never meant to function as such. There's hardly any debate to that.
Put on a helmet, because I'm about to BLOW YOUR MIND!
All borders are artificial
|
On May 14 2014 04:46 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 04:14 Acertos wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. Yeah Ukraine is such an artificial state. I can educate you boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution Must read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#The_19th_centuryThe history of Ukraine, a nation and ethnicity highly contested by everyone, always been under someone rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorIt's so funny that some supposed Ukrainians were waiving flags of Stalin, either they aren't Ukrainians, or descendants of Russians, or dumb people who don't even know their own history. Stalin was as mad and as bad as Hitler was and seing people waving his portrait is imo the same as waving Hitler's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Early_history:_Early_settlement_and_NovorossiyaI will pick a good one for you: + Show Spoiler +The territory of Ukraine was a battlefield during the World War II, and its population, including Russians, significantly decreased. The infrastructure was heavily damaged and it required human and capital resources to be rebuilt. This compounded with depopulation caused by two famines of 1931–1932 and a third in 1947 to leave the territory with a greatly reduced population. A large portion of the wave of new migrants to industrialize, integrate and Sovietize the recently acquired western Ukrainian territories were ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial centers and military garrisons.[14] This increased the proportion of the Russian speaking population.
Near the end of the War, the entire population of Crimean Tatars (numbering up to a quarter of a million) was expelled from their homeland in Crimea to Central Asia, under accusations of collaborations with Germans.[15][16] The Crimea was repopulated by the new wave of Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the Russian proportion of the population of Crimea went up significantly (from 47.7% in 1937 to 61.6% in 1993) and the Ukrainian proportion doubled (12.8% in 1937 and 23.6% in 1993).[17]
The Ukrainian language remained a mandatory subject of study in all Russian schools, but in many government offices preference was given to the Russian language that gave an additional impetus to the advancement of Russification. The 1979 census showed that only one third of ethnic Russians spoke the Ukrainian language fluently.[6] It's not that he misses a point, it's just that you don't have a real point because you are using the same imaginary facts hence disinformation Putin and his lackeys use. Thank you for the Wikipedia education. As you can see in your own links, Ukraine, even on paper only started it's existence in the 20th Century. The closest we've got is Zaporozhye and that state does not directly precede modern Ukraine. You think if I'm calling Ukraine an artificial state I'm saying it has no right to exist. Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity did not go through the organic stabilisation and establishment that defines other nation states in Europe, just like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia (as a whole, not separately). In 1991 they inherited national borders that were never meant to function as such. There's hardly any debate to that.
You have it the wrong way around. The Soviet Union was the artificial state. That's why it collapsed. Kiev is actually older than Moscow. Ukraine as a cultural identity dates back several hundred, to maybe a thousand, years. The fact that it, for the most of the time, has been under the influence of several kinds of Russian empires does not make it artificial. It's like arguing that India is just artificial because it belonged to the British empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
