The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The Case for the Breakup of the Ukraine
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_154680077

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Just as the corporate media is not reporting that the USA and Russia are on a collision course which can end up in nuclear war, the corporate media is not reporting that the Ukraine is falling apart. That does not mean, however, that this is not happening. It is. In fact, it has been for a long while already, but since that collapse is smoothed out by a lack of military action and by the political support of the Empire, it does not appear to be catastrophic (in the sense of causing a sudden dramatic change). But the signs are all over the place, ranging from the outright bizarre attack by Ukronazi saboteurs on Crimea (which, besides the group which was caught also involved at least two other groups conducting a diversionary reconnaissance by fire against the northeast of the Peninsula) to the quasi daily reports of an “imminent”, but apparently never coming, Ukronazi attack against the Donbass. On the political front, the Ukrainian Jeanne d’Arc, Nadezhda Savchenko, is now accused of being a Putin agent because she advocates for negotiations with the DNR/LNR, while the regime in Kiev is trying to maintain its relevance to NATO hawks by offering to teach them “how to fight against the Russians”. The reality, of course, is that financial support from the Empire to the Ukraine has now almost completely dried up due to, among other things, the realization that the Ukies will steal almost all the money they get, and that nobody buys the “the Russkies are coming!” canard anymore. Frankly, the Ukronazi project has outlived its utility and nobody gives a damn what will happen to the Ukrainian people.

And that is a huge mistake.

Somalia on the EU

It is impossible to estimate how many people are still living in the Ukraine today, but most experts believe that the figure is somewhere between 35-40 million people. The vast majority of them are struggling to make a living and their future looks very, very bleak. Remember Dmitri Orlov’s five stages of collapse? They are:

Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in “the goodness of humanity” is lost.

Even a cursory look at what is happening in the Ukraine clearly shows that Stage 5 has already been reached, quite a while ago, really. What comes next is basically Somalia. But a big, really big, Somalia, with millions of assault rifles circulating in the population, with major industrial sites capable of triggering another Chernobyl-like disaster, with various death-squads (private or semi-official) freely roaming around the country and imposing their rule with armored vehicles and heavy machine guns. So if the always Euro-centric West could afford to ignore a Somalia in Somalia there is no way it can ignore a Somalia on the EU and NATO border. To put it simply: there is absolutely nothing standing between the Somalia in the Ukraine and the EU. Nothing. Once the inevitable, and this time catastrophic, final collapse happens the resulting explosion will simple take the path of least resistance.

To the east we have Russia, with her superbly capable state security agencies, the newly created National Guard, large military formations deployed along the borders and, most importantly, an excellent understanding of what is taking place in the Ukraine. To the west we have basically Conchita Wurst’s Europe, unable to formulate any policy at all (since all orders come from Uncle Sam), with parade-type military forces mostly hallucinating about the “Russian threat”, with security services that can’t even cope with the current flow of immigrants and, most importantly, with a ruling class and population that has no clue or understanding whatsoever of what is happening in the Ukraine.

Russia has another huge advantage: she already controls Crimea and Novorussia and she has already developed the skillset needed to deal with millions of refugees. Yup, while western leaders were busy blaming Russia for everything and making absolutely crazy promises to the Ukrainians, Russia has already had to absorb about 1.5 million refugees who did not only have to be carefully vetted for Nazi saboteurs and terrorists, but then also intelligently relocated. The immigration service did a pretty good job here too by, for example, relocating medical doctors to regions where they were needed (including Chechnia).

All this is to say that when the inevitable explosion happens the Europeans will be the ones to get hit the hardest and will have to scramble to cope with the situation. Seeing how utterly incompetent and clueless the EU comprador elites are, we can fully expect them to make a total mess of the situation, as they always do, and end up worrying mostly about the political fallout resulting from the disaster.

The Americans, protected by the Atlantic Ocean, will do the usual: provide “leadership” and “support” but not offer a single dollar to address the actual measures needed to deal with the situation. Politically, they will do in the Ukraine what they have always done in such situations: declare victory and leave.

At this point the situation will become so undeniably bad that even western politicians will have to get out of their delusional comfort zone: they will then fly to Moscow to get the Russians to fix this mess.

The Russians ain’t coming (yet again)

I will never cease to mantrically repeat that Russia is much weaker than what most people think. Her landmass is immense and her military arguably the best on the planet, but population is relatively small, and her economy a struggling one. Yes, the future does look bright for Russia, but presently she simply does not have the means to single handedly rescue (resurrect, really) the Ukraine. Not even close.

ORDER IT NOW

The reality is that even Crimea has presented Russia with major challenges. After 25 years of total neglect, Crimea basically needs to completely rebuilt most of its infrastructure. The Kremlin has poured billions of Rubles into numerous and large modernization programs, including an immensely expensive but vitally needed bridge over the Kerch strait, and she will continue to rebuilt Crimea in spite of the immense costs involved. Down the road, of course, Crimea will end up being very wealthy, courtesy of an immense tourist potential, the presence of a much expanded Black Sea fleet and because of its strategic location. But for the foreseeable future, Crimea will remain a major burden which Russia will struggle to deal with.

The situation in the Donbass is even bleaker. If Crimean was neglected, the Donbass has been almost totally destroyed. Right now the Russians are paying the pensions of the local population because the Ukronazis have stolen them, in direct violation of the Minsk Agreements. Russia is also alone in supporting the Novorussian republics with humanitarian, medical, technical, administrative and military programs. And while the Novorussians have done an amazing job rebuilding much of Donetsk and a few other cities, most of what lies within artillery range of the Ukronazi forces still lies in ruins and the economy is more or less at a standstill. This will not change until peace truly returns to the region.

What is already quite evident that regardless of who will be in the Kremlin and regardless of how much good will and self-sacrifice the Russians will have, Russia simply does not have the means to salvage the Ukraine. It just ain’t happening. Furthermore, polls show that most Russians are categorically opposed to a full reintegration of the entire Ukraine into Russia. Who could blame them? They are not only acutely aware that the Ukraine has turned into one bloody hell of a mess, but that an entire generation of Ukrainians has now been terminally brainwashed with russophobic hatred. And, frankly, Russia has no use for Nazis of any kind, even if they are fellow Slavs or even if they are basically the very same nation as the Russian one.

So even if tomorrow Petro Poroshenko and his gang decided to invite the Russians to come in an fix this bloody mess, the Russians would decline (so much for the warnings about a Russian invasion!). Oh sure, there are a lot of Ukrainians who kid themselves and think that “the Russians will come and fix this”, but this is a pipe-dream: the Russians ain’t coming. At most, Russia will let the DNR/LNR get back the territories which belonged to their regions and Mariupol might be liberated. But that’s about it. And even if by some miracle the Novorussian tanks end up in Kiev, I don’t see them staying there for very long because the Kremlin fully understands that if they grab it, they own it and they have to fix it. Eventually Russia will, of course, simply be forced absorb the Donbass and make it a part of Russia, mostly because there is no way the Donbass will ever go back to the Ukraine again, but even this process will take time. By then, with both Crimea and the Donbass under her responsibility, Russia will simply be maxed out, economically unable to absorb any further territories (sorry, Balts, no Russian invasion for you either!).

The main problem

So the Russians can’t afford it, the Europeans can’t do anything and the Americans have left. What happens next?

What happens next is that the worse the situation becomes the stronger the obvious need for an international effort will become. Once the Russians tell the Europeans in no equivocal terms “forget about our invasion, we are not doing it” (by then the Europeans will *beg* the Russians to invade!), the Europeans will have to turn to their American masters and tell them that the EU will be regime-changed unless something is urgently done. At which point, Uncle Sam will have to open his purse and offer some real money (assuming the Dollar is still a viable currency when that happens). But even if that happens, I don’t see the main donors agreeing on a Ukrainian project.

In purely political terms, the most likely solution would be to have a neutral Ukrainian (Con-)Federation of some kind. You know – nobody wins, nobody losses and we all remain friends. Sounds nice, of course, but it does not address the main problem of the Ukraine: it is a completely artificial country and it is simply way too big. Add to this a level of corruption and an expertise in misappropriating funds which Somalis can’t even begin to imagine, and you have a country which can probably “absorb” even a major donor’s help effort and remain in ruins. Finally, there is the reality that the folks living in the western Ukraine are completely different from those in the south or east and that even if we remove the Nazi Banderites from the equation there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian nation” with a common project.

Small is beautiful

But imagine if the unitary Ukraine was allowed to break-up, under international supervision and, if needed, even under international military protection, into several smaller states. For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much. That would also solve the language problem: not only could each region chose one, or several, official languages, but since these newly independent states would be far more homogeneous they would have much less concerns about accepting a second official language of a relatively small minority (big minorities are usually seen as threat, not small ones). A break-up of the Ukraine into several independent states could also make it much easier for each newly created state to sign bilateral agreements with its neighbors without having to get the agreement of folks living hundred of kilometers away and interested in a totally different set of agreements with their own neighbors. Finally, small states are much easier to integrate into larger unions (EU or EEU) than huge ones.

Breaking up the Ukraine also presents a number of advantages to any peacekeeping/peace-enforcement efforts. For example, while I don’t believe that the Russians would be willing to invade or annex most of the Ukraine, even east of the Dniepr river, I do believe that the Russians would be willing send in a peacekeeping/peace-enforcement force to provide security during a stabilization and transition phase provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players. Likewise, NATO might *finally* find a useful role for itself doing something similar west of the Dniepr river (and since NATO countries are the ones who armed the Nazis, it would be only fair to ask them to now disarm them).

Problems, caveats and risks

Of course, just as any other break-up of a country, this plan does have major flaws and creates as many risks as it offers opportunities. First and foremost, breaking-up any country no matter how artificial that country is, just creates more artificial borders, at least temporarily. That, in turns, sharply increases the risks of violence. But let’s be honest here: the Ukraine has already been broken up into at least three parts (occupied Banderastan, Novorussia and Crimea), and a civil war has already broken out. What is left of the Ukraine today is already extremely violent and it is pretty darn clear that things ain’t gonna get better anytime soon. So we have to compare the comparable and not compare an admittedly bad situation to an invented ideal one. Those who will now object to the break-up of the Ukraine should have taken action before 2014 and not supported a coup which was bound to result in a civil war: Humpty Dumpty is broken now, and all that can still be salvaged are his various pieces.

Besides, we have to keep in mind that the Ukraine is a completely artificial country whose current borders are the creation of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin (something the Ukronazis assiduously avoid remembering). So it’s not like we are discussing the break-up of, say, Japan or France. Finally, I don’t see why some countries are considered prime candidates for break-up (Yugoslavia for example) while other WWII borders would be sacrosanct.

Some will, no doubt, accusing me of being a “Putin agent” for suggesting that the Ukraine ought to be broken up. Others will accusing me of being a CIA/Mossad agent for suggesting that NATO might actually have a legitimate mission west of the Dniepr river. That kind of ad hominems come with the territory and I have long learned to ignore them. All I will reply to those accusations is that while I lay 100% of the blame for the disaster in the Ukraine on the AngloZionist Empire, I also see that now this has become a common problem which will soon turn into a common threat which will require a common solution. I just don’t see anybody capable of bringing back law and order east of the Dniepr besides Russia. Likewise, since Russia will not agree to carry the full Ukrainian burden by herself, I simply don’t see any military forces besides NATO capable of bringing back law and order west of the Dniepr (btw – I use the Dniepr as a convenient conceptual border, but in reality that separation will have to be agreed upon by all parties).

So is the idea of a controlled break-up of the Ukraine a bad one?

Yes, absolutely. It is a terrible one.

But I don’t see a better one.

Do you?

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 232 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Brilliant! I would also agree Odessa and Transnistria to the equation. They are hot points ready to explode any moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    They tried that already. They didn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/the-case-for-the-breakup-of-the-ukraine/#comment-1550624
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 5371 says:

    Odessa and Kharkov are Russian cities. They must go to Russia, and no silly mumbling about it being expensive. If an economist tells you something is impossible, you know it’s probably a good idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Absolutely.

    Novorossiya is the economic core of Ukraine, with Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions. Given stable conditions they will easily pay for themselves. In the USSR, it was West Ukraine that was subsidized.


    For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much.
     
    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players.
     
    So that's a no.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. MarkU says:

    Whilst I agree with most of this analysis, I have to say that anybody who expects co-operation in good faith from the US or its European vassal states is seriously deluded.

    Ukraine is likely to remain a festering sore to the west of the Russian federation for the foreseeable future. The main purpose of the Ukro-nazi project was to drive a wedge between the EU and the Russian federation in order to maintain US influence on the continent (pretty much mission accomplished I would say) While European leaders owe their allegiance to the transnational western oligarchy rather than their own nations the situation will persist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @5371
    Odessa and Kharkov are Russian cities. They must go to Russia, and no silly mumbling about it being expensive. If an economist tells you something is impossible, you know it's probably a good idea.

    Absolutely.

    Novorossiya is the economic core of Ukraine, with Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions. Given stable conditions they will easily pay for themselves. In the USSR, it was West Ukraine that was subsidized.

    For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much.

    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players.

    So that’s a no.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    So much wishful thinking. This is a very rare case of Saker being more realistic than you, AK.

    2014 involved the perfect conditions for certain Ukrainian lands to become Russian on their own.* Violent revolution in Kiev that southerners and eastern disliked that would push them away from Kiev, near-total absence of central authority, breakdown of law and order allowing pro-Russian militants to do what they want, and easy access to Russian volunteers and arms. The road was wide open for any mass uprising against Kiev and in favor of Russia.

    So what parts left, under these ideal conditions? Crimea and the urban southern part of Donbas only. That's the true extent of real Novorossiya (well Crimea is actually simply Rossiya...): the southern and eastern half of Donbas and Luhansk oblasts, with about 2/3 of those oblasts' population. What the pro-Russian militants currently control, plus perhaps a few areas Kiev managed to retake, such as Mariupol.

    A pro-Russian uprising based on the Donetsk model failed in Odessa, and wasn't even attempted in Kharkiv. Not to mention Dnipropetrovsk and the southern Black Sea provinces separating Odessa from Crimea. These regions provide most of the personnel for anti-Russian militias fighting in Donbas.

    Russian intelligence is competent and knew the situation on the ground in Ukraine: I suspect they supported the takeover of exactly those areas that actually wanted to be taken over (or at least, didn't mind being taken over), and no more.

    The split wasn't linguistic but one of self-identification. Donetsk was 48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian. Kharkiv was 63% Ukrainian, 33% Russian; Odessa 62% Ukrainian, 29% Russian; Dnipropetrovsk 73% Ukrainian, 24% Russian. Kiev is 82% Ukrainian and only 13% Russian.

    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.
     
    Why not Halych also? Kiev was a Rus city, not a Russian one. Russian culture is Great Russian culture. There was a possibility in the 19th century of Russia developing into a Rus nation, but its state's nationalism assumed strictly Great Russian form, which has as about as much to do with Kiev as Romania has with Rome. Pretending Rus = Great Russia (i.e., Russia) is gratifying and fun for Russian nationalists but it's also unnatural and attempts to incorporate Ukraine into Russia are inherently unstable.

    Russia could militarily take Kiev, as it could take Riga (which is 37% Russian, compared to Kiev being 13% Russian), or Warsaw (if not for NATO in the latter cities) but it will simply be an occupation, with Kiev seeking to "betray" Russia at any opportunity.

    *At that time, given the absence of much of a Ukrainian military force (Kiev could count on an estimated 5,000 troops), Russia could have easily invaded and grabbed a lot of territory. But I'm discussing self-realignment.
    , @H von P
    "...Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions."

    Leaving aside the question of whether majority-Ukrainian Kharkiv and Dnipro can be considered Novorossiya, the coal mines and factories of Donetsk were heavily subsidized by the state and were in fact extremely inefficient Soviet relics:

    [2014 data:] "According to Ukrainian government figures, for example, in the first half of 2013, Donetsk received 9.25 billion hryvnyas ($762 million) more in subsidies than it contributed to the national budget and Luhansk received 5.07 billion hryvnyas ($418 million) more than it contributed."
    , @Philip Owen


    Kiev is not much more Russian than Warsaw. Do not be mislead by language.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  6. Wally says: • Website

    Saker’s use of “Ukronazi” is an amateurish dilution of otherwise interesting observations.

    There are the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there are the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. There are at least 3 major false premises in your analysis, Saker, but kudos to you for independent and original thinking.

    The 1st false premise is that Novorossians and other historic Russian lands in today Ukraine need Russian gov support. Did they ask for it? No. If they become part of Russia, it is up to the Kremlin to assess if there is any available resources it can invest into territory, and if it isn’t any, there won’t be any investing. What people of those lands get is the right to freely wander across Russia and seek employment in every part of Russia, and Russia get land and its people living in Novorossia and other part of Ukraine back. Her ethnic stock. Her people who would fight and if need be die for her. Your thinking in terms of financial burdening of Russia is not only false (since they wouldn’t be any burden, only an asset, and with all the land it shouldn’t be hard to employ them to feed themselves really) and insulting (for the explanation of that part, see below), it’s senseless too (just consider the extreme level of stupidity that you would welcome and accept immigrants, but not your own people with their inhabiting lands!). take our Serbian example for instance. Would Russia accept as (all Serbian lands and people) knowing it doesn’t have to invest anything it doesn’t see fit or profitable for investing just like any other part of Russia? It would be very stupid not to, because Russia gets very loyal and culturally similar and thus assimilated people who would also fight and die for her together with their lands. Very stupid considering she accepts immigrants who are only selling their skills. But we first need to take back everything Vatican servants Croatos stole from us (south of river Cetina), those ethnic Serb lands and people there who are ethnic Serbs even though they call themselves Croatos (former Pagania and parts of Travunia).

    The 2nd false premise in your analysis is some insinuation that Russia and people of Russia in its today’s borders are without obligations toward people living in today Ukropia. Ancestors of the people of Novorossia, everyrthing easterward of Dniper and many central parts of Ukraine (but certainly without AU region Galicia and that western part Stalin included into Ukraine in 1939 and 1945: http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/03/Ukraine-History.jpg) have shed their blood for Russia over the course of many centuries, and Russia today is what it is because of sacrifices they made for her. The right thing to do would be to let all those oblasts gain their independence and then offer them life as part of Russia, slowly and patiently. I’d say all Novorossian oblasts would join Russia immediately and many oblasts from central Ukraine would join later. The rest can either be independent or join Poland. They probably won’t be able to survive on their own.

    And the 3rd false premise is regarding finances also. Do you really want to sell the notion how Russia is not able to afford financially helping Novorossia, for example, after spending 50 billion dollares on Olympic circus or letting oligarchs not only keep the wealth stolen from the Russian people but to keep stealing to this very day, hmm? That’s hillarious. I am sure there are many thieves “whose” property need nationalization. And like I said, it’s not like people of Novorossia need any finanacial help to begin with. There will be many there who will need work, so just give them work in Russia (and mind you, Russia have need for lots of work with all those land uncultivated and overgrown even if there aren’t much of jobs available at the moment). It’s all basic common sense really. But to use common sense, one must first not think in western terms and forms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Very interesting comment. I'd just like to quibble about your map.

    For instance, Southern Bessarabia (the part of the Odessa region of today beyond the Dniester) could not have been added to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 because it was a part of Greater Romania from 1918 until 1940, when the whole of Bessarabia was given away after the ultimatum. Northern Bukovina and Southern Bessarabia went to Ukraine, and the rest of Bessarabia joined the pre-existing Moldovan SSR. The outline near Odessa should also show Transnistria, even if it became the later core of the Moldovan SSR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Did you people know that there was Serbian land in Ukraine, hmm? It was called Slavo-Serbia. Look!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavo-Serbia

    Russian Czar gave it to us. Unfortunatelly there weren’t many Serbs who left there, so the oblast was later abolished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @colm
    Serbia is guilty for inciting World War I, something its leaders still think as a good thing. Don't worry, once Putin goes, Serbia will pay its long-overdue fines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. [Choose a single handle and stick with it or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise your comments may get trashed.]

    What a silly premise to argue about where a border in the bloodlands should go in the modern age.

    Just issue Russian passports to anyone who wants one, or one could easily say that Chechnya should be independent under the same logic, eh Saker?

    Otherwise you look like a super patriot who thinks that Tsarevitch Putin is always right.

    Putin would be smart to let it all sit, using tanks when simple economics will triumph is a waste of time and money that can be used elsewhere in Russia.

    Dealing with the Chinese is far more important to assure the development of Siberia is still controlled by Russia would be a far smarter use of resources.

    Build superhighways into Siberia, and better trains- for the potential of what is thawing far outweighs a crappy rustbelt of seething unrest.

    So much potential has Russia, and yet they always look west.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    I will never cease to mantrically repeat that Russia is much weaker than what most people think.

    True, but only so far. I am almost forced to use Metternich’s, Bismark’s and Churchill’s (all three are credited with it) dictum that Russia is never as strong as she seems and never as weak as she seems. What is undeniable is that Russia of August 2016 is much stronger than Russia of February 2014. Rostislav Ishenko constantly repeats one things–”need slightly more time, we are almost there”. What is he talking about? He is talking about some major structural shifts in Russia’s economy and governance which make Russia precisely capable of dealing with whatever a combination of negative events is coming her way, Ukraine being, of course, a main one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Would you care to elaborate on your assettion about the improved and improving Russian economy.

    BTW have you - or any other reader of this - read the recent issue of Foreign Affairs with many articles on Russia? If so any comment?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Here is a great song documenting bravery and feats of Novorossian people in their fight against militant liberal Anglo imperialism and its lackeys. Great song.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Andevro says:

    An imaginative and humane article from someone that obviously loves and feels for all people involved. A possible solution, without war, to a problem created by western interests to drive a wedge between Russia and Germany. If only people were more politically mature to solve their problems without hate and killing! Thank you for your opinion and analysis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Absolutely.

    Novorossiya is the economic core of Ukraine, with Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions. Given stable conditions they will easily pay for themselves. In the USSR, it was West Ukraine that was subsidized.


    For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much.
     
    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players.
     
    So that's a no.

    So much wishful thinking. This is a very rare case of Saker being more realistic than you, AK.

    2014 involved the perfect conditions for certain Ukrainian lands to become Russian on their own.* Violent revolution in Kiev that southerners and eastern disliked that would push them away from Kiev, near-total absence of central authority, breakdown of law and order allowing pro-Russian militants to do what they want, and easy access to Russian volunteers and arms. The road was wide open for any mass uprising against Kiev and in favor of Russia.

    So what parts left, under these ideal conditions? Crimea and the urban southern part of Donbas only. That’s the true extent of real Novorossiya (well Crimea is actually simply Rossiya…): the southern and eastern half of Donbas and Luhansk oblasts, with about 2/3 of those oblasts’ population. What the pro-Russian militants currently control, plus perhaps a few areas Kiev managed to retake, such as Mariupol.

    A pro-Russian uprising based on the Donetsk model failed in Odessa, and wasn’t even attempted in Kharkiv. Not to mention Dnipropetrovsk and the southern Black Sea provinces separating Odessa from Crimea. These regions provide most of the personnel for anti-Russian militias fighting in Donbas.

    Russian intelligence is competent and knew the situation on the ground in Ukraine: I suspect they supported the takeover of exactly those areas that actually wanted to be taken over (or at least, didn’t mind being taken over), and no more.

    The split wasn’t linguistic but one of self-identification. Donetsk was 48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian. Kharkiv was 63% Ukrainian, 33% Russian; Odessa 62% Ukrainian, 29% Russian; Dnipropetrovsk 73% Ukrainian, 24% Russian. Kiev is 82% Ukrainian and only 13% Russian.

    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    Why not Halych also? Kiev was a Rus city, not a Russian one. Russian culture is Great Russian culture. There was a possibility in the 19th century of Russia developing into a Rus nation, but its state’s nationalism assumed strictly Great Russian form, which has as about as much to do with Kiev as Romania has with Rome. Pretending Rus = Great Russia (i.e., Russia) is gratifying and fun for Russian nationalists but it’s also unnatural and attempts to incorporate Ukraine into Russia are inherently unstable.

    Russia could militarily take Kiev, as it could take Riga (which is 37% Russian, compared to Kiev being 13% Russian), or Warsaw (if not for NATO in the latter cities) but it will simply be an occupation, with Kiev seeking to “betray” Russia at any opportunity.

    *At that time, given the absence of much of a Ukrainian military force (Kiev could count on an estimated 5,000 troops), Russia could have easily invaded and grabbed a lot of territory. But I’m discussing self-realignment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    Russia could not afford the trillions of dollars it would take to immediately get Kharkov, along with Lugansk,Donetsk and the other oblasts (plus Crimea) you ignorant twat. 4 oblasts would have easily gone to separation from Kiev and into Union with Russia if practical.

    The large majority of people in the russophile oblasts were either neutral or pro-Russia you moron....that leaves a (silent politically) majority not in favour of these Nazi's in power. That neutrality I should add is solely because those Ukrainians recognise that with the west never going to accept legally any further dissolution of the Ukrainians state....thus reunification with Russia would be impractical. If the west were neutral in this then would be a whole different situation you cretin. Russia are fine either way....but Ukraine would not sink further into the cesspit.

    errrrm...Kiev had centuries of rule from Russia you moron.....and no problem with it. No hint of much of an uprising....and more so during the referendum to breakup from the USSR......a resounding majority didn't want to get rid of it...other than failure Galician Nazi pricks like yourself.

    Polls actually showed a majority of Ukrainians were in favour of joining the Eurasian Union than the EU ( would have been more if there had been a referendum with proper campaigning for it).....and those polls results were in spite of the fact that the Party of Regions majority, most Ukrainian newspapers and TV were heavily for the EU as Soros and Polish nutcase money turned their heads.
    , @Khan Bodin
    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn't make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn't make it so. You think you can take someone's national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn't be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn't you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don't make a nation by recognizing someone's "independence" or having some paid politicians, "their representatives," sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won't go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don't know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Good article! Breaking up Ukraine would just be a legal recognition of hard facts. So it would be a good thing. Unfortunately too many people in the West are emotionally invested in the silly official story of the Maidan, and these people won’t acquiesce to a break-up – at least not until the Ukronazis stir up enough trouble to invite universal condemnation.

    Too bad for Ukraine :/.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. gerad says:
    @AP
    So much wishful thinking. This is a very rare case of Saker being more realistic than you, AK.

    2014 involved the perfect conditions for certain Ukrainian lands to become Russian on their own.* Violent revolution in Kiev that southerners and eastern disliked that would push them away from Kiev, near-total absence of central authority, breakdown of law and order allowing pro-Russian militants to do what they want, and easy access to Russian volunteers and arms. The road was wide open for any mass uprising against Kiev and in favor of Russia.

    So what parts left, under these ideal conditions? Crimea and the urban southern part of Donbas only. That's the true extent of real Novorossiya (well Crimea is actually simply Rossiya...): the southern and eastern half of Donbas and Luhansk oblasts, with about 2/3 of those oblasts' population. What the pro-Russian militants currently control, plus perhaps a few areas Kiev managed to retake, such as Mariupol.

    A pro-Russian uprising based on the Donetsk model failed in Odessa, and wasn't even attempted in Kharkiv. Not to mention Dnipropetrovsk and the southern Black Sea provinces separating Odessa from Crimea. These regions provide most of the personnel for anti-Russian militias fighting in Donbas.

    Russian intelligence is competent and knew the situation on the ground in Ukraine: I suspect they supported the takeover of exactly those areas that actually wanted to be taken over (or at least, didn't mind being taken over), and no more.

    The split wasn't linguistic but one of self-identification. Donetsk was 48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian. Kharkiv was 63% Ukrainian, 33% Russian; Odessa 62% Ukrainian, 29% Russian; Dnipropetrovsk 73% Ukrainian, 24% Russian. Kiev is 82% Ukrainian and only 13% Russian.

    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.
     
    Why not Halych also? Kiev was a Rus city, not a Russian one. Russian culture is Great Russian culture. There was a possibility in the 19th century of Russia developing into a Rus nation, but its state's nationalism assumed strictly Great Russian form, which has as about as much to do with Kiev as Romania has with Rome. Pretending Rus = Great Russia (i.e., Russia) is gratifying and fun for Russian nationalists but it's also unnatural and attempts to incorporate Ukraine into Russia are inherently unstable.

    Russia could militarily take Kiev, as it could take Riga (which is 37% Russian, compared to Kiev being 13% Russian), or Warsaw (if not for NATO in the latter cities) but it will simply be an occupation, with Kiev seeking to "betray" Russia at any opportunity.

    *At that time, given the absence of much of a Ukrainian military force (Kiev could count on an estimated 5,000 troops), Russia could have easily invaded and grabbed a lot of territory. But I'm discussing self-realignment.

    Russia could not afford the trillions of dollars it would take to immediately get Kharkov, along with Lugansk,Donetsk and the other oblasts (plus Crimea) you ignorant twat. 4 oblasts would have easily gone to separation from Kiev and into Union with Russia if practical.

    The large majority of people in the russophile oblasts were either neutral or pro-Russia you moron….that leaves a (silent politically) majority not in favour of these Nazi’s in power. That neutrality I should add is solely because those Ukrainians recognise that with the west never going to accept legally any further dissolution of the Ukrainians state….thus reunification with Russia would be impractical. If the west were neutral in this then would be a whole different situation you cretin. Russia are fine either way….but Ukraine would not sink further into the cesspit.

    errrrm…Kiev had centuries of rule from Russia you moron…..and no problem with it. No hint of much of an uprising….and more so during the referendum to breakup from the USSR……a resounding majority didn’t want to get rid of it…other than failure Galician Nazi pricks like yourself.

    Polls actually showed a majority of Ukrainians were in favour of joining the Eurasian Union than the EU ( would have been more if there had been a referendum with proper campaigning for it)…..and those polls results were in spite of the fact that the Party of Regions majority, most Ukrainian newspapers and TV were heavily for the EU as Soros and Polish nutcase money turned their heads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    "The large majority of people in the russophile oblasts were either neutral or pro-Russia you moron" As usual absolutely counterfactual. Tiresome bloody fenian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. AP, what you say, that “the split isn’t linguistic, but of self-identification”, is actually very important and may even turn out to be crucial. I’ve noticed that, in the case of Eastern Ukraine, that just because one is Russophone, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are pro-Russian. Very interesting phenomena.

    Is there any reliable sociological data as to what the people on the ground believe / want, especially in areas such as Kharkiv and Mariupol…? For instance, Mariupol – an extremely important place strategically – is largely Russian speaking (even if with a slight Ukrainian accent), but it seems that many (not all, of course, but many) of those Russian speakers identify as citizens of Ukraine or even Ukrainians and want to remain part of Ukraine. So can it then be said that Mariupol is a Russian speaking city that is largely Ukrainian by identity (and pro-Ukranian)? I also used to believe that Mariupol, being Russophone, is very pro-Russian. But then I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JnJfaD51p8

    They predominantly (with a few snarky exceptions) seem to support being inside of Ukraine. Could it be that only 20, max 30% of the inhabitants of Mariupol, are actually pro-Russian? A wild guess, but it would be great to know. And about Odessa and Kharkiv, too.

    Because if only parts of the urban population are pro-Russian, then it makes the situation even more difficult. Then we have separatist cities (Donetsk), within non-homogeneous regions. It doesn’t mean, of course, that the interests of the pro-Russian populations shouldn’t be taken into account, it just makes the situation less “black and white”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I suspect Mariupol leans pro-Russian. It wasn't much different from Donetsk, but since the war started hardcore pro-Russians have left for DNR-controlled territory and, probably, some pro-Ukrainians from Donetsk have settled there. Mariupol's demographics were 48% Ukrainian, 44% Russian -so a bit more Ukrainian than Donetsk (48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian), but not much more so. But Mariupol was much less Ukrainian than Kharkiv.

    The 2012 parliamentary elections can give a hint about loyalties. These were run under Yanukovich, so they can hardly be accused of biasing the results in favor of pro-Western parties. In those election pro-Western parties got only 10% of the vote in Donetsk oblast. In Kharkiv they got 30% and in Dnipropetrovsk they got 40% . Pro-West skews young in Ukraine, so likely that in Kharkiv, voters under 30 were evenly split and those under 30 were comfortably pro-West in Dnipropetrovsk. If one considers insurrection or rebellion, youth loyalty means more than that of pensioners (who were more pro-Russian).

    It should also be noted that pro-Russian vs. pro-Western meant something different in 2012 vs. 2014 and later. In 2012, Russia wasn't seen as an invader who also provides bullets that kill Ukrainian soldiers.
    , @Khan Bodin
    Really, you are taking something from Ukrop Ministry of Truth production and beleive it, hmm? ehehehe Do you also beleive in unicorns and rainbows?
    , @Philip Owen


    In the polls in Donetsk just before the Russian nationalist incursions - Pew I think, about 20% of the population wanted to join Russia, about half the ethnic Russians. Your guess is close.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Max Payne says:

    I have no idea how Ukraine can be so broke. Qatar and Saudi Arabia will shower Ukraine with stupid-levels of money if it can ship a small fraction of its old USSR stock of light arms and rockets to Daesh in Syiraq. And probably even more money for something serious like working anti-air missile batteries and hard-to-find tank/APC/weapon system parts.

    I guess Ukrainians don’t like gold-plated Lamborghinis or copious amounts of cocaine as methods of payment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. gerad says:

    Latvian woman….that Mariupol video is a load of demented garbage. Any neutral observer will tell you that Mariupol was largely pro-Russia at the time they had their referendum….and still is. Of course some people there are pro-Kiev, but it is ridiculous to think that speaks for the majority of the population there.

    I put it to you the obvious fact that we know that if the west had either seen the coup and Maidan for the illegal, barbaric nonsense that it was…..or just been ambivalent about it and understood the rightful reunification of Crimea- then significant more parts of Ukraine would now be willingly under Russian,novorossiyan rule…….or Kiev and these Euromaidan student cretins would have immediately made concessions and adopted a more pro-Russian/balanced position of accomodation that would have stopped this slaughter

    Many Ukrainians were heavily anti-Kiev and this illegal regime ,but accepted that with the western non-acceptance for any pro-Russian position, if wasnt feasible to separate. Ideology was not a problem

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    The easily lead fool continues his fascist rant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, what you say, that "the split isn't linguistic, but of self-identification", is actually very important and may even turn out to be crucial. I've noticed that, in the case of Eastern Ukraine, that just because one is Russophone, it doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-Russian. Very interesting phenomena.

    Is there any reliable sociological data as to what the people on the ground believe / want, especially in areas such as Kharkiv and Mariupol...? For instance, Mariupol - an extremely important place strategically - is largely Russian speaking (even if with a slight Ukrainian accent), but it seems that many (not all, of course, but many) of those Russian speakers identify as citizens of Ukraine or even Ukrainians and want to remain part of Ukraine. So can it then be said that Mariupol is a Russian speaking city that is largely Ukrainian by identity (and pro-Ukranian)? I also used to believe that Mariupol, being Russophone, is very pro-Russian. But then I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JnJfaD51p8

    They predominantly (with a few snarky exceptions) seem to support being inside of Ukraine. Could it be that only 20, max 30% of the inhabitants of Mariupol, are actually pro-Russian? A wild guess, but it would be great to know. And about Odessa and Kharkiv, too.

    Because if only parts of the urban population are pro-Russian, then it makes the situation even more difficult. Then we have separatist cities (Donetsk), within non-homogeneous regions. It doesn't mean, of course, that the interests of the pro-Russian populations shouldn't be taken into account, it just makes the situation less "black and white".

    I suspect Mariupol leans pro-Russian. It wasn’t much different from Donetsk, but since the war started hardcore pro-Russians have left for DNR-controlled territory and, probably, some pro-Ukrainians from Donetsk have settled there. Mariupol’s demographics were 48% Ukrainian, 44% Russian -so a bit more Ukrainian than Donetsk (48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian), but not much more so. But Mariupol was much less Ukrainian than Kharkiv.

    The 2012 parliamentary elections can give a hint about loyalties. These were run under Yanukovich, so they can hardly be accused of biasing the results in favor of pro-Western parties. In those election pro-Western parties got only 10% of the vote in Donetsk oblast. In Kharkiv they got 30% and in Dnipropetrovsk they got 40% . Pro-West skews young in Ukraine, so likely that in Kharkiv, voters under 30 were evenly split and those under 30 were comfortably pro-West in Dnipropetrovsk. If one considers insurrection or rebellion, youth loyalty means more than that of pensioners (who were more pro-Russian).

    It should also be noted that pro-Russian vs. pro-Western meant something different in 2012 vs. 2014 and later. In 2012, Russia wasn’t seen as an invader who also provides bullets that kill Ukrainian soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    25 yrs they have been brainwashed to hate Russia and everything Russian -- to hate themselves! -- in the land of Ukropia and even so everything in the blue on the map here http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/03/Ukraine-History.jpg is very pro-Russian, and there are many pro-Russian areas in the yellow too. They don't appear to hate themselves or to be ashamed of their culture and history like most white westerners are. Ministry of Propaganda indoctrination has failed miserably there, even though Liberal Empire run from city-states of Vatican, City of London and Washington DC has been administring the land there in the last 25 yrs. But you have been a lot more succesful with indoctrination of the people from the West, so, as for now, you are still satisfied, hmm, little liberal propagandist? ehehehe
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. AP, I understand about 2012 vs 2014, it is very tragic.

    Not to dispute that Mariupol leans pro-Russian, but we all saw in 2014 that it was not only Azov who fought against the rebels. And what happened to the former mayor of Mariupol, Yuri Khotubey, who was deeply invested in staying with Ukraine? I think he got kidnapped, but not sure if he was killed or no.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    There is no "2012 vs 2014" angle to this, maybe only with "neutral" Ukrainians on the "pro-Russia" or "pro-west" imaginary issue. This cretin uses the idiot analogy of "Russian bullets" but most weaponary on either side is Russian, the Ukrainian air fleet is Russian, most fighters from both sides speak in Russian, most Ukrainian banks rely on Russian investment, most trips by Ukrainians are to Russia, most scumbag Ukrainian Oligarchs funding the Nazi slaughter in the Donbass earned their money from......Russia....and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    As an American, the only thing I care about is leaving NATO alone. Lesser NATO … prior to the last few expansions, had the advantage of largely disarming Europe by leading them to believe that cheating on their commitments to spend 2% of GDP was a really smart way to screw the Americans. And especially Germany. Without the US acting stupid, Russia would be rightfully terrified of reunified Germany. That’s where I would start any serious negotiations with Russia. Just tell them they win. And they can do whatever deals they want with Germany, etc.

    One observation. I don’t get the bridge over the Kerch strait. Or rather, why it can’t be built. Are the Russians retarded when it comes to civil engineering? The Mackinac Bridge was thrown up in a couple of years in 1955. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge Unless I am missing something. Or are the Russians just going to be taking territory to connect up by land?

    A few observations. Whatever the Russians could do a couple of years ago, they can’t with $40/bbl oil. Sochi was done with oil at over $100 bbl.

    In spite of everything, Ukraine is Russia’s best customer for oil and gas. To the extent they absorb it, they add cost and lose revenue. Everything is worse now than it was 2 years ago, but the same logic applies. You rightly pointed out that Crimea is a cash drain on Russia. But Russia has its reasons for paying up for it. And really? As an American, I’m in favor of Russia’s Navy floating in the Black Sea.

    Russia can’t afford more ‘success’ annexing Ukrainian territory.

    The EU is done expanding, whether they know it or not. After Brexit and Grexit. Or should I say, permanently bailing out Greece, they don’t need an economic black hole like Ukraine. They already ‘Won’ Romania, Bulgaria, etc. And are choking on them.

    Ukraine’s well educated youth all want to leave, and the EU was and is a better option. I don’t know if that was a lot of the energy behind the turmoil, but it was a no brainer to hook up with the EU before bailing out of the country. And former USSR states aren’t lining up to rejoin.

    We all know that no one is going to pony up the $50 billion plus to refinance Ukraine. Ukraine is too divided to go along with a much smaller IMF package with austerity tossed into the mix.

    I see a place where the youth just want to leave — not fight and die for. But also, these are people that survived a lot more than today’s lethargic economic stagnation and/or gradual decline. So… I don’t know.

    Other than no one wants it for its own sake. Maybe Russian or US domestic politics. But, really.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Ukraine is Russia’s best customer for oil and gas."
     
    Let's just say that Ukraine is one of the larger consumers of Russian oil and gas. They sometimes even pay for what they use.
    , @Philip Owen
    The British first looked at a bridge across the Kerch strait but backed off. The bedrock is very deep below the silt. The area is subject to seismic activity. There is ice flow in and out of the Sea of Azov. All of this mounts up to $$$$$. Building to time and budget is a high risk undertaking. And there is no economic justification. Traffic flows will be tiny.

    The German bridge was built on top of the silt to last a summer.

    It is another prestige project.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Cyrano says:

    It seems that in Ukraine today conditions exist that might even result in another catastrophe like the famine of the 1930’s, to which some decided to give a genocidal name “Holodomor”. I suspect that in case of such an unfortunate scenario – the blame will be assigned again to the Russians.

    Never mind that if there is one single character trait that all Ukrainians arguably possess is that they never know when it’s time to get on with the program. Rebelling against the collectivization in the 1930’s was what led to the famine then, and rebelling against the economic union with Russia in 2014 is what might lead to the possible collapse of Ukraine in the near future.

    Both are examples of total lack of vision by the Ukrainians as to what course of action might be most beneficial to them as a “nation”. After all these are the same people who welcomed the invading Germans with flowers – as liberators in 1941 – the ones who were responsible for such pearls of wisdom as Slavs are untermensch and yet somehow the Ukrainians felt excluded from such generous descriptions by the Germans.

    Like it didn’t occur to them that they might be Slavs too. Talking about delusions. It’s no wonder that the current generation of Ukrainians sees the west as “saviors” and the Russians as oppressors of Ukraine. It seems it’s in their DNA. What is wrong with these people? Are they even capable of learning anything from their mistakes from 80 and 70 years ago?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    You make good points.

    With its incredible natural wealth, abundant rich farmland, seashore..... Ukraine should be at least as prosperous as Russia. Actually, by all rights, could be a lot more prosperous.

    Yet.

    2015 Per Capita GDP:
    Ukraine ~$ 7,500
    Russia ~$25,000

    They are slowly self-destructing.
    Really strange behaviour.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Were the Ukrainians who welcomed the Germans really so stupid? After all they knew what Stalin had had Kaganovichdp to them and that was arguably worse than what Hitler did to the Poles. And maybe Hitler wasn't even going to decapitate the Ukrainians as he had been doing with the Poles. They could at least hope that the Germans would be better than the Soviet leadership in Moscow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @AP
    So much wishful thinking. This is a very rare case of Saker being more realistic than you, AK.

    2014 involved the perfect conditions for certain Ukrainian lands to become Russian on their own.* Violent revolution in Kiev that southerners and eastern disliked that would push them away from Kiev, near-total absence of central authority, breakdown of law and order allowing pro-Russian militants to do what they want, and easy access to Russian volunteers and arms. The road was wide open for any mass uprising against Kiev and in favor of Russia.

    So what parts left, under these ideal conditions? Crimea and the urban southern part of Donbas only. That's the true extent of real Novorossiya (well Crimea is actually simply Rossiya...): the southern and eastern half of Donbas and Luhansk oblasts, with about 2/3 of those oblasts' population. What the pro-Russian militants currently control, plus perhaps a few areas Kiev managed to retake, such as Mariupol.

    A pro-Russian uprising based on the Donetsk model failed in Odessa, and wasn't even attempted in Kharkiv. Not to mention Dnipropetrovsk and the southern Black Sea provinces separating Odessa from Crimea. These regions provide most of the personnel for anti-Russian militias fighting in Donbas.

    Russian intelligence is competent and knew the situation on the ground in Ukraine: I suspect they supported the takeover of exactly those areas that actually wanted to be taken over (or at least, didn't mind being taken over), and no more.

    The split wasn't linguistic but one of self-identification. Donetsk was 48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian. Kharkiv was 63% Ukrainian, 33% Russian; Odessa 62% Ukrainian, 29% Russian; Dnipropetrovsk 73% Ukrainian, 24% Russian. Kiev is 82% Ukrainian and only 13% Russian.

    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.
     
    Why not Halych also? Kiev was a Rus city, not a Russian one. Russian culture is Great Russian culture. There was a possibility in the 19th century of Russia developing into a Rus nation, but its state's nationalism assumed strictly Great Russian form, which has as about as much to do with Kiev as Romania has with Rome. Pretending Rus = Great Russia (i.e., Russia) is gratifying and fun for Russian nationalists but it's also unnatural and attempts to incorporate Ukraine into Russia are inherently unstable.

    Russia could militarily take Kiev, as it could take Riga (which is 37% Russian, compared to Kiev being 13% Russian), or Warsaw (if not for NATO in the latter cities) but it will simply be an occupation, with Kiev seeking to "betray" Russia at any opportunity.

    *At that time, given the absence of much of a Ukrainian military force (Kiev could count on an estimated 5,000 troops), Russia could have easily invaded and grabbed a lot of territory. But I'm discussing self-realignment.

    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn’t make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn’t make it so. You think you can take someone’s national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn’t be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn’t you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don’t make a nation by recognizing someone’s “independence” or having some paid politicians, “their representatives,” sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won’t go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don’t know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    First off, simpleton
     
    Remind again of Serbia's national average IQ?

    there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language.
     
    Nice mythology. Unfortunately Ukrainian language exists. This shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact that the land called UKriane was part of Lithuania and Poland for centuries. In terms of vocabulary it is closer to Polish than to Russian. Ukrainians are genetically distinct, and genetic distance places Ukrainians closer to Belarussians and Slovaks than to Russians (though differences are all slight). Historically, Ukrainian territory was part of the West longer than it was part of Russia.

    This is all probably too complicated for you to understand, hence your comments.

    It seems you have been capable of learning a little about your native Balkans, and now see the entire world as another Balkans. It's the best you can do, given your limitations. Good luck with that.

    Is the "gerad" guy also a Serb, by the way?
    , @iffen
    You have obviously never been to Texas.
    , @Romanian
    So you would agree that the Moldovan language is actually Romanian with Soviet ethnopolitics on top?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I can't believe it! UR infested by another offensive anti-Semitic (as appears later) boor with a limited command of English grammar or logic but an an infinite willingness to make assertions however ridiculous. Are you another branch of the Rehmat syndicate?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Latvian woman
    AP, what you say, that "the split isn't linguistic, but of self-identification", is actually very important and may even turn out to be crucial. I've noticed that, in the case of Eastern Ukraine, that just because one is Russophone, it doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-Russian. Very interesting phenomena.

    Is there any reliable sociological data as to what the people on the ground believe / want, especially in areas such as Kharkiv and Mariupol...? For instance, Mariupol - an extremely important place strategically - is largely Russian speaking (even if with a slight Ukrainian accent), but it seems that many (not all, of course, but many) of those Russian speakers identify as citizens of Ukraine or even Ukrainians and want to remain part of Ukraine. So can it then be said that Mariupol is a Russian speaking city that is largely Ukrainian by identity (and pro-Ukranian)? I also used to believe that Mariupol, being Russophone, is very pro-Russian. But then I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JnJfaD51p8

    They predominantly (with a few snarky exceptions) seem to support being inside of Ukraine. Could it be that only 20, max 30% of the inhabitants of Mariupol, are actually pro-Russian? A wild guess, but it would be great to know. And about Odessa and Kharkiv, too.

    Because if only parts of the urban population are pro-Russian, then it makes the situation even more difficult. Then we have separatist cities (Donetsk), within non-homogeneous regions. It doesn't mean, of course, that the interests of the pro-Russian populations shouldn't be taken into account, it just makes the situation less "black and white".

    Really, you are taking something from Ukrop Ministry of Truth production and beleive it, hmm? ehehehe Do you also beleive in unicorns and rainbows?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @AP
    I suspect Mariupol leans pro-Russian. It wasn't much different from Donetsk, but since the war started hardcore pro-Russians have left for DNR-controlled territory and, probably, some pro-Ukrainians from Donetsk have settled there. Mariupol's demographics were 48% Ukrainian, 44% Russian -so a bit more Ukrainian than Donetsk (48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian), but not much more so. But Mariupol was much less Ukrainian than Kharkiv.

    The 2012 parliamentary elections can give a hint about loyalties. These were run under Yanukovich, so they can hardly be accused of biasing the results in favor of pro-Western parties. In those election pro-Western parties got only 10% of the vote in Donetsk oblast. In Kharkiv they got 30% and in Dnipropetrovsk they got 40% . Pro-West skews young in Ukraine, so likely that in Kharkiv, voters under 30 were evenly split and those under 30 were comfortably pro-West in Dnipropetrovsk. If one considers insurrection or rebellion, youth loyalty means more than that of pensioners (who were more pro-Russian).

    It should also be noted that pro-Russian vs. pro-Western meant something different in 2012 vs. 2014 and later. In 2012, Russia wasn't seen as an invader who also provides bullets that kill Ukrainian soldiers.

    25 yrs they have been brainwashed to hate Russia and everything Russian — to hate themselves! — in the land of Ukropia and even so everything in the blue on the map hereis very pro-Russian, and there are many pro-Russian areas in the yellow too. They don’t appear to hate themselves or to be ashamed of their culture and history like most white westerners are. Ministry of Propaganda indoctrination has failed miserably there, even though Liberal Empire run from city-states of Vatican, City of London and Washington DC has been administring the land there in the last 25 yrs. But you have been a lot more succesful with indoctrination of the people from the West, so, as for now, you are still satisfied, hmm, little liberal propagandist? ehehehe

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Someone who knows little of Russia or Ukraine tries to make sense of it. Very cute. You deserve a cookie.
    , @Alden
    What does the Vatican have to do with the situation? Whatever you call that geographical area or the people, they are not Romans but various Eastern Orthodox

    Or are you one if those bigots who believes the Pope is a whore of Babylon the anti Christ and a scarlet woman?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. The word “ukraine” translated from Russian basically means “borderland.” We in the Balkans have many Ukranias too. RS Krajina, Cazinska Krajina, Cetinska Krajina, Vojna Krajina, Neretvanska Krajina, Kninska Krajina, Sinjska Krajina et al. The word basically has the same meaning as it has in Russian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajina.

    That sounds very authentic… a land where authentic people and culture originated from, doesn’t it? ehehehe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    The Western European word March has the same meaning. The Brandenburg Mark, the Roussilon March, Finnmark, the Welsh Marches. A borderland where people had licence to bear arms or the local lords were allowed private armies. They may not be heartlands but they were definitely distinctive places. The whole of Northern Ireland might be considered such a place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. gerad says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, I understand about 2012 vs 2014, it is very tragic.

    Not to dispute that Mariupol leans pro-Russian, but we all saw in 2014 that it was not only Azov who fought against the rebels. And what happened to the former mayor of Mariupol, Yuri Khotubey, who was deeply invested in staying with Ukraine? I think he got kidnapped, but not sure if he was killed or no.

    There is no “2012 vs 2014″ angle to this, maybe only with “neutral” Ukrainians on the “pro-Russia” or “pro-west” imaginary issue. This cretin uses the idiot analogy of “Russian bullets” but most weaponary on either side is Russian, the Ukrainian air fleet is Russian, most fighters from both sides speak in Russian, most Ukrainian banks rely on Russian investment, most trips by Ukrainians are to Russia, most scumbag Ukrainian Oligarchs funding the Nazi slaughter in the Donbass earned their money from……Russia….and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Avery says:
    @Cyrano
    It seems that in Ukraine today conditions exist that might even result in another catastrophe like the famine of the 1930’s, to which some decided to give a genocidal name “Holodomor”. I suspect that in case of such an unfortunate scenario – the blame will be assigned again to the Russians.

    Never mind that if there is one single character trait that all Ukrainians arguably possess is that they never know when it’s time to get on with the program. Rebelling against the collectivization in the 1930’s was what led to the famine then, and rebelling against the economic union with Russia in 2014 is what might lead to the possible collapse of Ukraine in the near future.

    Both are examples of total lack of vision by the Ukrainians as to what course of action might be most beneficial to them as a “nation”. After all these are the same people who welcomed the invading Germans with flowers - as liberators in 1941 – the ones who were responsible for such pearls of wisdom as Slavs are untermensch and yet somehow the Ukrainians felt excluded from such generous descriptions by the Germans.

    Like it didn’t occur to them that they might be Slavs too. Talking about delusions. It’s no wonder that the current generation of Ukrainians sees the west as “saviors” and the Russians as oppressors of Ukraine. It seems it’s in their DNA. What is wrong with these people? Are they even capable of learning anything from their mistakes from 80 and 70 years ago?

    You make good points.

    With its incredible natural wealth, abundant rich farmland, seashore….. Ukraine should be at least as prosperous as Russia. Actually, by all rights, could be a lot more prosperous.

    Yet.

    2015 Per Capita GDP:
    Ukraine ~$ 7,500
    Russia ~$25,000

    They are slowly self-destructing.
    Really strange behaviour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    It's the same with their football. They have more better footballers than Russia but were even more crap than Russia at the Euros. Russia at least did very well in Euro 2008. Russia has it's champions seeded as one of the top seeds the Champions League.....even though there is no excuse for Kiev,Dnepro and Shakhtar Donetsk over the last 10 years to have not outperformed Russian sides and gained a higher UEFA coefficient.

    I am not equating the disgraceful Russia side with the excellent Russian state.....but I am equating the woefully misfiring Ukrainian team with the equally pitiful Ukrainian state.
    , @Bill Jones
    Wanna see where the money goes?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. gerad says:
    @Avery
    You make good points.

    With its incredible natural wealth, abundant rich farmland, seashore..... Ukraine should be at least as prosperous as Russia. Actually, by all rights, could be a lot more prosperous.

    Yet.

    2015 Per Capita GDP:
    Ukraine ~$ 7,500
    Russia ~$25,000

    They are slowly self-destructing.
    Really strange behaviour.

    It’s the same with their football. They have more better footballers than Russia but were even more crap than Russia at the Euros. Russia at least did very well in Euro 2008. Russia has it’s champions seeded as one of the top seeds the Champions League…..even though there is no excuse for Kiev,Dnepro and Shakhtar Donetsk over the last 10 years to have not outperformed Russian sides and gained a higher UEFA coefficient.

    I am not equating the disgraceful Russia side with the excellent Russian state…..but I am equating the woefully misfiring Ukrainian team with the equally pitiful Ukrainian state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. AP says:
    @Khan Bodin
    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn't make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn't make it so. You think you can take someone's national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn't be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn't you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don't make a nation by recognizing someone's "independence" or having some paid politicians, "their representatives," sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won't go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don't know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.

    First off, simpleton

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?

    there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language.

    Nice mythology. Unfortunately Ukrainian language exists. This shouldn’t be a surprise, given the fact that the land called UKriane was part of Lithuania and Poland for centuries. In terms of vocabulary it is closer to Polish than to Russian. Ukrainians are genetically distinct, and genetic distance places Ukrainians closer to Belarussians and Slovaks than to Russians (though differences are all slight). Historically, Ukrainian territory was part of the West longer than it was part of Russia.

    This is all probably too complicated for you to understand, hence your comments.

    It seems you have been capable of learning a little about your native Balkans, and now see the entire world as another Balkans. It’s the best you can do, given your limitations. Good luck with that.

    Is the “gerad” guy also a Serb, by the way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew you are making more and more a fool of yourself with every added post loaded with truly mindblowing idiotic statements, and to witness how simple-minded you truly are, you are not capable of noticing it. Who else but a genuine idiot keeps trashing his limbs around in the quicksand! ehehehe

    Now let me expand and again further demonstrate how big an imbecile you are. You say that Ukranian language exists and that it's based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If "Ukranian" language is based on Polish language (linguistically speaking, for I've no doubt there are many Polish words and expressions in the language there, especially in western Ukraine which has been part of Poland until 1939/43), Ukranians would have no problem understanding Poles, but that is not the case. Ukranians understand perfectly well Russian language though, because "Ukranian" lanaguage is just a derivation of the Russian language. It doesn't exist anymore than Canadian, Australian or Austrian languages exist. The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well tells one everything he or she needs to know about whose language Belorussians and Ukranians are speaking, and who indeed they are. Just because Bolsheviks created Belorussia as a state in 1920s which became "internationaly recognized" after the fall of USSR in 1991 doesn't mean Belorussia is a nation. Nations are not created by decrees of bureaucrats or politicians, and certainly not by those who did it without the expression of the will of the people or who came to power by a coup (both of which is true for communist Bolsheviks, those creators of Belorussian and Ukranian states). Even a total retard would notice something in the name of Belorussians, but it appears you are not capable even for that. You are just a little propagandist. A very dumb one. I am afraid your imbecilic propaganda is not something a semi-intelligent 6 yo would buy. A good merchant knows that you cannot sell something which has no value. But it is also known that intelligence is required to recognize such a simple truth, something which is truly not there in you case and in the case of your fellow simpletons. ehehehe
    , @gerad
    Khan Bodin is an intellectual...you are a POS troll with no facts ...just moronic BS off the internet.

    Ukraine never existed until Russia created it you braindead prick. " Poland ruled for centuries" is garbage...garbage that only applies to small parts of modern day Ukraine.

    Most....in fact large majority of Ukrainian words are derived from Russian you twat....this is why so much of the Ukrainian mentality and culture is in conjunction with Russia and not Poland. This is why all "nationalist" Ukrainian politicians almost all speak Russian as their natural language, this is why they can't have 2 state languages because they know, the vast majority , including in the rural areas which are mythologized as being just Ukrop-speaking,.....would all chose to sideline Ukrainian...just like they do when picking their favourite newspapers, watching their favourite television shows , expressing their emotions like in swearing ...and so on.

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?
     
    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine. This is despite having had a very bad civil war with what are now it's neighbours, no real allies other than Russia ..who have only been on the resurgence since 2000, Serbia has nowhere close to Ukraine's amount of natural resources....or handouts from Russia that the Ukrainian parasites have received these last 25 years. It doesn't have a vast network of cretinous failure diaspora lobbying their "interests" in the Canadian and USA governments like the Nazi Ukrainian freaks do.

    Despite all these (and others) major handicaps........Serbians still outperform Ukrainians you dumb POS. Incidentally Ukrainian were again major flops in the Olympics. Armenia,Kazakhstan,Georgia and Uzbekistan were much,much better even though all those teams had a fraction of the 200 plus that Ukraine sent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. AP says:
    @Khan Bodin
    25 yrs they have been brainwashed to hate Russia and everything Russian -- to hate themselves! -- in the land of Ukropia and even so everything in the blue on the map here http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/03/Ukraine-History.jpg is very pro-Russian, and there are many pro-Russian areas in the yellow too. They don't appear to hate themselves or to be ashamed of their culture and history like most white westerners are. Ministry of Propaganda indoctrination has failed miserably there, even though Liberal Empire run from city-states of Vatican, City of London and Washington DC has been administring the land there in the last 25 yrs. But you have been a lot more succesful with indoctrination of the people from the West, so, as for now, you are still satisfied, hmm, little liberal propagandist? ehehehe

    Someone who knows little of Russia or Ukraine tries to make sense of it. Very cute. You deserve a cookie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. iffen says:
    @Khan Bodin
    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn't make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn't make it so. You think you can take someone's national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn't be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn't you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don't make a nation by recognizing someone's "independence" or having some paid politicians, "their representatives," sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won't go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don't know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.

    You have obviously never been to Texas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    There's a Texan language?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. 5371 says:
    @iffen
    You have obviously never been to Texas.

    There’s a Texan language?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 5371, the rebels, among other things, are fighting for something called “Мировоззрение” – the world view. “Our worldview”, they say. Weltanschauung is the academic term for it. Texas, to some extent, does have its own worldview, too. We could also argue that Alaska, too, is a “little different” and maybe in some ways (re: accents, speed of life) more similar to Canada than the US.

    gerad, I agree that the integration of Ukraine and Russia is deep (and as I said, this is why this conflict is so terrible) – why wouldn’t it be? But it doesn’t mean that there is no distinct Ukrainian ethnicity and, what appears now, also a political nation.

    Regarding language, that’s a very interesting point (that I already alluded to above). There are actually three main languages / dialects used in this conflict – pure Russian (spoken by many soldiers on both sides), pure Ukrainian (the distinct, separate language) and Russo-Ukrainian – pure Russian with a Ukrainian dialect ((h) instead of (g), a softer (d), etc., spoken by many all over Ukraine, including in the East).

    Particularly fascinating (as in, surprising) to me are the Russophone Ukrainian nationals who are fighting on the Ukrainian side. That goes to show that there is not only an ethnic nation, but also a political nation there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Every fool has his worldview too. But whoever wishes to be Ukranian can be so. Nobody is forcing anyone on anything. Those oblasts who wish to be Ukranian can continue to be, but I sense that not many will if there is nothing they can parasitize on. They are only Ukranians as long as they can parasitize on those productive Novorossiyan oblasts. Let us see how long those "true Ukranian" regions will continue to be Ukranian when there is noone to support their Ukranianess. ehehehe

    But those oblast who do not want to continue to be clowns in the circus or useful fools for the interests of the Vatican, City of London and Washinton DC, can have referendums to express themselves and join Russia if they wish so. They will seek those referendums themselves. They must have an option to go home if they choose so. That's only fair.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Well, at least it looks like there has been a ceasefire that lasted at least one day. They let the kids go to school (if there are any schools left, sadly). :(

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. […] 02, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “Unz Review” – Just as the corporate media is not reporting that the USA and Russia are on a […]

    Read More
  37. One thing that needs to be emphasized is the depopulation of Ukraine. This has been going on for a while, is ongoing, and set to continue if not accelerate. Wikipedia gives Ukraine’s population as 44 million, but if we subtract Crimea (2 million), rebel Donbass (2 million), 1 million that has fled and migrated to Russia since 2014, and possibly another 1 million to the West, that’s 38 million, down from a peak of 52 million in 1990. Throw in a crashing birthrate and accelerated migration due to crushing poverty, endless austerity and war, and we are looking at quite possibly the most catastrophic depopulation of a country in relative peacetime in modern history.

    Even worse, Ukraine is in a for an unprecedented brain drain. Anyone talented and ambitious that is not politically connected and a total crook will *have* to immigrate if they want to make something of themselves. I have seen what 6 years of austerity have done to Greece, and the brain drain there is even worse than what is reported. And that’s with a far higher standard of living, less austerity, and *without* war. I agree with the posters that there is something of a Ukrainian nation (all it takes for a nation to exist is a group of people deciding that they are that nation, nothing more. No unique language, ancient history, and certainly not genetics – let’s not get into that). But there won’t be much of one at this rate. The Ukies have NO idea what they’re in for.

    That said, I also agree with the poster that said that the political orientation of Ukrainians, whether pro-Russia or pro-West, is dependent on political circumstances. If the West was ambivalent or neutral about Ukraine, I suspect the political orientation of many Ukrainians would be different. Political orientation is not carved in stone but highly fluid and changeable. There are Ukrainians that are hard-wired to be pro-West or pro-Russia, but I get the feeling the majority are of the “whichever way the wind blows” type. Right now, the wind is still blowing from the West, but it’s not inconceivable that that could change in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I get the impression if the rebels took everything but Galicia most would just carry on as usual.

    Kahrkhov, the Donbass and Crimea should have been given back to Russia, of the other Russian orientated areas Odessa is too important as a port for the rest of the Ukraine so should stay. A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state.
    , @Dave
    Ukrainian women want to live in a city, have lots of fun, marry at 35, and have one or two children. Amish women want to marry young, live on a farm, and have ten children. The Amish are a quarter-million now and doubling every twenty years with zero unemployment. If Ukraine doesn't solve its depopulation problem in the next 100 years, the Amish will be happy to settle all that fertile land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @AP

    First off, simpleton
     
    Remind again of Serbia's national average IQ?

    there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language.
     
    Nice mythology. Unfortunately Ukrainian language exists. This shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact that the land called UKriane was part of Lithuania and Poland for centuries. In terms of vocabulary it is closer to Polish than to Russian. Ukrainians are genetically distinct, and genetic distance places Ukrainians closer to Belarussians and Slovaks than to Russians (though differences are all slight). Historically, Ukrainian territory was part of the West longer than it was part of Russia.

    This is all probably too complicated for you to understand, hence your comments.

    It seems you have been capable of learning a little about your native Balkans, and now see the entire world as another Balkans. It's the best you can do, given your limitations. Good luck with that.

    Is the "gerad" guy also a Serb, by the way?

    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew you are making more and more a fool of yourself with every added post loaded with truly mindblowing idiotic statements, and to witness how simple-minded you truly are, you are not capable of noticing it. Who else but a genuine idiot keeps trashing his limbs around in the quicksand! ehehehe

    Now let me expand and again further demonstrate how big an imbecile you are. You say that Ukranian language exists and that it’s based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If “Ukranian” language is based on Polish language (linguistically speaking, for I’ve no doubt there are many Polish words and expressions in the language there, especially in western Ukraine which has been part of Poland until 1939/43), Ukranians would have no problem understanding Poles, but that is not the case. Ukranians understand perfectly well Russian language though, because “Ukranian” lanaguage is just a derivation of the Russian language. It doesn’t exist anymore than Canadian, Australian or Austrian languages exist. The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well tells one everything he or she needs to know about whose language Belorussians and Ukranians are speaking, and who indeed they are. Just because Bolsheviks created Belorussia as a state in 1920s which became “internationaly recognized” after the fall of USSR in 1991 doesn’t mean Belorussia is a nation. Nations are not created by decrees of bureaucrats or politicians, and certainly not by those who did it without the expression of the will of the people or who came to power by a coup (both of which is true for communist Bolsheviks, those creators of Belorussian and Ukranian states). Even a total retard would notice something in the name of Belorussians, but it appears you are not capable even for that. You are just a little propagandist. A very dumb one. I am afraid your imbecilic propaganda is not something a semi-intelligent 6 yo would buy. A good merchant knows that you cannot sell something which has no value. But it is also known that intelligence is required to recognize such a simple truth, something which is truly not there in you case and in the case of your fellow simpletons. ehehehe

    Read More
    • Replies: @H von P
    "Belarusian" derives from Rus', the Nordic tribe from which Kyivan Rus' took its name. Muscovites appropriated the title Rus', so Ukrainians (formerly called Ruthenians) adopted the designation Ukraine to distinguish themselves from Muscovites. (Muscovy, that servant of Mongolia, also oppressed North Slavic cities like Novgorod). Today, anti-ethnic Putin always refers to "rossiyskiy", "rossiya" instead of using the racially-defined root Rus'.

    500 rubles says you already know all this and are just being an anti-White Kremlin troll.

    , @AP

    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew
     
    And so the idiot reveal himself.

    You say that Ukranian language exists and that it’s based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
     
    Naturally you didn't understand my post. You are incapable of it. But in case others, with at least average intelligence, are reading this:

    Ukrainian language is heavily influenced by Polish, in the same that the English language has been heavily influenced by French, and for similar reasons. Germanic England was conquered by French (specifically, a dialect of French) speaking Normans and had a ruling class that spoke that dialect for centuries. Ukraine was part of Poland for centuries and had a Polish-speaking ruling class; it's language has thus become heavily influenced by Polish, such that Ukrainian has more words in common with Polish than it does with Russian.

    The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well
     
    Nope. But you are an ignorant fool, so of course you would say that. Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Latvian woman
    5371, the rebels, among other things, are fighting for something called "Мировоззрение" - the world view. "Our worldview", they say. Weltanschauung is the academic term for it. Texas, to some extent, does have its own worldview, too. We could also argue that Alaska, too, is a "little different" and maybe in some ways (re: accents, speed of life) more similar to Canada than the US.

    gerad, I agree that the integration of Ukraine and Russia is deep (and as I said, this is why this conflict is so terrible) - why wouldn't it be? But it doesn't mean that there is no distinct Ukrainian ethnicity and, what appears now, also a political nation.

    Regarding language, that's a very interesting point (that I already alluded to above). There are actually three main languages / dialects used in this conflict - pure Russian (spoken by many soldiers on both sides), pure Ukrainian (the distinct, separate language) and Russo-Ukrainian - pure Russian with a Ukrainian dialect ((h) instead of (g), a softer (d), etc., spoken by many all over Ukraine, including in the East).

    Particularly fascinating (as in, surprising) to me are the Russophone Ukrainian nationals who are fighting on the Ukrainian side. That goes to show that there is not only an ethnic nation, but also a political nation there.

    Every fool has his worldview too. But whoever wishes to be Ukranian can be so. Nobody is forcing anyone on anything. Those oblasts who wish to be Ukranian can continue to be, but I sense that not many will if there is nothing they can parasitize on. They are only Ukranians as long as they can parasitize on those productive Novorossiyan oblasts. Let us see how long those “true Ukranian” regions will continue to be Ukranian when there is noone to support their Ukranianess. ehehehe

    But those oblast who do not want to continue to be clowns in the circus or useful fools for the interests of the Vatican, City of London and Washinton DC, can have referendums to express themselves and join Russia if they wish so. They will seek those referendums themselves. They must have an option to go home if they choose so. That’s only fair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    Well said Khan Bodin

    Some extremely smart and lucid analysis in your posts. Very illuminating to read
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. LondonBob says:
    @European in America
    One thing that needs to be emphasized is the depopulation of Ukraine. This has been going on for a while, is ongoing, and set to continue if not accelerate. Wikipedia gives Ukraine's population as 44 million, but if we subtract Crimea (2 million), rebel Donbass (2 million), 1 million that has fled and migrated to Russia since 2014, and possibly another 1 million to the West, that's 38 million, down from a peak of 52 million in 1990. Throw in a crashing birthrate and accelerated migration due to crushing poverty, endless austerity and war, and we are looking at quite possibly the most catastrophic depopulation of a country in relative peacetime in modern history.

    Even worse, Ukraine is in a for an unprecedented brain drain. Anyone talented and ambitious that is not politically connected and a total crook will *have* to immigrate if they want to make something of themselves. I have seen what 6 years of austerity have done to Greece, and the brain drain there is even worse than what is reported. And that's with a far higher standard of living, less austerity, and *without* war. I agree with the posters that there is something of a Ukrainian nation (all it takes for a nation to exist is a group of people deciding that they are that nation, nothing more. No unique language, ancient history, and certainly not genetics - let's not get into that). But there won't be much of one at this rate. The Ukies have NO idea what they're in for.

    That said, I also agree with the poster that said that the political orientation of Ukrainians, whether pro-Russia or pro-West, is dependent on political circumstances. If the West was ambivalent or neutral about Ukraine, I suspect the political orientation of many Ukrainians would be different. Political orientation is not carved in stone but highly fluid and changeable. There are Ukrainians that are hard-wired to be pro-West or pro-Russia, but I get the feeling the majority are of the "whichever way the wind blows" type. Right now, the wind is still blowing from the West, but it's not inconceivable that that could change in the future.

    I get the impression if the rebels took everything but Galicia most would just carry on as usual.

    Kahrkhov, the Donbass and Crimea should have been given back to Russia, of the other Russian orientated areas Odessa is too important as a port for the rest of the Ukraine so should stay. A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @H von P
    "A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state."

    Agree, but polls consistently show that around 66% of Kharkiv residents identify as Ukrainian, vs. around 44% of Donbass residents. It's one thing to let the DNR/LNR go their own way (I for one think this would be best for Ukraine, because Putin actually wants to keep them in Ukraine's orbit to influence Ukraine covertly through his puppet Rinat Akhmetov), but another to force Ukraine to unilaterally give up a major city in which its own people predominate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn't make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn't make it so. You think you can take someone's national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn't be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn't you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don't make a nation by recognizing someone's "independence" or having some paid politicians, "their representatives," sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won't go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don't know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.

    So you would agree that the Moldovan language is actually Romanian with Soviet ethnopolitics on top?

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Moldovans themselves call their language Moldovan, and had been doing that for centuries.

    By contrast, almost no one in the modern Ukraine had ever heard of such a language as "Ukrainian" until the Bolsheviks had showed up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    There are at least 3 major false premises in your analysis, Saker, but kudos to you for independent and original thinking.

    The 1st false premise is that Novorossians and other historic Russian lands in today Ukraine need Russian gov support. Did they ask for it? No. If they become part of Russia, it is up to the Kremlin to assess if there is any available resources it can invest into territory, and if it isn't any, there won't be any investing. What people of those lands get is the right to freely wander across Russia and seek employment in every part of Russia, and Russia get land and its people living in Novorossia and other part of Ukraine back. Her ethnic stock. Her people who would fight and if need be die for her. Your thinking in terms of financial burdening of Russia is not only false (since they wouldn't be any burden, only an asset, and with all the land it shouldn't be hard to employ them to feed themselves really) and insulting (for the explanation of that part, see below), it's senseless too (just consider the extreme level of stupidity that you would welcome and accept immigrants, but not your own people with their inhabiting lands!). take our Serbian example for instance. Would Russia accept as (all Serbian lands and people) knowing it doesn't have to invest anything it doesn't see fit or profitable for investing just like any other part of Russia? It would be very stupid not to, because Russia gets very loyal and culturally similar and thus assimilated people who would also fight and die for her together with their lands. Very stupid considering she accepts immigrants who are only selling their skills. But we first need to take back everything Vatican servants Croatos stole from us (south of river Cetina), those ethnic Serb lands and people there who are ethnic Serbs even though they call themselves Croatos (former Pagania and parts of Travunia).

    The 2nd false premise in your analysis is some insinuation that Russia and people of Russia in its today's borders are without obligations toward people living in today Ukropia. Ancestors of the people of Novorossia, everyrthing easterward of Dniper and many central parts of Ukraine (but certainly without AU region Galicia and that western part Stalin included into Ukraine in 1939 and 1945: http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/03/Ukraine-History.jpg) have shed their blood for Russia over the course of many centuries, and Russia today is what it is because of sacrifices they made for her. The right thing to do would be to let all those oblasts gain their independence and then offer them life as part of Russia, slowly and patiently. I'd say all Novorossian oblasts would join Russia immediately and many oblasts from central Ukraine would join later. The rest can either be independent or join Poland. They probably won't be able to survive on their own.

    And the 3rd false premise is regarding finances also. Do you really want to sell the notion how Russia is not able to afford financially helping Novorossia, for example, after spending 50 billion dollares on Olympic circus or letting oligarchs not only keep the wealth stolen from the Russian people but to keep stealing to this very day, hmm? That's hillarious. I am sure there are many thieves "whose" property need nationalization. And like I said, it's not like people of Novorossia need any finanacial help to begin with. There will be many there who will need work, so just give them work in Russia (and mind you, Russia have need for lots of work with all those land uncultivated and overgrown even if there aren't much of jobs available at the moment). It's all basic common sense really. But to use common sense, one must first not think in western terms and forms.

    Very interesting comment. I’d just like to quibble about your map.

    For instance, Southern Bessarabia (the part of the Odessa region of today beyond the Dniester) could not have been added to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 because it was a part of Greater Romania from 1918 until 1940, when the whole of Bessarabia was given away after the ultimatum. Northern Bukovina and Southern Bessarabia went to Ukraine, and the rest of Bessarabia joined the pre-existing Moldovan SSR. The outline near Odessa should also show Transnistria, even if it became the later core of the Moldovan SSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Bessarabia as a region had become Turkish in 1484 and Russian in 1711 (and by Treaty of Buchurest of 1812 much of Modova was part of Russia too). Before that the land belonged to Avars and to Slavic tribe of Ulichs, and I think part of it to Vlachs later on. Bessarabia had never belonged to Romania before Romanian army took it in 1918 during the Russian civil war and incorporated it into Romania. Romania as a nation was born in 1859, right? Yes.

    As for Modova, sure, if people of Moldova support your claim in referendum, then Moldova should be part of Romania, yes. But I don't think you have the support of Modovan people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. It is just not true that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible. I don’t know how it is for Serbs or Poles or Russians who have lived in Ukraine, but I speak perfect Russian since childhood and I could not understand Ukrainian (or Polish) when I first heard it. Maybe 30% max. Even now, having listened to many Ukrainian programs I do understand more, but not nearly all or even most.

    It is obvious that Ukrainian is closely related to Russian, but it has many words similar to Polish and the pronunciation is more “Polish” sounding. I would need at least 3-5 months of studying Ukrainian to understand it. They are not mutually intelligible. It is not a dialect!

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Here is a map that visualizes the language situation in Ukraine (also in Moldova and Belarus, but let's ignore them.) The map was created by "Kyiv National Linguistic University."


    - About half of Ukraine by territory, mostly in the East and South but also in other places, is the home to people who speak Russian language outright. These areas are labeled #1 and are colored in dark pink.

    - Orange (#2) is Surzhyk. It's the name for dialects that are either a mixture between Russian and Ukrainian or are transitional between the two. Most of the people who speak "Ukrainian" outside of Galizia are speaking Surzhyk. There is no problem with mutual intelligibility between that and Russian; in fact, in many cases Surzhyk is really Russian with an accent and a few regional words. Ukrainian nationalists usually treat Surzhyk and its speakers with disdain - except when they need to inflate the number of Ukrainian speakers.

    - Yellow (#3) is the "true" Ukrainian. Soviet linguists who created the Ukrainian language based it on the Poltava dialect. You can still see it on the map. But it's not spoken in many places outside of Poltava region.

    - Purple (#4) is Western Ukrainian. This is the version that you heard, most likely. Yep, it's closer to Polish than to Russian, or indeed to dialects used by most other Ukrainians. If Ukrainian is it's own language than the Western Ukrainian must be one, too.


    Incidentally, during the Soviet times the Ukrainian language heard on TV, etc., was the "true" Ukrainian, the #3. Over the course of independence this changed to #4. The change happened gradually, so the Ukrainian residents got adapted. But people who grew up in Ukraine, studied the language in school, and then left around the time the USSR has broken up, told me that when they came for a visit a couple of decades later they could no longer fully understand TV announcers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Well, well, Khan Bodin, if President Lukashenka heard what you say about Belarus here not being a nation, he’d get very angry. :) No, neither Belorussian nor Ukrainian are to Russian what Australian or American English are to British English. Not even close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Even at their most deliberately divergent from Russian, they are no more so than broad Scots is from standard English.
    , @Khan Bodin
    Like I said, every fool has hiw worldview. But Belarus is not pro-western. When they speak of their independence, they mean it, which is why Europeans and Westerners are against them and their independent president. And they are very pro-Russian, since they are Russian. But excuse me if I don't beleive a word of what you say. It doesn't behave a person to be pro-Russian yet watch Ukrop Ministry of Truth propaganda and peddle pro-western views and stories, unless that person is trying to deceive. The fact that you are from Baltic can only add to the suspicion, for Baltics are not exactly known for their honesty or truthfulness, but rather for some mental disorders amongst which patological untruthfulness and I'd say paranoia definitely are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. inertial says:
    @Romanian
    So you would agree that the Moldovan language is actually Romanian with Soviet ethnopolitics on top?

    Moldovans themselves call their language Moldovan, and had been doing that for centuries.

    By contrast, almost no one in the modern Ukraine had ever heard of such a language as “Ukrainian” until the Bolsheviks had showed up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    almost no one in the modern Ukraine had ever heard of such a language as “Ukrainian” until the Bolsheviks had showed up.

     

    By the time of the Bolshevik Revolution Galician students were mostly enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools and its people were voting for political parties called "Ukrainian."

    In the parts of Ukraine ruled by the Russian Empire, literacy was quite low and such ideas were unknown by the peasant masses. That didn't mean the people's speech was Russian of course - it was Ukrainian (labelled as Little Russian). The small number of literate Ukrainians in this region called their speech and people Ukrainian, however.

    Ukraine became much more Russians-speaking after Bolshevism than it had been before Bolshevism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. 5371 says:
    @Latvian woman
    Well, well, Khan Bodin, if President Lukashenka heard what you say about Belarus here not being a nation, he'd get very angry. :) No, neither Belorussian nor Ukrainian are to Russian what Australian or American English are to British English. Not even close.

    Even at their most deliberately divergent from Russian, they are no more so than broad Scots is from standard English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @H von P
    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn', then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see "surzhyk", the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by @Latvian woman, as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN'T mean that Ukrainian isn't a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Alden says:
    @Khan Bodin
    25 yrs they have been brainwashed to hate Russia and everything Russian -- to hate themselves! -- in the land of Ukropia and even so everything in the blue on the map here http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/03/Ukraine-History.jpg is very pro-Russian, and there are many pro-Russian areas in the yellow too. They don't appear to hate themselves or to be ashamed of their culture and history like most white westerners are. Ministry of Propaganda indoctrination has failed miserably there, even though Liberal Empire run from city-states of Vatican, City of London and Washington DC has been administring the land there in the last 25 yrs. But you have been a lot more succesful with indoctrination of the people from the West, so, as for now, you are still satisfied, hmm, little liberal propagandist? ehehehe

    What does the Vatican have to do with the situation? Whatever you call that geographical area or the people, they are not Romans but various Eastern Orthodox

    Or are you one if those bigots who believes the Pope is a whore of Babylon the anti Christ and a scarlet woman?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You are very ignorant person of politics, centers of power and everything else aside your petty little life I'd say. I have no desire to educate you. If you had an ounce of intelligence in that hollow appereance-of-a-head of yours, you could have opened my avatar and find the answers there. There, I just helped you, simpleton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Mr. XYZ says:

    Frankly, if the Ukrainian people will want their country broken up and partitioned, then they should certainly be allowed to do this.

    To Anatoly Karlin: *Is* Kiev a Russian city? Indeed, did ethnic Russians (as in, “Great Russians”) *ever* make up a majority of the population in Kiev?

    Frankly, while I will grant that Odessa was previously (specifically in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) a Russo-Jewish (Yes, literally Russo-Jewish based on demographic data) city, I haven’t heard or read similar information about Kiev yet.

    Also, though, I would like to say this: For all of Russians’ talk about Kievan Rus’, one would think that Ukraine values Kiev (Kyiv) more than Russia does. After all, did Russia *ever* actually put its capital in Kiev (like Ukraine did)? Indeed, if Russia likes Kievan Rus’ and Kiev so much, why exactly did Russia *never* make Kiev its capital?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Mr. XYZ says:

    To Avery: Ukraine is certainly (and unfortunately) *much* poorer than it should be. Indeed, surely one would think that a country with so much industry and with such an educated population would have achieved *a lot* more over the last 25 years.

    Frankly, it appears that corruption and political dysfunction in Ukraine affects both pro-Western politicians and pro-Russian ones–after all, neither Kuchma, nor Yushchenko, nor Yanukovych, nor Poroshenko was able to deliver large-scale economic growth to Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    Ukraine has never had a pro-Russian President, nor any real meaningful politicians of that stripe. Even in Crimea, what could be considered a pro Russian party never garnered much support because the real power was with PoR. Indeed, the very concept and phrase "pro-Russian" is a post-war advent. The political fractures in Ukraine were always based on oligarchic clans, that some of them were from the East doesn't mean they were pro-Russia. Certainly the Russians had better ties with, and more support from, the Easterners. But the oligarchs themselves were always keen on maintaining independence.
    , @gerad
    If the west hadn't been moronic enough to support the cretin Yushchenko and this Orange Revolution, then even under the flawed Yanukovich, Ukraine would have been able to sustain until the crash, being the fastest economy in Europe. Instead these western idiots stopped this, persuaded Kiev into many anti--Russian moves....and the country that had a 12% GDP growth in 2004 ,had far less growth for the next few years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mr. XYZ says:

    To AP: Why exactly *wasn’t* a Donetsk-style uprising attempted in Kharkiv (Kharkov) in 2014?

    Also, though, for the record, I suspect that the reason that Putin didn’t simply outright send in the Russian military to occupy most or all of “Novorossiya” is due to the fear of *extremely* crippling Western sanctions against Russia (if not also the fear of some kind of Western military action in Ukraine). Indeed, I *extremely strongly* suspect that the West’s current sanctions on Russia are *extremely* tame in comparison to what the West (and possibly some other countries as well) would have done if Russia would have outright occupied most or all of “Novorossiya” (as in, *all* of the way up to Odessa).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Mr. XYZ says:

    : It’s kind of hard to reconcile with a country whose government has previously supported the invasion of your country, no?

    : In regards to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine starting from 2014, after reading a lot about Russia’s foreign policy ever since the early 1990s, I have concluded that Russia appears to have consistently tried to reintegrate Ukraine (and some of the other ex-USSR countries) into Russia ever since the early 1990s or, at best, ever since the mid-1990s. Indeed, there was first the Russian attempts to turn the CIS into either a single state or a super-state (in spite of the fact that the CIS Charter itself said that the CIS is neither a state nor a superstate!), then there was that Single Economic Space (SES) initiative back in 2003-2004 (an initiative that failed after the pro-Western Victor Yushchenko won the U.S. Presidency in 2004), and then the Eurasian Economic Union between 2011 and 2014. Frankly, once Russia concluded that it could not acquire all of Ukraine (in early 2014), it switched strategies and began focusing on acquiring a part of Ukraine (also, Russia changed strategies in the sense that it actually began to use military force against Ukraine in 2014). Of course, it appears that Putin wanted all or at least most of “Novorossiya” to rebel in favor of Russia and yet only ultimately ended up with a small fraction of “Novorossiya.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You may have read a lot, but certainly not intelligently. Russia had a more than perfect right to pursue integration with the Ukraine, and did so in a context of complete legality. Unfortunately the svidomites and CIA agents proved incapable of following that example, with the result that they have lost some of what they acquired by force and will lose the rest in the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. H von P says:
    @5371
    Even at their most deliberately divergent from Russian, they are no more so than broad Scots is from standard English.

    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn’, then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see “surzhyk”, the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by , as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN’T mean that Ukrainian isn’t a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    It takes about two minutes' thought to see that the approach taken in that paper is pseudo-science and not worth the pixels that constitute it. Not surprisingly it seems to have been pioneered by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, previously known for clearing Latin American Indians out of the way of oil companies.
    , @Khan Bodin
    That's some Anglo research you have there. tell me something, what percentage is "Bosniak" or "Montenegrin" similar to Serbian, hmm? Well, I can help you, in Montenegrin case it's the use of a dialect which is specific for northern and coastal Montenegron and southern Republic of Serbska (one can call it Zetan dialect, although our most promonent linguist Vuk Karadic called it Istocnohercegovacki or Starohercegovacki (which is Eastern Herzegovian or Old Herzegovian translated into English)). It's somewhere at the 95% of the same words. But in the case of "Bosniak" it's a lot less. "Bosniaks" took words and inserted a letter "h" between many of them, so it wouldn't be the same (for example, we say "kafa" for coffee and Bosniaks say "kahfa" or "kahva"). That shows you where the diference is, you simpleton, and any such research by the Anglos is nothing more than a shit-show born from political purposes, i.e. division of our people. It's not going to work. Even those Bosniaks have become very hateful toward you westereners. They tought you would feed them and make them to live like you do, but that didn't happen. ehehehe Ffs even Croats don't like you and they were always the loudest supporters of western interest, meddlings and colonization... westernization. ehehehe
    , @gerad

    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn’, then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see “surzhyk”, the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by , as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN’T mean that Ukrainian isn’t a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

     

    There was never any Russian "occupation" you dimwit.

    That "academic study" is a load of politicised bollocks. Most words,style of words,phrases used in Ukrainian language everyday, are heavily linked, and in many cases ..identical to Russian.

    There isn't a single moron in the world who find Ukrainian a more pleasant sounding language than Russian. That explains why the vast majority of educated Ukrainians, even after 1991 , still prefer to speak, watch their favourite tv programes, read their favourite newspapers, watch the most popular Ukrainian political debate show.....in Russian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. H von P says:
    @Khan Bodin
    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew you are making more and more a fool of yourself with every added post loaded with truly mindblowing idiotic statements, and to witness how simple-minded you truly are, you are not capable of noticing it. Who else but a genuine idiot keeps trashing his limbs around in the quicksand! ehehehe

    Now let me expand and again further demonstrate how big an imbecile you are. You say that Ukranian language exists and that it's based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If "Ukranian" language is based on Polish language (linguistically speaking, for I've no doubt there are many Polish words and expressions in the language there, especially in western Ukraine which has been part of Poland until 1939/43), Ukranians would have no problem understanding Poles, but that is not the case. Ukranians understand perfectly well Russian language though, because "Ukranian" lanaguage is just a derivation of the Russian language. It doesn't exist anymore than Canadian, Australian or Austrian languages exist. The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well tells one everything he or she needs to know about whose language Belorussians and Ukranians are speaking, and who indeed they are. Just because Bolsheviks created Belorussia as a state in 1920s which became "internationaly recognized" after the fall of USSR in 1991 doesn't mean Belorussia is a nation. Nations are not created by decrees of bureaucrats or politicians, and certainly not by those who did it without the expression of the will of the people or who came to power by a coup (both of which is true for communist Bolsheviks, those creators of Belorussian and Ukranian states). Even a total retard would notice something in the name of Belorussians, but it appears you are not capable even for that. You are just a little propagandist. A very dumb one. I am afraid your imbecilic propaganda is not something a semi-intelligent 6 yo would buy. A good merchant knows that you cannot sell something which has no value. But it is also known that intelligence is required to recognize such a simple truth, something which is truly not there in you case and in the case of your fellow simpletons. ehehehe

    “Belarusian” derives from Rus’, the Nordic tribe from which Kyivan Rus’ took its name. Muscovites appropriated the title Rus’, so Ukrainians (formerly called Ruthenians) adopted the designation Ukraine to distinguish themselves from Muscovites. (Muscovy, that servant of Mongolia, also oppressed North Slavic cities like Novgorod). Today, anti-ethnic Putin always refers to “rossiyskiy”, “rossiya” instead of using the racially-defined root Rus’.

    500 rubles says you already know all this and are just being an anti-White Kremlin troll.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Rus were a Varangian tribe from Gotland which is an island in front of Sweden. Read Primary Chronicle and learn how Rus state and nation were formed. Ilmens and other Slavic tribes had driven off Rus, but they later sent an emissary to call them back under the condition they unite with them as people because they were unable to unite with other nerby Slavic tribes due to constant squabbling and fighting between themselves. And they did. All Rus went with their chiftain Rurik and that was the birth of Rus state in 862. That's why the Rurik son's name was Igor and not Ingvar, and the other Rus who ruled in the name of Igor until he was of age Oleg and not Helgi. The Rus became Slavic. They became a nation which united many tribes. You are just an ignorant imbecile. Probably paid NGO worker too. Baltic one, correct? I sense a strong stench of Baltic trash in you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. H von P says:
    @LondonBob
    I get the impression if the rebels took everything but Galicia most would just carry on as usual.

    Kahrkhov, the Donbass and Crimea should have been given back to Russia, of the other Russian orientated areas Odessa is too important as a port for the rest of the Ukraine so should stay. A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state.

    “A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state.”

    Agree, but polls consistently show that around 66% of Kharkiv residents identify as Ukrainian, vs. around 44% of Donbass residents. It’s one thing to let the DNR/LNR go their own way (I for one think this would be best for Ukraine, because Putin actually wants to keep them in Ukraine’s orbit to influence Ukraine covertly through his puppet Rinat Akhmetov), but another to force Ukraine to unilaterally give up a major city in which its own people predominate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Retard, polls nad consistently shown that 58% of the people of Donbas considered themselves to be Ukranians, and +80% of them voted to reunite with Russia in 2014. I've already explained it in some of my earlier post, I beleive. Try to learn reading first, you propagandist imbecile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Miro23 says:

    Having had dealings with Ukrainians from Kiev and also the East, there is a lot of truth in the article.

    The Easteners have a clear link to Russia since many of them are in fact Russians who found good employment in a major industrial region (developed by Russia). They have some Ukrainian feeling but it is ambivalent and maybe they just want peace and to be left alone.

    The Westeners have realized that past and present governments are equally corrupt, and that in reality the Eastern provinces will never be recovered. It’s just politically unacceptable to state this reality over the official fiction of “reuniting the Ukraine”.

    So the article is right. We have two separate states divided by the Dnieper river, with a feeling of hopelessness in both parts – and Western or Russian intervention won’t improve the situation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. I’d say it’s more like Norwegian and Swedish (which are very close but not as close as Norwegian and Danish which are practically identical).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. H von P says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Absolutely.

    Novorossiya is the economic core of Ukraine, with Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions. Given stable conditions they will easily pay for themselves. In the USSR, it was West Ukraine that was subsidized.


    For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much.
     
    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players.
     
    So that's a no.

    “…Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions.”

    Leaving aside the question of whether majority-Ukrainian Kharkiv and Dnipro can be considered Novorossiya, the coal mines and factories of Donetsk were heavily subsidized by the state and were in fact extremely inefficient Soviet relics:

    [2014 data:] “According to Ukrainian government figures, for example, in the first half of 2013, Donetsk received 9.25 billion hryvnyas ($762 million) more in subsidies than it contributed to the national budget and Luhansk received 5.07 billion hryvnyas ($418 million) more than it contributed.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Rehmat says:

    Saker’s comparison of Ukraine with Somalia is the dumbest thing I ever read.

    Ukraine is a European Christian nation while Somalia is 99.9% Muslim African nation.

    Ukraine had been ruled by Russian Jewish Mafia for decades while there is no Jew or Russian in Somalia.

    Ukraine is loaded with Jewish oligarchs while there is no Muslim oligarch in Somalia.

    Somalia had been West’s nuclear-waste dump for decades but there is no Chernobyl-like nuclear plant.

    Ukraine is in the center of the US-Russian world domination war. Somalia had been targeted by the anti-Muslim West for decade through CIA-Mossad created so-called “Islamist fighters” such as al-Shabbab to demonize Muslim and Islam for waging more Israel’s proxy wars against Muslim countries in Africa.

    On March 7, 2016, using drones and jets to drop bombs and missile on Somali citizens Barack Obama killed at least 150 of them. As usual, Obama administration and the Jewish-controlled media claimed that the Somalis killed were members of al-Shabaab – a US and Israel terrorist proxy to destabilize Muslim-majority nations considered to be anti-Israel – just like ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Syria. As usual, Washington has provided no valid proof to support its lie.

    The Pentagon and the Jewish media like NYT, WP, WSJ, CNN, Fox News, etc. have called 150 dead as “terrorists” and “militants” – because they’re Muslims. Can you imagine had they been Jewish killed by Hamas or Hizbullah, they would be called by similar designation even though the Zionist entity was established by European Jew terrorists and militants in 1948, and it still remains a terrorist state.

    “This particular mass killing is unlikely to get much attention in the U.S. due to (1) the election-season obsession with horse-race analysis and pressing matters such as the size of Donald Trump’s hands; (2) widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending to care; (3) the invisibility of places like Somalia and the implicit devaluing of lives there; and (4) the complete normalization of the model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability, or evidence,” Jewish journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote on March 8, 2016.

    Interestingly, like the US-created Al-Qaeda – al-Shabaab too has established its proxy terrorism in several African countries in addition to Somalia, such as, Nigeria, Kenya, Libya, etc.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/11/somalia-us-kills-150-civilians-in-one-day/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. JL says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    To Avery: Ukraine is certainly (and unfortunately) *much* poorer than it should be. Indeed, surely one would think that a country with so much industry and with such an educated population would have achieved *a lot* more over the last 25 years.

    Frankly, it appears that corruption and political dysfunction in Ukraine affects both pro-Western politicians and pro-Russian ones--after all, neither Kuchma, nor Yushchenko, nor Yanukovych, nor Poroshenko was able to deliver large-scale economic growth to Ukraine.

    Ukraine has never had a pro-Russian President, nor any real meaningful politicians of that stripe. Even in Crimea, what could be considered a pro Russian party never garnered much support because the real power was with PoR. Indeed, the very concept and phrase “pro-Russian” is a post-war advent. The political fractures in Ukraine were always based on oligarchic clans, that some of them were from the East doesn’t mean they were pro-Russia. Certainly the Russians had better ties with, and more support from, the Easterners. But the oligarchs themselves were always keen on maintaining independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I'm sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments - but currently, like Syria, it's invaded by the Zionist Jews and their EU collaborators.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/02/24/jewish-groups-celebrate-regime-change-in-ukraine/
    , @Khan Bodin
    You are lying through your teeth. Let's see what Anglo corporate media has been saying about governor of Crimea:

    http://time.com/19097/putin-crimea-russia-ukraine-aksyonov/

    Like I said, you are a liar and probably a thief. Enough for capital punishment I'd say. ehehehe

    , @Philip Owen


    Spot on. Neither set of Nationalists nor the anti-Liberal fascists in this debate finds it convenient to look at the role of the oligarchs in the development of Ukrainian politics since 2004 in particular. The trapping of many Ukrainians in identity conflicts rather than debates on social and political reform is a strong indicator of such manipulations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Anon
    As an American, the only thing I care about is leaving NATO alone. Lesser NATO ... prior to the last few expansions, had the advantage of largely disarming Europe by leading them to believe that cheating on their commitments to spend 2% of GDP was a really smart way to screw the Americans. And especially Germany. Without the US acting stupid, Russia would be rightfully terrified of reunified Germany. That's where I would start any serious negotiations with Russia. Just tell them they win. And they can do whatever deals they want with Germany, etc.

    One observation. I don't get the bridge over the Kerch strait. Or rather, why it can't be built. Are the Russians retarded when it comes to civil engineering? The Mackinac Bridge was thrown up in a couple of years in 1955. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge Unless I am missing something. Or are the Russians just going to be taking territory to connect up by land?

    A few observations. Whatever the Russians could do a couple of years ago, they can't with $40/bbl oil. Sochi was done with oil at over $100 bbl.

    In spite of everything, Ukraine is Russia's best customer for oil and gas. To the extent they absorb it, they add cost and lose revenue. Everything is worse now than it was 2 years ago, but the same logic applies. You rightly pointed out that Crimea is a cash drain on Russia. But Russia has its reasons for paying up for it. And really? As an American, I'm in favor of Russia's Navy floating in the Black Sea.

    Russia can't afford more 'success' annexing Ukrainian territory.

    The EU is done expanding, whether they know it or not. After Brexit and Grexit. Or should I say, permanently bailing out Greece, they don't need an economic black hole like Ukraine. They already 'Won' Romania, Bulgaria, etc. And are choking on them.

    Ukraine's well educated youth all want to leave, and the EU was and is a better option. I don't know if that was a lot of the energy behind the turmoil, but it was a no brainer to hook up with the EU before bailing out of the country. And former USSR states aren't lining up to rejoin.

    We all know that no one is going to pony up the $50 billion plus to refinance Ukraine. Ukraine is too divided to go along with a much smaller IMF package with austerity tossed into the mix.

    I see a place where the youth just want to leave -- not fight and die for. But also, these are people that survived a lot more than today's lethargic economic stagnation and/or gradual decline. So... I don't know.

    Other than no one wants it for its own sake. Maybe Russian or US domestic politics. But, really.

    “Ukraine is Russia’s best customer for oil and gas.”

    Let’s just say that Ukraine is one of the larger consumers of Russian oil and gas. They sometimes even pay for what they use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. 5371 says:
    @H von P
    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn', then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see "surzhyk", the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by @Latvian woman, as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN'T mean that Ukrainian isn't a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    It takes about two minutes’ thought to see that the approach taken in that paper is pseudo-science and not worth the pixels that constitute it. Not surprisingly it seems to have been pioneered by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, previously known for clearing Latin American Indians out of the way of oil companies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. 5371 says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @European in America: It's kind of hard to reconcile with a country whose government has previously supported the invasion of your country, no?

    @AP: In regards to Russia's aggression against Ukraine starting from 2014, after reading a lot about Russia's foreign policy ever since the early 1990s, I have concluded that Russia appears to have consistently tried to reintegrate Ukraine (and some of the other ex-USSR countries) into Russia ever since the early 1990s or, at best, ever since the mid-1990s. Indeed, there was first the Russian attempts to turn the CIS into either a single state or a super-state (in spite of the fact that the CIS Charter itself said that the CIS is neither a state nor a superstate!), then there was that Single Economic Space (SES) initiative back in 2003-2004 (an initiative that failed after the pro-Western Victor Yushchenko won the U.S. Presidency in 2004), and then the Eurasian Economic Union between 2011 and 2014. Frankly, once Russia concluded that it could not acquire all of Ukraine (in early 2014), it switched strategies and began focusing on acquiring a part of Ukraine (also, Russia changed strategies in the sense that it actually began to use military force against Ukraine in 2014). Of course, it appears that Putin wanted all or at least most of "Novorossiya" to rebel in favor of Russia and yet only ultimately ended up with a small fraction of "Novorossiya."

    You may have read a lot, but certainly not intelligently. Russia had a more than perfect right to pursue integration with the Ukraine, and did so in a context of complete legality. Unfortunately the svidomites and CIA agents proved incapable of following that example, with the result that they have lost some of what they acquired by force and will lose the rest in the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Romanian
    Very interesting comment. I'd just like to quibble about your map.

    For instance, Southern Bessarabia (the part of the Odessa region of today beyond the Dniester) could not have been added to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 because it was a part of Greater Romania from 1918 until 1940, when the whole of Bessarabia was given away after the ultimatum. Northern Bukovina and Southern Bessarabia went to Ukraine, and the rest of Bessarabia joined the pre-existing Moldovan SSR. The outline near Odessa should also show Transnistria, even if it became the later core of the Moldovan SSR.

    Bessarabia as a region had become Turkish in 1484 and Russian in 1711 (and by Treaty of Buchurest of 1812 much of Modova was part of Russia too). Before that the land belonged to Avars and to Slavic tribe of Ulichs, and I think part of it to Vlachs later on. Bessarabia had never belonged to Romania before Romanian army took it in 1918 during the Russian civil war and incorporated it into Romania. Romania as a nation was born in 1859, right? Yes.

    As for Modova, sure, if people of Moldova support your claim in referendum, then Moldova should be part of Romania, yes. But I don’t think you have the support of Modovan people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    You put the cart before the horse - Moldova can't be Romanian because it was not part of a state called Romania until very late, when one could be made. You assume that the medieval Moldovan polity was not Romanian, or identified with the vlachs, rumei, romei, rumâni, despite the ample evidence that it was. What they called themselves is immaterial when weighed in the context of documentary evidence that they identified culturally with people in a larger contiguous territory. Did Russia and Russians cease to exist in 1917 and then spring back to life in the beginning of the 1990s? And you would presume to tell me that the Romanians themselves were born in 1859, as well, from Slavs and Avars who found a dictionary written in vulgar Latin and somehow culturally infected people living across three imperial borders or spheres of influence. We might have been the original hipsters, trying to stand out from a mainly culturally Slavic region. The Czechs, the Finns, the Slovaks, the Slovenes and other peoples sprang fully formed from the minds of the revolutionaries of 1848, it would seem.

    The medieval Moldovan state (today's Romanian Moldova + the Republic of Moldova + Southern Bessarabia/Budjak + plus what the Austrians called Northern Bukowina in the North) ended up in vassalage to the Turks, that is correct, as did Wallachia. Bessarabia, which is a third of Moldova proper, ended up with the Russians in 1812, while Transylvania was variously under Hungarian, Habsburgs and Austro-Hungarian polities. Let me also remind you that no Romanian territory above the Danube, aside from Budjak (Dobruja being below the Danube), which waffled back and forth quite a bit demographically, was ever part of a pashalic, which was why you won't find mosques and relict Muslims in the vast majority of Romanian territory - cultural autonomy was part of our package. It seems the Turks knew who they were dealing with and saw us as a people.

    Historical realities regarding politics do not invalidate the demographic realities of the presence of a people that identified and persisted as one nation or tribe, despite being present in different polities, until they found the right outer circumstances and inner force to effect a unification (the first one covering all three major regions lasted only a short while in the year 1600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave ). Genetically, we are autochtonous, regardless of the various identities we were saddled with over millennia as part of tribal warfare and absorptions until the Romanian identity formed from its core populations and persisted to this day. That there are Romanians today who are partially descended from Serbs, Turks and whatever is immaterial (I'm waiting on a 23andme ancestry analysis right now). Historical documents of the various times attest to the understanding that the various Romanian polities were inhabited by a people speaking the same language, with quite a lot of mixing among royal families. You can find ethnic maps on wikipedia, as well as various estimated for population balances in centuries past. The arc of Romanian habitation (not predominance, mind you, we were always minority outside of Greater Romania) extended all the way to the Bug river, and beyond the Danube to the South, though a lot of those communities were assimilated in years past.

    I'm going to quibble again. The name Romania for the country was established constitutionally in 1866, when we got our German prince of the Hohenzollerns. So we're even younger than you suggested. The entity created in 1859 was a bit of a weird duckling, being a personal union between two separate states which had elected the same king, a Moldovan boyar named Alexandru Ioan Cuza. He thought he was leading one people too. It was called the United Principalities of Moldova and Țara Românească.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. gdpbull says:

    The Saker, the EU, the US, and Russia all ignore the best solution which is Federalism. Give the Donbass region, and other regions for that matter, autonomy, even to the point of the Ukraine being a confederacy.

    The Saker alludes that the Baltics are similar to Ukraine. They are not. Their eastern ethnic Russian regions are not close cultural cousins. And those Russians are relatively new occupants of those countries. And, the Baltics are not basket cases like Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    And if somebody doesn't want to live as part of Ukraine anymore? Remember how you westerners said in the 90s when Croats and Slovenians wanted to leave Yugoslavia: "Their wishes must be respected! They have the right to be independent!" The only thing which is keeping those other regions part of Ukraine is Ukranian army and paramilitary units, i.e. force or coercion. Well now other regions don't want to be part of Ukraine, and not just in the east and south but the western Ukraine too. Their wishes too must be respected. Liberal Anglo Empire always thought it would control and rule all of Ukraine. You only get what those who want to be ruled and part of you, and that is western Ukraine.
    , @Philip Owen


    (Con)Federalism that gives the rump Donbass a veto over the rest of Ukraine forging close links with the EU is the Russian strategy. That is one reason why government Russia doesn't want to absorb the nationalist occupied Donbass. It wants to lock Ukraine out of the EU by forcing a confederation on it. All Kiev has to do to win is wait. Either Russia gives up and picks up the tab (unlikely short of the Liberal Democrats coming to power) or the place disintegrates to the point that the leadership lose what legitimacy they possess (firepower, Russian humanitarian aid, payoffs from local oligarchs). The leadership has anyway been hugely reduced by assassination and exile. The Russian secret service and the oligarchs (who were largely responsible for Maidan) will presumably continue to assassinate those who displease them anyway. Emerging new leadership in Novorossiya is conspicuous by its absence at the moment but there won't be many old leaders soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Latvian woman
    Well, well, Khan Bodin, if President Lukashenka heard what you say about Belarus here not being a nation, he'd get very angry. :) No, neither Belorussian nor Ukrainian are to Russian what Australian or American English are to British English. Not even close.

    Like I said, every fool has hiw worldview. But Belarus is not pro-western. When they speak of their independence, they mean it, which is why Europeans and Westerners are against them and their independent president. And they are very pro-Russian, since they are Russian. But excuse me if I don’t beleive a word of what you say. It doesn’t behave a person to be pro-Russian yet watch Ukrop Ministry of Truth propaganda and peddle pro-western views and stories, unless that person is trying to deceive. The fact that you are from Baltic can only add to the suspicion, for Baltics are not exactly known for their honesty or truthfulness, but rather for some mental disorders amongst which patological untruthfulness and I’d say paranoia definitely are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Andrei Martyanov

    I will never cease to mantrically repeat that Russia is much weaker than what most people think.
     
    True, but only so far. I am almost forced to use Metternich's, Bismark's and Churchill's (all three are credited with it) dictum that Russia is never as strong as she seems and never as weak as she seems. What is undeniable is that Russia of August 2016 is much stronger than Russia of February 2014. Rostislav Ishenko constantly repeats one things--"need slightly more time, we are almost there". What is he talking about? He is talking about some major structural shifts in Russia's economy and governance which make Russia precisely capable of dealing with whatever a combination of negative events is coming her way, Ukraine being, of course, a main one.

    Would you care to elaborate on your assettion about the improved and improving Russian economy.

    BTW have you – or any other reader of this – read the recent issue of Foreign Affairs with many articles on Russia? If so any comment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Would you care to elaborate on your assettion about the improved and improving Russian economy.
     
    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/06/boston-globe-is-right-on-money.html

    BTW have you – or any other reader of this – read the recent issue of Foreign Affairs with many articles on Russia? If so any comment?
     
    I stopped reading, or rather treat seriously, most of US foreign policy media outlets, even such trying to be more or less presentable source as Foreign Affairs, after 2008. Today, most of West's main stream "foreign policy" thought is a panopticon of pretentious hacks, who refuse to face reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Alden
    What does the Vatican have to do with the situation? Whatever you call that geographical area or the people, they are not Romans but various Eastern Orthodox

    Or are you one if those bigots who believes the Pope is a whore of Babylon the anti Christ and a scarlet woman?

    You are very ignorant person of politics, centers of power and everything else aside your petty little life I’d say. I have no desire to educate you. If you had an ounce of intelligence in that hollow appereance-of-a-head of yours, you could have opened my avatar and find the answers there. There, I just helped you, simpleton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Oh a truly irritating frolicking troll. Probably trying to win a bet from his frat buddies. I wonder if my having guessed that by now will mean he has to pay up. He will probably ease out a few diversionary rear guard nonsenses but who would bet we'll ever have to put up with him again?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Khan Bodin
    First off, simpleton, there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language. Ukraine is just a territory and nothing more. The so-called Bosniak today called themselves Turks just up to 1908. They started calling themselves Bosniaks in 1993. Kosovars are all ethnic Albanians. Montenegrins, excluding Albanians living there, are all ethnic Serbs. Montenegro, formerly known as Duklja, is an old Serbian state, just like Bosnia or Kosovo is (with difference being that Kosovo never had an attribute of a state until westerners decided to make Kosovo a state in 1999). You see, calling or giving someone the atributes of the state doesn't make them truly a people with all its historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistical and other atributes. There is no Bosniak, Montenegrin, Kosovar, Essexan, Floridian, CaliPornian, Texan, Bavarian, Austrian, Canadian or Ukranian language or ethnic people. Calling something Ukranian, Canadian, Australian, Bosniak or Kosovar language doesn't make it so. You think you can take someone's national language, make different pronunciacion of some words, change some words so it wouldn't be the same as the language you are taking from and call it something else will indeed make it so, hmm? It doesn't you simple minded fool, you degenerate imbecilic liberal Anglo propagandist! It can only deceive the minds of the morons like yoursef. You don't make a nation by recognizing someone's "independence" or having some paid politicians, "their representatives," sit in that globalist institution in New York. Ukranians call themselves Ukranians because they live in Ukraine, just like Parisians call themselves Parisians because they live in Paris, or New Yorkers call themselves New Yorkers because live in New York. 58% of Donbass population called themselves Ukranians before 2014. Now 0%, or gravitating to 0%, call themselves Ukranians. Even before those Galicians and other western Ukranians with their nazi rulers from Kiev unleashed their aggression on them, they had overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, even though 58% of them, like I said, called themselves Ukranians. There are many Ukranains. Certainly those western Ukranians won't go along with the eastern and southeastern Ukranians if you know anything about the history of the land there. Since you don't know anything about history, all you do is blather with that typical unsensical propagandist liberal Anglo tones, you moronic creature.

    I can’t believe it! UR infested by another offensive anti-Semitic (as appears later) boor with a limited command of English grammar or logic but an an infinite willingness to make assertions however ridiculous. Are you another branch of the Rehmat syndicate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Cyrano
    It seems that in Ukraine today conditions exist that might even result in another catastrophe like the famine of the 1930’s, to which some decided to give a genocidal name “Holodomor”. I suspect that in case of such an unfortunate scenario – the blame will be assigned again to the Russians.

    Never mind that if there is one single character trait that all Ukrainians arguably possess is that they never know when it’s time to get on with the program. Rebelling against the collectivization in the 1930’s was what led to the famine then, and rebelling against the economic union with Russia in 2014 is what might lead to the possible collapse of Ukraine in the near future.

    Both are examples of total lack of vision by the Ukrainians as to what course of action might be most beneficial to them as a “nation”. After all these are the same people who welcomed the invading Germans with flowers - as liberators in 1941 – the ones who were responsible for such pearls of wisdom as Slavs are untermensch and yet somehow the Ukrainians felt excluded from such generous descriptions by the Germans.

    Like it didn’t occur to them that they might be Slavs too. Talking about delusions. It’s no wonder that the current generation of Ukrainians sees the west as “saviors” and the Russians as oppressors of Ukraine. It seems it’s in their DNA. What is wrong with these people? Are they even capable of learning anything from their mistakes from 80 and 70 years ago?

    Were the Ukrainians who welcomed the Germans really so stupid? After all they knew what Stalin had had Kaganovichdp to them and that was arguably worse than what Hitler did to the Poles. And maybe Hitler wasn’t even going to decapitate the Ukrainians as he had been doing with the Poles. They could at least hope that the Germans would be better than the Soviet leadership in Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Most Ukranians never welcomed Hitler, you Australian filth, an offspring of some Anglo thief sent there for his crimes. Ukranians made 4 fronts of the Red Army (a front is made of 3-5 armies, and army is made of between 100.000 and 150.000 soldiers), whereas those Galicians and other western Ukranians made only one waffen ss division (14th Waffen SS, in terms of numbers it was probably less than 20.000). You are either blatering some nonsensical imbecilic things or outright lying.
    , @Cyrano
    It’s a known fact that Stalin had no great love for the Ukrainians. For him, a peasant wanting to possess even a few cows and horses – was a sign of dangerous bourgeois tendencies that needed to be dealt with harshly. So he did, and the result was the famine. Although it seems that even he realized that he might have overdone the whole thing, so he penned up a piece called “Dizzy with success” in which he tried to blame the whole tragedy of the famine on overzealous commissars.

    On the other hand, trying to portray the whole tragedy of the famine as being motivated by some kind of genocidal racism of the Russians towards the Ukrainians is beyond retarded. Yet, this seems to be the favorite way the Ukrainians like to interpret the whole tragedy. The main reason it happened was Stalin and the Russian people had no control over his actions. As for the Ukrainians welcoming the Germans as liberators – they were not entirely disappointed in their expectations. The Germans did liberate a large number of them – from their lives – so their unbridled enthusiasm for seeing the Germans as saviors was not completely unfounded.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @H von P
    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn', then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see "surzhyk", the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by @Latvian woman, as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN'T mean that Ukrainian isn't a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    That’s some Anglo research you have there. tell me something, what percentage is “Bosniak” or “Montenegrin” similar to Serbian, hmm? Well, I can help you, in Montenegrin case it’s the use of a dialect which is specific for northern and coastal Montenegron and southern Republic of Serbska (one can call it Zetan dialect, although our most promonent linguist Vuk Karadic called it Istocnohercegovacki or Starohercegovacki (which is Eastern Herzegovian or Old Herzegovian translated into English)). It’s somewhere at the 95% of the same words. But in the case of “Bosniak” it’s a lot less. “Bosniaks” took words and inserted a letter “h” between many of them, so it wouldn’t be the same (for example, we say “kafa” for coffee and Bosniaks say “kahfa” or “kahva”). That shows you where the diference is, you simpleton, and any such research by the Anglos is nothing more than a shit-show born from political purposes, i.e. division of our people. It’s not going to work. Even those Bosniaks have become very hateful toward you westereners. They tought you would feed them and make them to live like you do, but that didn’t happen. ehehehe Ffs even Croats don’t like you and they were always the loudest supporters of western interest, meddlings and colonization… westernization. ehehehe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    And yet there is strong support for joining the EU even in Serbia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    Bessarabia as a region had become Turkish in 1484 and Russian in 1711 (and by Treaty of Buchurest of 1812 much of Modova was part of Russia too). Before that the land belonged to Avars and to Slavic tribe of Ulichs, and I think part of it to Vlachs later on. Bessarabia had never belonged to Romania before Romanian army took it in 1918 during the Russian civil war and incorporated it into Romania. Romania as a nation was born in 1859, right? Yes.

    As for Modova, sure, if people of Moldova support your claim in referendum, then Moldova should be part of Romania, yes. But I don't think you have the support of Modovan people.

    You put the cart before the horse – Moldova can’t be Romanian because it was not part of a state called Romania until very late, when one could be made. You assume that the medieval Moldovan polity was not Romanian, or identified with the vlachs, rumei, romei, rumâni, despite the ample evidence that it was. What they called themselves is immaterial when weighed in the context of documentary evidence that they identified culturally with people in a larger contiguous territory. Did Russia and Russians cease to exist in 1917 and then spring back to life in the beginning of the 1990s? And you would presume to tell me that the Romanians themselves were born in 1859, as well, from Slavs and Avars who found a dictionary written in vulgar Latin and somehow culturally infected people living across three imperial borders or spheres of influence. We might have been the original hipsters, trying to stand out from a mainly culturally Slavic region. The Czechs, the Finns, the Slovaks, the Slovenes and other peoples sprang fully formed from the minds of the revolutionaries of 1848, it would seem.

    The medieval Moldovan state (today’s Romanian Moldova + the Republic of Moldova + Southern Bessarabia/Budjak + plus what the Austrians called Northern Bukowina in the North) ended up in vassalage to the Turks, that is correct, as did Wallachia. Bessarabia, which is a third of Moldova proper, ended up with the Russians in 1812, while Transylvania was variously under Hungarian, Habsburgs and Austro-Hungarian polities. Let me also remind you that no Romanian territory above the Danube, aside from Budjak (Dobruja being below the Danube), which waffled back and forth quite a bit demographically, was ever part of a pashalic, which was why you won’t find mosques and relict Muslims in the vast majority of Romanian territory – cultural autonomy was part of our package. It seems the Turks knew who they were dealing with and saw us as a people.

    Historical realities regarding politics do not invalidate the demographic realities of the presence of a people that identified and persisted as one nation or tribe, despite being present in different polities, until they found the right outer circumstances and inner force to effect a unification (the first one covering all three major regions lasted only a short while in the year 1600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave ). Genetically, we are autochtonous, regardless of the various identities we were saddled with over millennia as part of tribal warfare and absorptions until the Romanian identity formed from its core populations and persisted to this day. That there are Romanians today who are partially descended from Serbs, Turks and whatever is immaterial (I’m waiting on a 23andme ancestry analysis right now). Historical documents of the various times attest to the understanding that the various Romanian polities were inhabited by a people speaking the same language, with quite a lot of mixing among royal families. You can find ethnic maps on wikipedia, as well as various estimated for population balances in centuries past. The arc of Romanian habitation (not predominance, mind you, we were always minority outside of Greater Romania) extended all the way to the Bug river, and beyond the Danube to the South, though a lot of those communities were assimilated in years past.

    I’m going to quibble again. The name Romania for the country was established constitutionally in 1866, when we got our German prince of the Hohenzollerns. So we’re even younger than you suggested. The entity created in 1859 was a bit of a weird duckling, being a personal union between two separate states which had elected the same king, a Moldovan boyar named Alexandru Ioan Cuza. He thought he was leading one people too. It was called the United Principalities of Moldova and Țara Românească.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    So who are you then? I know Vlachs existed long before Romanians did, and I know that Romanians had never existed before the 2nd part of the 19th century. Are you trying to insert a notion that you are of Roman origins perhaps? Do you understand that Romans were a small tribe which inhabited a land on and around the seven hills what is later known as the city of Rome, but more importanly are you aware that you are not even remotely similar in any shape or form, either beheviorally, culturally or I'd say genetically, to Romans? Where did that Romania come from? So you were established constitutionally in 1866 by "your prince" of Hohenzollerns, hmm? Good to know. I'd say then it's far more likely that that "Romania" is derived from Roma, people of Roma that is. And you have not descended from us, partially or in iotas degrees. There is no our blood there in Romania. We are very old people, you know. We go back thousands of years. Roman Emperor Tiberius called us Scythians. There are many who think that Scythians were the 10 tribes of Israel. There are many researchs on the subject (see here: http://stevenmcollins.com/html/scythians.html). I'd say it is more than likely that we are the tribe of Dan. I wasn't called a Jew once, but many, many times (even though I am not), which does suggest something, for if impartial and laic observers are able to see and notice some behavioral or thinking similarities, it can only refer to mutual ancestors at some point. Also, we are Dinarid race, and you Romanians are not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Khan Bodin
    You are very ignorant person of politics, centers of power and everything else aside your petty little life I'd say. I have no desire to educate you. If you had an ounce of intelligence in that hollow appereance-of-a-head of yours, you could have opened my avatar and find the answers there. There, I just helped you, simpleton.

    Oh a truly irritating frolicking troll. Probably trying to win a bet from his frat buddies. I wonder if my having guessed that by now will mean he has to pay up. He will probably ease out a few diversionary rear guard nonsenses but who would bet we’ll ever have to put up with him again?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Wizard of Oz
    Were the Ukrainians who welcomed the Germans really so stupid? After all they knew what Stalin had had Kaganovichdp to them and that was arguably worse than what Hitler did to the Poles. And maybe Hitler wasn't even going to decapitate the Ukrainians as he had been doing with the Poles. They could at least hope that the Germans would be better than the Soviet leadership in Moscow.

    Most Ukranians never welcomed Hitler, you Australian filth, an offspring of some Anglo thief sent there for his crimes. Ukranians made 4 fronts of the Red Army (a front is made of 3-5 armies, and army is made of between 100.000 and 150.000 soldiers), whereas those Galicians and other western Ukranians made only one waffen ss division (14th Waffen SS, in terms of numbers it was probably less than 20.000). You are either blatering some nonsensical imbecilic things or outright lying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @gdpbull
    The Saker, the EU, the US, and Russia all ignore the best solution which is Federalism. Give the Donbass region, and other regions for that matter, autonomy, even to the point of the Ukraine being a confederacy.

    The Saker alludes that the Baltics are similar to Ukraine. They are not. Their eastern ethnic Russian regions are not close cultural cousins. And those Russians are relatively new occupants of those countries. And, the Baltics are not basket cases like Ukraine.

    And if somebody doesn’t want to live as part of Ukraine anymore? Remember how you westerners said in the 90s when Croats and Slovenians wanted to leave Yugoslavia: “Their wishes must be respected! They have the right to be independent!” The only thing which is keeping those other regions part of Ukraine is Ukranian army and paramilitary units, i.e. force or coercion. Well now other regions don’t want to be part of Ukraine, and not just in the east and south but the western Ukraine too. Their wishes too must be respected. Liberal Anglo Empire always thought it would control and rule all of Ukraine. You only get what those who want to be ruled and part of you, and that is western Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rehmat says:
    @JL
    Ukraine has never had a pro-Russian President, nor any real meaningful politicians of that stripe. Even in Crimea, what could be considered a pro Russian party never garnered much support because the real power was with PoR. Indeed, the very concept and phrase "pro-Russian" is a post-war advent. The political fractures in Ukraine were always based on oligarchic clans, that some of them were from the East doesn't mean they were pro-Russia. Certainly the Russians had better ties with, and more support from, the Easterners. But the oligarchs themselves were always keen on maintaining independence.

    I’m sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments – but currently, like Syria, it’s invaded by the Zionist Jews and their EU collaborators.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/02/24/jewish-groups-celebrate-regime-change-in-ukraine/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You are a good man, Rehmat. Never let anyone or anything to stop what you have to say, for you are not a subject or a slave, but a holy warrior. Only slaves have shackles on their minds and sometimes on their bodies too. Keep up the good work.
    , @JL

    I’m sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.
     
    I've been accused of many things in my life, but anti-Russian is a first.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments
     
    Do you care to elaborate, besides an irrelevant and self-referential blog post? Which Ukrainian governments were pro-Russian and how were these pro-Russian views manifested into policy? The funny thing is that you are perpetuating a mainstream myth in the information war against Russia. So if anyone in this discussion is displaying anti-Russian tendencies, it's you. I understand, though, it's out of ignorance and not maliciousness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Romanian
    You put the cart before the horse - Moldova can't be Romanian because it was not part of a state called Romania until very late, when one could be made. You assume that the medieval Moldovan polity was not Romanian, or identified with the vlachs, rumei, romei, rumâni, despite the ample evidence that it was. What they called themselves is immaterial when weighed in the context of documentary evidence that they identified culturally with people in a larger contiguous territory. Did Russia and Russians cease to exist in 1917 and then spring back to life in the beginning of the 1990s? And you would presume to tell me that the Romanians themselves were born in 1859, as well, from Slavs and Avars who found a dictionary written in vulgar Latin and somehow culturally infected people living across three imperial borders or spheres of influence. We might have been the original hipsters, trying to stand out from a mainly culturally Slavic region. The Czechs, the Finns, the Slovaks, the Slovenes and other peoples sprang fully formed from the minds of the revolutionaries of 1848, it would seem.

    The medieval Moldovan state (today's Romanian Moldova + the Republic of Moldova + Southern Bessarabia/Budjak + plus what the Austrians called Northern Bukowina in the North) ended up in vassalage to the Turks, that is correct, as did Wallachia. Bessarabia, which is a third of Moldova proper, ended up with the Russians in 1812, while Transylvania was variously under Hungarian, Habsburgs and Austro-Hungarian polities. Let me also remind you that no Romanian territory above the Danube, aside from Budjak (Dobruja being below the Danube), which waffled back and forth quite a bit demographically, was ever part of a pashalic, which was why you won't find mosques and relict Muslims in the vast majority of Romanian territory - cultural autonomy was part of our package. It seems the Turks knew who they were dealing with and saw us as a people.

    Historical realities regarding politics do not invalidate the demographic realities of the presence of a people that identified and persisted as one nation or tribe, despite being present in different polities, until they found the right outer circumstances and inner force to effect a unification (the first one covering all three major regions lasted only a short while in the year 1600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave ). Genetically, we are autochtonous, regardless of the various identities we were saddled with over millennia as part of tribal warfare and absorptions until the Romanian identity formed from its core populations and persisted to this day. That there are Romanians today who are partially descended from Serbs, Turks and whatever is immaterial (I'm waiting on a 23andme ancestry analysis right now). Historical documents of the various times attest to the understanding that the various Romanian polities were inhabited by a people speaking the same language, with quite a lot of mixing among royal families. You can find ethnic maps on wikipedia, as well as various estimated for population balances in centuries past. The arc of Romanian habitation (not predominance, mind you, we were always minority outside of Greater Romania) extended all the way to the Bug river, and beyond the Danube to the South, though a lot of those communities were assimilated in years past.

    I'm going to quibble again. The name Romania for the country was established constitutionally in 1866, when we got our German prince of the Hohenzollerns. So we're even younger than you suggested. The entity created in 1859 was a bit of a weird duckling, being a personal union between two separate states which had elected the same king, a Moldovan boyar named Alexandru Ioan Cuza. He thought he was leading one people too. It was called the United Principalities of Moldova and Țara Românească.

    So who are you then? I know Vlachs existed long before Romanians did, and I know that Romanians had never existed before the 2nd part of the 19th century. Are you trying to insert a notion that you are of Roman origins perhaps? Do you understand that Romans were a small tribe which inhabited a land on and around the seven hills what is later known as the city of Rome, but more importanly are you aware that you are not even remotely similar in any shape or form, either beheviorally, culturally or I’d say genetically, to Romans? Where did that Romania come from? So you were established constitutionally in 1866 by “your prince” of Hohenzollerns, hmm? Good to know. I’d say then it’s far more likely that that “Romania” is derived from Roma, people of Roma that is. And you have not descended from us, partially or in iotas degrees. There is no our blood there in Romania. We are very old people, you know. We go back thousands of years. Roman Emperor Tiberius called us Scythians. There are many who think that Scythians were the 10 tribes of Israel. There are many researchs on the subject (see here: http://stevenmcollins.com/html/scythians.html). I’d say it is more than likely that we are the tribe of Dan. I wasn’t called a Jew once, but many, many times (even though I am not), which does suggest something, for if impartial and laic observers are able to see and notice some behavioral or thinking similarities, it can only refer to mutual ancestors at some point. Also, we are Dinarid race, and you Romanians are not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Yes, you go back thousands of years, while we were born in a cabbage patch just as Russia was about to muscle into the region. What a coincidence! Vlachs and Romanians are the same thing. And there are other names as well, names that others gave us, or that we gave ourselves. It comes with living within a region of such vibrant diversity :). The language and the consciousness was what ensured our persistence while being divided among multiple empires. Like the Kurds, if you will. Many people have foundation myths that point to a historical truth, however misrepresented. The occupation of Dacia by the Romans and the colonization was realand attested to archeologically, the persistence of Latin to give rise to a Romance language is obviously real, the continuous habitation of this very hospitable region for thousands of years is real and attested to through genetic studies that show pretty conclusively to what extent the migratory populations figure in the wider population mix. The results are free to view online. Here, you can make an excel chart and trace haplogroup predominance http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml for whichever groups you want. Yes, 2000 years is a long time to dilute whatever Roman blood there was. It doesn't matter. It's our story and we're sticking to it. The Hungarians were almost genocided by the Mongols and King Bela had to repopulate with Poles, not that the original invaders were numerous compared to the people they lorded over, but that doesn't stop them from harping on about their horselord warrior ancestry. And a fine ancestry it is.

    I also want to thank you for the insult of calling my people gypsies, since we are obviously Subcontinental in appearance. We are also very different looking from the other peoples of the Balkans or Southern Europe in general. We have three eyes and four arms. This kind of gratuitous mud slinging (literally) shows people you interact with the kind of person you are. It's true, we should not have acquiesced so easily to the Western led campaign of rebranding the Gypsies with a more marketable name with fewer negative connotations. Our brand has been tainted by this, and we have been made to suffer the cheap shots of the likes of you. But what can I say? It means man in their Orcish tongue and, with the number of peoples whose name for themselves means people or men, I think they did not choose it just to be particularly vexing for us, despite the end result. Are the Slovenes and the Hungarians also Gypsies? As a percentage of the population, they are much farther along the path to Punjabization than we are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @H von P
    "A more homogeneous Ukraine would have a better chance to be a functioning state."

    Agree, but polls consistently show that around 66% of Kharkiv residents identify as Ukrainian, vs. around 44% of Donbass residents. It's one thing to let the DNR/LNR go their own way (I for one think this would be best for Ukraine, because Putin actually wants to keep them in Ukraine's orbit to influence Ukraine covertly through his puppet Rinat Akhmetov), but another to force Ukraine to unilaterally give up a major city in which its own people predominate.

    Retard, polls nad consistently shown that 58% of the people of Donbas considered themselves to be Ukranians, and +80% of them voted to reunite with Russia in 2014. I’ve already explained it in some of my earlier post, I beleive. Try to learn reading first, you propagandist imbecile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    The 2014 vote was hardly conducted in circumstances that made it a useful indicator of anything except who was in control locally. For example, a large fraction of the population had already fled in places where reported voting turnout was high. People bused in from Kharkiv to vote. The Officer's Association again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Rehmat
    I'm sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments - but currently, like Syria, it's invaded by the Zionist Jews and their EU collaborators.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/02/24/jewish-groups-celebrate-regime-change-in-ukraine/

    You are a good man, Rehmat. Never let anyone or anything to stop what you have to say, for you are not a subject or a slave, but a holy warrior. Only slaves have shackles on their minds and sometimes on their bodies too. Keep up the good work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @JL
    Ukraine has never had a pro-Russian President, nor any real meaningful politicians of that stripe. Even in Crimea, what could be considered a pro Russian party never garnered much support because the real power was with PoR. Indeed, the very concept and phrase "pro-Russian" is a post-war advent. The political fractures in Ukraine were always based on oligarchic clans, that some of them were from the East doesn't mean they were pro-Russia. Certainly the Russians had better ties with, and more support from, the Easterners. But the oligarchs themselves were always keen on maintaining independence.

    You are lying through your teeth. Let’s see what Anglo corporate media has been saying about governor of Crimea:

    http://time.com/19097/putin-crimea-russia-ukraine-aksyonov/

    Like I said, you are a liar and probably a thief. Enough for capital punishment I’d say. ehehehe

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    So who are you then? I know Vlachs existed long before Romanians did, and I know that Romanians had never existed before the 2nd part of the 19th century. Are you trying to insert a notion that you are of Roman origins perhaps? Do you understand that Romans were a small tribe which inhabited a land on and around the seven hills what is later known as the city of Rome, but more importanly are you aware that you are not even remotely similar in any shape or form, either beheviorally, culturally or I'd say genetically, to Romans? Where did that Romania come from? So you were established constitutionally in 1866 by "your prince" of Hohenzollerns, hmm? Good to know. I'd say then it's far more likely that that "Romania" is derived from Roma, people of Roma that is. And you have not descended from us, partially or in iotas degrees. There is no our blood there in Romania. We are very old people, you know. We go back thousands of years. Roman Emperor Tiberius called us Scythians. There are many who think that Scythians were the 10 tribes of Israel. There are many researchs on the subject (see here: http://stevenmcollins.com/html/scythians.html). I'd say it is more than likely that we are the tribe of Dan. I wasn't called a Jew once, but many, many times (even though I am not), which does suggest something, for if impartial and laic observers are able to see and notice some behavioral or thinking similarities, it can only refer to mutual ancestors at some point. Also, we are Dinarid race, and you Romanians are not.

    Yes, you go back thousands of years, while we were born in a cabbage patch just as Russia was about to muscle into the region. What a coincidence! Vlachs and Romanians are the same thing. And there are other names as well, names that others gave us, or that we gave ourselves. It comes with living within a region of such vibrant diversity :). The language and the consciousness was what ensured our persistence while being divided among multiple empires. Like the Kurds, if you will. Many people have foundation myths that point to a historical truth, however misrepresented. The occupation of Dacia by the Romans and the colonization was realand attested to archeologically, the persistence of Latin to give rise to a Romance language is obviously real, the continuous habitation of this very hospitable region for thousands of years is real and attested to through genetic studies that show pretty conclusively to what extent the migratory populations figure in the wider population mix. The results are free to view online. Here, you can make an excel chart and trace haplogroup predominance http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml for whichever groups you want. Yes, 2000 years is a long time to dilute whatever Roman blood there was. It doesn’t matter. It’s our story and we’re sticking to it. The Hungarians were almost genocided by the Mongols and King Bela had to repopulate with Poles, not that the original invaders were numerous compared to the people they lorded over, but that doesn’t stop them from harping on about their horselord warrior ancestry. And a fine ancestry it is.

    I also want to thank you for the insult of calling my people gypsies, since we are obviously Subcontinental in appearance. We are also very different looking from the other peoples of the Balkans or Southern Europe in general. We have three eyes and four arms. This kind of gratuitous mud slinging (literally) shows people you interact with the kind of person you are. It’s true, we should not have acquiesced so easily to the Western led campaign of rebranding the Gypsies with a more marketable name with fewer negative connotations. Our brand has been tainted by this, and we have been made to suffer the cheap shots of the likes of you. But what can I say? It means man in their Orcish tongue and, with the number of peoples whose name for themselves means people or men, I think they did not choose it just to be particularly vexing for us, despite the end result. Are the Slovenes and the Hungarians also Gypsies? As a percentage of the population, they are much farther along the path to Punjabization than we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    You have never had any Roman blood. Romans were a very, very small people (numerically speaking). Extremely competent and ruthless, but certainly not numerous. Most of Italy doesn't have any Roman blood. There are rivers and rivers more Middle Eastern blood in today Italians than Roman. And it was always the case, even back in the time of the rule of the Romans. You don't have an iota of their blood, no matter what paid stuides say. Romans bowed to noone, whereas you... Russians are probably far more Roman-like than any people today. One could say it's only righful since Russia is the heir of Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium. And I wasn't insulting you. I don't think there is any insulting in being a gypsie. Hungarians "genocided" by the Mongols, hmm? They have never even had any contact with the Mongols. Is that some new western type of Romanian history? Mongols are great people. Your should count yourselves lucky if you are 5% like the Mongols are. You are spaking like a libtard... want to cry or something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @H von P
    "Belarusian" derives from Rus', the Nordic tribe from which Kyivan Rus' took its name. Muscovites appropriated the title Rus', so Ukrainians (formerly called Ruthenians) adopted the designation Ukraine to distinguish themselves from Muscovites. (Muscovy, that servant of Mongolia, also oppressed North Slavic cities like Novgorod). Today, anti-ethnic Putin always refers to "rossiyskiy", "rossiya" instead of using the racially-defined root Rus'.

    500 rubles says you already know all this and are just being an anti-White Kremlin troll.

    Rus were a Varangian tribe from Gotland which is an island in front of Sweden. Read Primary Chronicle and learn how Rus state and nation were formed. Ilmens and other Slavic tribes had driven off Rus, but they later sent an emissary to call them back under the condition they unite with them as people because they were unable to unite with other nerby Slavic tribes due to constant squabbling and fighting between themselves. And they did. All Rus went with their chiftain Rurik and that was the birth of Rus state in 862. That’s why the Rurik son’s name was Igor and not Ingvar, and the other Rus who ruled in the name of Igor until he was of age Oleg and not Helgi. The Rus became Slavic. They became a nation which united many tribes. You are just an ignorant imbecile. Probably paid NGO worker too. Baltic one, correct? I sense a strong stench of Baltic trash in you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Romanian
    Yes, you go back thousands of years, while we were born in a cabbage patch just as Russia was about to muscle into the region. What a coincidence! Vlachs and Romanians are the same thing. And there are other names as well, names that others gave us, or that we gave ourselves. It comes with living within a region of such vibrant diversity :). The language and the consciousness was what ensured our persistence while being divided among multiple empires. Like the Kurds, if you will. Many people have foundation myths that point to a historical truth, however misrepresented. The occupation of Dacia by the Romans and the colonization was realand attested to archeologically, the persistence of Latin to give rise to a Romance language is obviously real, the continuous habitation of this very hospitable region for thousands of years is real and attested to through genetic studies that show pretty conclusively to what extent the migratory populations figure in the wider population mix. The results are free to view online. Here, you can make an excel chart and trace haplogroup predominance http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml for whichever groups you want. Yes, 2000 years is a long time to dilute whatever Roman blood there was. It doesn't matter. It's our story and we're sticking to it. The Hungarians were almost genocided by the Mongols and King Bela had to repopulate with Poles, not that the original invaders were numerous compared to the people they lorded over, but that doesn't stop them from harping on about their horselord warrior ancestry. And a fine ancestry it is.

    I also want to thank you for the insult of calling my people gypsies, since we are obviously Subcontinental in appearance. We are also very different looking from the other peoples of the Balkans or Southern Europe in general. We have three eyes and four arms. This kind of gratuitous mud slinging (literally) shows people you interact with the kind of person you are. It's true, we should not have acquiesced so easily to the Western led campaign of rebranding the Gypsies with a more marketable name with fewer negative connotations. Our brand has been tainted by this, and we have been made to suffer the cheap shots of the likes of you. But what can I say? It means man in their Orcish tongue and, with the number of peoples whose name for themselves means people or men, I think they did not choose it just to be particularly vexing for us, despite the end result. Are the Slovenes and the Hungarians also Gypsies? As a percentage of the population, they are much farther along the path to Punjabization than we are.

    You have never had any Roman blood. Romans were a very, very small people (numerically speaking). Extremely competent and ruthless, but certainly not numerous. Most of Italy doesn’t have any Roman blood. There are rivers and rivers more Middle Eastern blood in today Italians than Roman. And it was always the case, even back in the time of the rule of the Romans. You don’t have an iota of their blood, no matter what paid stuides say. Romans bowed to noone, whereas you… Russians are probably far more Roman-like than any people today. One could say it’s only righful since Russia is the heir of Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium. And I wasn’t insulting you. I don’t think there is any insulting in being a gypsie. Hungarians “genocided” by the Mongols, hmm? They have never even had any contact with the Mongols. Is that some new western type of Romanian history? Mongols are great people. Your should count yourselves lucky if you are 5% like the Mongols are. You are spaking like a libtard… want to cry or something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    That wasn't the point, but thanks for the other gratuitous insult. I never mentioned any blood, I just clarified a few historical issues and made allusions to the importance of national mythologizing. I don't need you to tell me about Roman history. I studied it myself and know what the Roman empire was and wasn't and the origin of the Legions stationed around here which mustered out their veterans as a form of colonization. Many of those soldiers were not Roman, indeed. But this wasn't about blood, it was about cultural affinity and the elements of belonging to wider culture, like linguistic links and common identity. Again, look at the haplogroups and my own use of 23andme. I may be getting trolled here, but I merely replied to your sweeping pronouncements against established history in my neck of the woods. Meanwhile, you're the one who states that Russia is the heir of Byzantium without noticing the irony that you were mocking another's claim to a much smaller and less ambitious inheritance. Have a good day!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Absolutely.

    Novorossiya is the economic core of Ukraine, with Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Donetsk (before 2014) being some of the richest and biggest exporting regions. Given stable conditions they will easily pay for themselves. In the USSR, it was West Ukraine that was subsidized.


    For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much.
     
    Kiev is also a Russian city and its eventual return to Russia, or at a minimum the Russian sphere of influence, is non-negotiable.

    provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players.
     
    So that's a no.

    Kiev is not much more Russian than Warsaw. Do not be mislead by language.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    Kiev is not much more Russian than Warsaw. Do not be mislead by language
     
    Language,mentality,architecture,religion, tending to be good and bad at the same activities and so on.....of course it is much more Russian than Warsaw you insecure troll retard
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @gerad
    Russia could not afford the trillions of dollars it would take to immediately get Kharkov, along with Lugansk,Donetsk and the other oblasts (plus Crimea) you ignorant twat. 4 oblasts would have easily gone to separation from Kiev and into Union with Russia if practical.

    The large majority of people in the russophile oblasts were either neutral or pro-Russia you moron....that leaves a (silent politically) majority not in favour of these Nazi's in power. That neutrality I should add is solely because those Ukrainians recognise that with the west never going to accept legally any further dissolution of the Ukrainians state....thus reunification with Russia would be impractical. If the west were neutral in this then would be a whole different situation you cretin. Russia are fine either way....but Ukraine would not sink further into the cesspit.

    errrrm...Kiev had centuries of rule from Russia you moron.....and no problem with it. No hint of much of an uprising....and more so during the referendum to breakup from the USSR......a resounding majority didn't want to get rid of it...other than failure Galician Nazi pricks like yourself.

    Polls actually showed a majority of Ukrainians were in favour of joining the Eurasian Union than the EU ( would have been more if there had been a referendum with proper campaigning for it).....and those polls results were in spite of the fact that the Party of Regions majority, most Ukrainian newspapers and TV were heavily for the EU as Soros and Polish nutcase money turned their heads.

    “The large majority of people in the russophile oblasts were either neutral or pro-Russia you moron” As usual absolutely counterfactual. Tiresome bloody fenian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, what you say, that "the split isn't linguistic, but of self-identification", is actually very important and may even turn out to be crucial. I've noticed that, in the case of Eastern Ukraine, that just because one is Russophone, it doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-Russian. Very interesting phenomena.

    Is there any reliable sociological data as to what the people on the ground believe / want, especially in areas such as Kharkiv and Mariupol...? For instance, Mariupol - an extremely important place strategically - is largely Russian speaking (even if with a slight Ukrainian accent), but it seems that many (not all, of course, but many) of those Russian speakers identify as citizens of Ukraine or even Ukrainians and want to remain part of Ukraine. So can it then be said that Mariupol is a Russian speaking city that is largely Ukrainian by identity (and pro-Ukranian)? I also used to believe that Mariupol, being Russophone, is very pro-Russian. But then I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JnJfaD51p8

    They predominantly (with a few snarky exceptions) seem to support being inside of Ukraine. Could it be that only 20, max 30% of the inhabitants of Mariupol, are actually pro-Russian? A wild guess, but it would be great to know. And about Odessa and Kharkiv, too.

    Because if only parts of the urban population are pro-Russian, then it makes the situation even more difficult. Then we have separatist cities (Donetsk), within non-homogeneous regions. It doesn't mean, of course, that the interests of the pro-Russian populations shouldn't be taken into account, it just makes the situation less "black and white".

    In the polls in Donetsk just before the Russian nationalist incursions – Pew I think, about 20% of the population wanted to join Russia, about half the ethnic Russians. Your guess is close.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @gerad
    Latvian woman....that Mariupol video is a load of demented garbage. Any neutral observer will tell you that Mariupol was largely pro-Russia at the time they had their referendum....and still is. Of course some people there are pro-Kiev, but it is ridiculous to think that speaks for the majority of the population there.

    I put it to you the obvious fact that we know that if the west had either seen the coup and Maidan for the illegal, barbaric nonsense that it was.....or just been ambivalent about it and understood the rightful reunification of Crimea- then significant more parts of Ukraine would now be willingly under Russian,novorossiyan rule.......or Kiev and these Euromaidan student cretins would have immediately made concessions and adopted a more pro-Russian/balanced position of accomodation that would have stopped this slaughter

    Many Ukrainians were heavily anti-Kiev and this illegal regime ,but accepted that with the western non-acceptance for any pro-Russian position, if wasnt feasible to separate. Ideology was not a problem

    The easily lead fool continues his fascist rant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Khan Bodin
    The word "ukraine" translated from Russian basically means "borderland." We in the Balkans have many Ukranias too. RS Krajina, Cazinska Krajina, Cetinska Krajina, Vojna Krajina, Neretvanska Krajina, Kninska Krajina, Sinjska Krajina et al. The word basically has the same meaning as it has in Russian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajina.

    That sounds very authentic... a land where authentic people and culture originated from, doesn't it? ehehehe

    The Western European word March has the same meaning. The Brandenburg Mark, the Roussilon March, Finnmark, the Welsh Marches. A borderland where people had licence to bear arms or the local lords were allowed private armies. They may not be heartlands but they were definitely distinctive places. The whole of Northern Ireland might be considered such a place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    You have never had any Roman blood. Romans were a very, very small people (numerically speaking). Extremely competent and ruthless, but certainly not numerous. Most of Italy doesn't have any Roman blood. There are rivers and rivers more Middle Eastern blood in today Italians than Roman. And it was always the case, even back in the time of the rule of the Romans. You don't have an iota of their blood, no matter what paid stuides say. Romans bowed to noone, whereas you... Russians are probably far more Roman-like than any people today. One could say it's only righful since Russia is the heir of Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium. And I wasn't insulting you. I don't think there is any insulting in being a gypsie. Hungarians "genocided" by the Mongols, hmm? They have never even had any contact with the Mongols. Is that some new western type of Romanian history? Mongols are great people. Your should count yourselves lucky if you are 5% like the Mongols are. You are spaking like a libtard... want to cry or something?

    That wasn’t the point, but thanks for the other gratuitous insult. I never mentioned any blood, I just clarified a few historical issues and made allusions to the importance of national mythologizing. I don’t need you to tell me about Roman history. I studied it myself and know what the Roman empire was and wasn’t and the origin of the Legions stationed around here which mustered out their veterans as a form of colonization. Many of those soldiers were not Roman, indeed. But this wasn’t about blood, it was about cultural affinity and the elements of belonging to wider culture, like linguistic links and common identity. Again, look at the haplogroups and my own use of 23andme. I may be getting trolled here, but I merely replied to your sweeping pronouncements against established history in my neck of the woods. Meanwhile, you’re the one who states that Russia is the heir of Byzantium without noticing the irony that you were mocking another’s claim to a much smaller and less ambitious inheritance. Have a good day!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    Of course, Ukraine is the heir to Byzantium. The Russian Orthodox Church left the Constantinople Patriarchy. Marriages of princesses whose fathers have lost their empires hardly count to the same standard as endorsement by the Church as true successors to Prince (note not an independent King but a Prince of Byzantium baptized on territory that was still arguably Byzantine. Do monks every write the truth?) Vladimir of Kievean Rus.
    , @Khan Bodin
    My day will be good or bad regardless of your wishes. The fact that Russia is the heir of Byzantium is not an ambition, it's a fact. When Western Roman Empire fell, Roman emperor and ruling class left for Constantinople. When Constantinople fell, Byzantine ruling dynasties left for Grand Duchy of Moscow which quickly became Russian Empire. That's how it goes. But it's trivial. Roman Empire has been dead for 1.500 years and Byzantium for half a millenium. It's not like Byzantine people existed as Byzantine people so they could resurrect themselves after the fall, or that there were Roman people so they could survive the invasion. That's the thing with empires, when they die, they die. No people, no resurrection when resources run dry or excessive corruption kills it. For that fact alone, every empire without its ethnic base is destined to die eventually, for empire is just a set if administrative divisions under the same jurisdiction. Chinese or Indian people can set up one empire after another (should they have resources or national character for it), but Romans could only set up one, because they were so tiny as people that they had ethnically vanished long before their empire died. Only their culture survived. They probably ceased to exist during the fight with other Italic tribes. That's how tiny they were. But their culture remained, most likely because they stole everything they could from other tribes (they weren't culturally rich to begin with, but they refined themselves along the conquest) around them, and they were inclusive on basis of merit (whoever deserved to become Roman was accepted, and since those other tribes around them were ethnically very similar or identical to the Romans, nobody could tell a difference between a true Roman and one who became so, it wasn't like they were accepting Africans like westerners are). In any case, rest assured that those legionares you had guarding borders in today Romania weren't of Roman origin. They were people from all over the Empire. Mercenaries.

    So you say you have some claims regarding Bessarabia I see. And that claim is grounded on the fact that you took the land during the Russian civil war and kept it till 1940. The region never belonged to Vlachs. What is your inheritence? Your neck of the woods is already way bigger than it deserves to be. USSR should have broken your county into pieces. You have launched an invasion on USSR, lost the war and went on like nothing happened. There should have been blood price and territorial price for you. Communist scum. That also tells something regarding whom communist scum served.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Anon
    As an American, the only thing I care about is leaving NATO alone. Lesser NATO ... prior to the last few expansions, had the advantage of largely disarming Europe by leading them to believe that cheating on their commitments to spend 2% of GDP was a really smart way to screw the Americans. And especially Germany. Without the US acting stupid, Russia would be rightfully terrified of reunified Germany. That's where I would start any serious negotiations with Russia. Just tell them they win. And they can do whatever deals they want with Germany, etc.

    One observation. I don't get the bridge over the Kerch strait. Or rather, why it can't be built. Are the Russians retarded when it comes to civil engineering? The Mackinac Bridge was thrown up in a couple of years in 1955. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge Unless I am missing something. Or are the Russians just going to be taking territory to connect up by land?

    A few observations. Whatever the Russians could do a couple of years ago, they can't with $40/bbl oil. Sochi was done with oil at over $100 bbl.

    In spite of everything, Ukraine is Russia's best customer for oil and gas. To the extent they absorb it, they add cost and lose revenue. Everything is worse now than it was 2 years ago, but the same logic applies. You rightly pointed out that Crimea is a cash drain on Russia. But Russia has its reasons for paying up for it. And really? As an American, I'm in favor of Russia's Navy floating in the Black Sea.

    Russia can't afford more 'success' annexing Ukrainian territory.

    The EU is done expanding, whether they know it or not. After Brexit and Grexit. Or should I say, permanently bailing out Greece, they don't need an economic black hole like Ukraine. They already 'Won' Romania, Bulgaria, etc. And are choking on them.

    Ukraine's well educated youth all want to leave, and the EU was and is a better option. I don't know if that was a lot of the energy behind the turmoil, but it was a no brainer to hook up with the EU before bailing out of the country. And former USSR states aren't lining up to rejoin.

    We all know that no one is going to pony up the $50 billion plus to refinance Ukraine. Ukraine is too divided to go along with a much smaller IMF package with austerity tossed into the mix.

    I see a place where the youth just want to leave -- not fight and die for. But also, these are people that survived a lot more than today's lethargic economic stagnation and/or gradual decline. So... I don't know.

    Other than no one wants it for its own sake. Maybe Russian or US domestic politics. But, really.

    The British first looked at a bridge across the Kerch strait but backed off. The bedrock is very deep below the silt. The area is subject to seismic activity. There is ice flow in and out of the Sea of Azov. All of this mounts up to $$$$$. Building to time and budget is a high risk undertaking. And there is no economic justification. Traffic flows will be tiny.

    The German bridge was built on top of the silt to last a summer.

    It is another prestige project.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Khan Bodin
    That's some Anglo research you have there. tell me something, what percentage is "Bosniak" or "Montenegrin" similar to Serbian, hmm? Well, I can help you, in Montenegrin case it's the use of a dialect which is specific for northern and coastal Montenegron and southern Republic of Serbska (one can call it Zetan dialect, although our most promonent linguist Vuk Karadic called it Istocnohercegovacki or Starohercegovacki (which is Eastern Herzegovian or Old Herzegovian translated into English)). It's somewhere at the 95% of the same words. But in the case of "Bosniak" it's a lot less. "Bosniaks" took words and inserted a letter "h" between many of them, so it wouldn't be the same (for example, we say "kafa" for coffee and Bosniaks say "kahfa" or "kahva"). That shows you where the diference is, you simpleton, and any such research by the Anglos is nothing more than a shit-show born from political purposes, i.e. division of our people. It's not going to work. Even those Bosniaks have become very hateful toward you westereners. They tought you would feed them and make them to live like you do, but that didn't happen. ehehehe Ffs even Croats don't like you and they were always the loudest supporters of western interest, meddlings and colonization... westernization. ehehehe

    And yet there is strong support for joining the EU even in Serbia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @gdpbull
    The Saker, the EU, the US, and Russia all ignore the best solution which is Federalism. Give the Donbass region, and other regions for that matter, autonomy, even to the point of the Ukraine being a confederacy.

    The Saker alludes that the Baltics are similar to Ukraine. They are not. Their eastern ethnic Russian regions are not close cultural cousins. And those Russians are relatively new occupants of those countries. And, the Baltics are not basket cases like Ukraine.

    (Con)Federalism that gives the rump Donbass a veto over the rest of Ukraine forging close links with the EU is the Russian strategy. That is one reason why government Russia doesn’t want to absorb the nationalist occupied Donbass. It wants to lock Ukraine out of the EU by forcing a confederation on it. All Kiev has to do to win is wait. Either Russia gives up and picks up the tab (unlikely short of the Liberal Democrats coming to power) or the place disintegrates to the point that the leadership lose what legitimacy they possess (firepower, Russian humanitarian aid, payoffs from local oligarchs). The leadership has anyway been hugely reduced by assassination and exile. The Russian secret service and the oligarchs (who were largely responsible for Maidan) will presumably continue to assassinate those who displease them anyway. Emerging new leadership in Novorossiya is conspicuous by its absence at the moment but there won’t be many old leaders soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    All Kiev has to do to win is wait. Either Russia gives up and picks up the tab (unlikely short of the Liberal Democrats coming to power) or the place disintegrates to the point that the leadership lose what legitimacy they possess (firepower, Russian humanitarian aid, payoffs from local oligarchs).
     
    I don't think a war of attrition with the Russians is such a brilliant strategy. The problem is that Kiev doesn't have time to wait. It's completely broke, the IMF has suspended its aid program, the currency and debt are tanking. And with such low approval ratings, the leadership there is itself facing a legitimacy crisis. I have no idea what the end game looks like but there doesn't seem to be a lot of rationality involved at the moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Khan Bodin
    Retard, polls nad consistently shown that 58% of the people of Donbas considered themselves to be Ukranians, and +80% of them voted to reunite with Russia in 2014. I've already explained it in some of my earlier post, I beleive. Try to learn reading first, you propagandist imbecile.

    The 2014 vote was hardly conducted in circumstances that made it a useful indicator of anything except who was in control locally. For example, a large fraction of the population had already fled in places where reported voting turnout was high. People bused in from Kharkiv to vote. The Officer’s Association again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @JL
    Ukraine has never had a pro-Russian President, nor any real meaningful politicians of that stripe. Even in Crimea, what could be considered a pro Russian party never garnered much support because the real power was with PoR. Indeed, the very concept and phrase "pro-Russian" is a post-war advent. The political fractures in Ukraine were always based on oligarchic clans, that some of them were from the East doesn't mean they were pro-Russia. Certainly the Russians had better ties with, and more support from, the Easterners. But the oligarchs themselves were always keen on maintaining independence.

    Spot on. Neither set of Nationalists nor the anti-Liberal fascists in this debate finds it convenient to look at the role of the oligarchs in the development of Ukrainian politics since 2004 in particular. The trapping of many Ukrainians in identity conflicts rather than debates on social and political reform is a strong indicator of such manipulations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Look, Khan Bodin, I never attacked Serbian people whom I respect, yet you attack my people (pointlessly and undeservedly). Really, what does that say about you as a human being. I don’t want to antagonize you anymore and won’t be replying to you anymore, just want to say that I read ALL kind of sources on Ukraine – you’ll be surprised that I primarily read Russian sources (I don’t watch much Dozhd, btw, although it is not bad), I usually watch the hard core Russian programs and blogs (including Stalinist ones like Nikolai Starikov, and others where they bash Americans and say things like “Americans will attack us any moment now”). Russian TV, too. Unfortunately, it is frustrating that I can’t understand Ukrainian fully, as those would probably be very interesting programs to watch. I don’t get why you think I only watch Ukraine’s official channels, the video from Mariupol I picked was because of its “on the street” content. I don’t know who filmed it, it looked like some Ukrainian patriots. I’m not saying you can fully trust the video, but the people on the street do not look fake or specifically selected. That’s why I was surprised because I was convinced that most people in Mariupol would hate the Ukrainian slogan, but they embrace it. After having watched many different videos, including pro-Russian ones, it is now clear that a political nation has formed all through out Central Ukraine, including parts of the East. This is why it’s not as easy as simple dividing across the ethnic lines. The former Mayor of Mariupol in 2014 said – we are not going to the Russian side, Russia would have to invade with territorial troops to take Mariupol. Then he was kidnapped.

    I am not pro-Russian but I like many things about Russia. I don’t support any “regime change” in Russia (that could be dangerous for the Baltics). I am conservative and I don’t support the expansion of “gay rights” in Russia either. So there’s that for you, Khan Bodin. What do you think I should be like a soccer ultra with a two finger wide forehead and only read one set of media – the “right one”? I listen to “alternative media” like Alec Jones all the time and guess what – he is not always all that objective or correct on everything either but he has interesting sources.

    But Ukraine must have a right to have peace. Russia is a party in this war.

    And, yes, my point about Lukashenka was exactly that – Belarus is neutral (or has put immense work into being neutral, which is admirable). Does Russia who constantly insists that all of her neighbors should be “neutral” (I’d like to see how each country could implement it esp in the current situation) treat Belarus as neutral? Russia started pressuring Belarus when they didn’t jump up and support their activities in Ukraine. So now they’re talking about putting a Russian base in Belarus (it doesn’t look like Belarus is all that eager about it either otherwise it would already have been done) – that’s the end of neutrality right there. Also, the Russian troops are now literally on the Belarusian border. Do they want to attack Eastern Ukraine from Belarus???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. Soarinthesky, I completely agree with you that Donbas can be used to cripple Ukraine – if Ukraine split off Luhansk and Donbas, they would be free to move on (yes, even with Kharkiv and Odessa it seems). I’m not saying they should be in the EU. But they would finally have the freedom to consolidate the country. There would no longer be pro-Russian vetoes, that is exactly right. That’s why Russia might be more interested in a frozen conflict than a real invasion (for now).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    @Latvian woman

    Well, that puts Ukraine and its patron states in a bit of a pickle then, doesn't it? Because the West's whole narrative rests on Russia wanting to break up Ukraine while they ostensibly want it united. And yet the truth is exactly the opposite. For the Ukrainians giving up the Donbass, logical as it very well may be for them, would be the zrada to end all zradas. What to do, what to do?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Soarinthesky, and, yes, the legal status of Donetsk and Luhansk in such a theoretical scenario becomes very questionable – what happens to those people? What passports will they have, what status? Who will protect them? What kind of a no man’s land will it then be, if Russia refuses to assimilate them like they did with Crimea?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. JL says:
    @Latvian woman
    Soarinthesky, I completely agree with you that Donbas can be used to cripple Ukraine - if Ukraine split off Luhansk and Donbas, they would be free to move on (yes, even with Kharkiv and Odessa it seems). I'm not saying they should be in the EU. But they would finally have the freedom to consolidate the country. There would no longer be pro-Russian vetoes, that is exactly right. That's why Russia might be more interested in a frozen conflict than a real invasion (for now).

    Well, that puts Ukraine and its patron states in a bit of a pickle then, doesn’t it? Because the West’s whole narrative rests on Russia wanting to break up Ukraine while they ostensibly want it united. And yet the truth is exactly the opposite. For the Ukrainians giving up the Donbass, logical as it very well may be for them, would be the zrada to end all zradas. What to do, what to do?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. JL says:
    @Philip Owen


    (Con)Federalism that gives the rump Donbass a veto over the rest of Ukraine forging close links with the EU is the Russian strategy. That is one reason why government Russia doesn't want to absorb the nationalist occupied Donbass. It wants to lock Ukraine out of the EU by forcing a confederation on it. All Kiev has to do to win is wait. Either Russia gives up and picks up the tab (unlikely short of the Liberal Democrats coming to power) or the place disintegrates to the point that the leadership lose what legitimacy they possess (firepower, Russian humanitarian aid, payoffs from local oligarchs). The leadership has anyway been hugely reduced by assassination and exile. The Russian secret service and the oligarchs (who were largely responsible for Maidan) will presumably continue to assassinate those who displease them anyway. Emerging new leadership in Novorossiya is conspicuous by its absence at the moment but there won't be many old leaders soon.

    All Kiev has to do to win is wait. Either Russia gives up and picks up the tab (unlikely short of the Liberal Democrats coming to power) or the place disintegrates to the point that the leadership lose what legitimacy they possess (firepower, Russian humanitarian aid, payoffs from local oligarchs).

    I don’t think a war of attrition with the Russians is such a brilliant strategy. The problem is that Kiev doesn’t have time to wait. It’s completely broke, the IMF has suspended its aid program, the currency and debt are tanking. And with such low approval ratings, the leadership there is itself facing a legitimacy crisis. I have no idea what the end game looks like but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rationality involved at the moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. JL, from day one I never fully believed the West’s narrative (on this issue). It is not fully objective, of course. The threat from Russia didn’t appear to me that big (I mean that they could invade in a classical sense) but I might be wrong. My guess was always that Russia wanted another Transnistria. Or some other hybrid scenario – especially with the East still in Ukraine and thus Ukraine could never have (hypothetically) a referendum on EU (like, 15-20 years from now). If they took Donbas, they could no longer have control over Kiev and Western Ukraine.

    I’m also skeptical (right now) that Russia would openly invade Donbas, but you never know. Do Russian citizens know?

    We don’t know how Ukrainians would feel about giving up those territories. It is a sensitive thing to ask them a blunt question “Are you ready to give those places up?” because nobody wants to hear a question like that about their own country. Would they be ok with it? There is the issue of integrity of their borders – one should always be careful with such precedents. But if they are ok with it, then fine – it might make things easier in the future (unless Donbas is then later used to cause even more separatism, like, in Mariupol, etc, because where does it end, right?). I’m sure the Americans have an agenda, but for us in the Baltics, all that matters is that the conflict doesn’t spread (and, of course, that Ukraine is respected as a country). If Ukraine can’t integrate Donetsk, then it shouldn’t waste her resources (and ofc Donetsk should have the right to not be forced into the Western direction, if they are not interested).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    Do Russian citizens know?
     
    To the extent that much of what happens is a reaction to events on the ground, no one really knows. But it's difficult to comprehend what Russia could possibly gain by an open invasion when it can continue with its covert and not-so-covert support for local proxies. They seem to have it carefully calibrated, giving them enough to not lose, but not enough to really win either.

    We don’t know how Ukrainians would feel about giving up those territories.
     
    I don't feel like looking for them so I won't stand behind this 100%, but I remember seeing polls that showed Ukrainians putting a settlement of the war on top of their list of concerns, ahead of economic issues even. Unfortunately, their opinions, along with this discussion, are mostly irrelevant because such ideas haven't even entered into Ukrainian political discourse. It's essentially taboo. The only one who got close was Nadezhda Savchenko, who was accused of being Putin's agent and then largely disowned by the very same establishment that lauded her as a hero while she was in jail in Russia. And that was just for suggesting that negotiations be held directly with the Donbass leaders.

    I’m sure the Americans have an agenda
     
    You think?

    but for us in the Baltics, all that matters is that the conflict doesn’t spread
     
    When I landed in Riga a month or so ago, the entire tarmac was covered in USAF transports. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been there without the Ukraine conflict. So the conflict has already spread.

    Ukraine is respected as a country
     
    That train left the station a long time ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Cyrano says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Were the Ukrainians who welcomed the Germans really so stupid? After all they knew what Stalin had had Kaganovichdp to them and that was arguably worse than what Hitler did to the Poles. And maybe Hitler wasn't even going to decapitate the Ukrainians as he had been doing with the Poles. They could at least hope that the Germans would be better than the Soviet leadership in Moscow.

    It’s a known fact that Stalin had no great love for the Ukrainians. For him, a peasant wanting to possess even a few cows and horses – was a sign of dangerous bourgeois tendencies that needed to be dealt with harshly. So he did, and the result was the famine. Although it seems that even he realized that he might have overdone the whole thing, so he penned up a piece called “Dizzy with success” in which he tried to blame the whole tragedy of the famine on overzealous commissars.

    On the other hand, trying to portray the whole tragedy of the famine as being motivated by some kind of genocidal racism of the Russians towards the Ukrainians is beyond retarded. Yet, this seems to be the favorite way the Ukrainians like to interpret the whole tragedy. The main reason it happened was Stalin and the Russian people had no control over his actions. As for the Ukrainians welcoming the Germans as liberators – they were not entirely disappointed in their expectations. The Germans did liberate a large number of them – from their lives – so their unbridled enthusiasm for seeing the Germans as saviors was not completely unfounded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. JL says:
    @Latvian woman
    JL, from day one I never fully believed the West's narrative (on this issue). It is not fully objective, of course. The threat from Russia didn't appear to me that big (I mean that they could invade in a classical sense) but I might be wrong. My guess was always that Russia wanted another Transnistria. Or some other hybrid scenario - especially with the East still in Ukraine and thus Ukraine could never have (hypothetically) a referendum on EU (like, 15-20 years from now). If they took Donbas, they could no longer have control over Kiev and Western Ukraine.

    I'm also skeptical (right now) that Russia would openly invade Donbas, but you never know. Do Russian citizens know?

    We don't know how Ukrainians would feel about giving up those territories. It is a sensitive thing to ask them a blunt question "Are you ready to give those places up?" because nobody wants to hear a question like that about their own country. Would they be ok with it? There is the issue of integrity of their borders - one should always be careful with such precedents. But if they are ok with it, then fine - it might make things easier in the future (unless Donbas is then later used to cause even more separatism, like, in Mariupol, etc, because where does it end, right?). I'm sure the Americans have an agenda, but for us in the Baltics, all that matters is that the conflict doesn't spread (and, of course, that Ukraine is respected as a country). If Ukraine can't integrate Donetsk, then it shouldn't waste her resources (and ofc Donetsk should have the right to not be forced into the Western direction, if they are not interested).

    Do Russian citizens know?

    To the extent that much of what happens is a reaction to events on the ground, no one really knows. But it’s difficult to comprehend what Russia could possibly gain by an open invasion when it can continue with its covert and not-so-covert support for local proxies. They seem to have it carefully calibrated, giving them enough to not lose, but not enough to really win either.

    We don’t know how Ukrainians would feel about giving up those territories.

    I don’t feel like looking for them so I won’t stand behind this 100%, but I remember seeing polls that showed Ukrainians putting a settlement of the war on top of their list of concerns, ahead of economic issues even. Unfortunately, their opinions, along with this discussion, are mostly irrelevant because such ideas haven’t even entered into Ukrainian political discourse. It’s essentially taboo. The only one who got close was Nadezhda Savchenko, who was accused of being Putin’s agent and then largely disowned by the very same establishment that lauded her as a hero while she was in jail in Russia. And that was just for suggesting that negotiations be held directly with the Donbass leaders.

    I’m sure the Americans have an agenda

    You think?

    but for us in the Baltics, all that matters is that the conflict doesn’t spread

    When I landed in Riga a month or so ago, the entire tarmac was covered in USAF transports. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have been there without the Ukraine conflict. So the conflict has already spread.

    Ukraine is respected as a country

    That train left the station a long time ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. I hope this doesn’t derail into another WW2 “discussion”.

    On the topic: assuming (hypothetically), that Donbas was excised and that would be viewed as some sort of a compromise between Kiev and Donbas (Russia).. what happens with the new border of Ukraine? Right now the situation is absolutely unacceptable – Ukraine has no control over the border and anything can get into the country. So let’s assume there is a new border. That whole area is now highly militarized. For Ukraine (and Europe) to feel safe, that area would have to be demilitarized. For instance, during the Cold War, Norway, a founding country of NATO that also has a border with Russia, would not place any military equipment or infrastructure (with the exception of one radar, I think), within a certain distance from the border. They created some kind of a “clean” space there (even if not big). Who would do this for Eastern Ukraine? Would Donbas be demilitarized? It would be naive to think that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    Latvian woman......

    The simple facts are that the Donbass rebels could easily have taken more territory and killed more Nazi soldiers in this time....but haven't. They have proven themselves to be very reliable. Practically all the civilian murders and injuries have been done by the Kiev side. DNR and LNR, in very difficult situations, have got 4 million citizens massively behind them are are existing as fully functional governments....an incredible achievement.

    It is up to the Kiev side to demilitarize and actually show some goodwill instead of being a bunch of morons all their lives. That includes recognising the current DNR/LNR authorities as legitimate politicians/officials.....openly negotiating with them...and working from there.

    Y0u are intelligent but there is a danger you are inaccurately equating Russia and the Donbass rebels with the murdering scum of the Kiev regime and their western backers.
    , @utu
    Latvian woman, I like your nickname. It is explicit. I wish some of commenters used equally explicit nicknames like Serbian chauvinist or Russian supremacist or Armenian genocide victim... You know who I mean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Romanian
    That wasn't the point, but thanks for the other gratuitous insult. I never mentioned any blood, I just clarified a few historical issues and made allusions to the importance of national mythologizing. I don't need you to tell me about Roman history. I studied it myself and know what the Roman empire was and wasn't and the origin of the Legions stationed around here which mustered out their veterans as a form of colonization. Many of those soldiers were not Roman, indeed. But this wasn't about blood, it was about cultural affinity and the elements of belonging to wider culture, like linguistic links and common identity. Again, look at the haplogroups and my own use of 23andme. I may be getting trolled here, but I merely replied to your sweeping pronouncements against established history in my neck of the woods. Meanwhile, you're the one who states that Russia is the heir of Byzantium without noticing the irony that you were mocking another's claim to a much smaller and less ambitious inheritance. Have a good day!

    Of course, Ukraine is the heir to Byzantium. The Russian Orthodox Church left the Constantinople Patriarchy. Marriages of princesses whose fathers have lost their empires hardly count to the same standard as endorsement by the Church as true successors to Prince (note not an independent King but a Prince of Byzantium baptized on territory that was still arguably Byzantine. Do monks every write the truth?) Vladimir of Kievean Rus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [Prince (note not an independent King but a Prince of Byzantium baptized on territory that was still arguably Byzantine]

    Are you even human, or a poorly scripted bot? That's word salad, not a contribution to the discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. gerad says:
    @Philip Owen


    Kiev is not much more Russian than Warsaw. Do not be mislead by language.

    Kiev is not much more Russian than Warsaw. Do not be mislead by language

    Language,mentality,architecture,religion, tending to be good and bad at the same activities and so on…..of course it is much more Russian than Warsaw you insecure troll retard

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. JL says:
    @Rehmat
    I'm sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments - but currently, like Syria, it's invaded by the Zionist Jews and their EU collaborators.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/02/24/jewish-groups-celebrate-regime-change-in-ukraine/

    I’m sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.

    I’ve been accused of many things in my life, but anti-Russian is a first.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments

    Do you care to elaborate, besides an irrelevant and self-referential blog post? Which Ukrainian governments were pro-Russian and how were these pro-Russian views manifested into policy? The funny thing is that you are perpetuating a mainstream myth in the information war against Russia. So if anyone in this discussion is displaying anti-Russian tendencies, it’s you. I understand, though, it’s out of ignorance and not maliciousness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Count your Star of Zion darling for not calling you a SELF-HATING JEW, darling.

    Vladimir Putin is his address at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow said his regime has decided to house the disputed Schneerson Library in the JMTC complex. According to Russian daily Pravda (June 17, 2013), Putin told his Jewish audience that “the decision to nationalize the library was made in the 1920s by the first Soviet government, 80 to 85 percent of whose members were Jewish."

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/06/19/putin-i-smile-to-jews-will-they-smile-back/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Uri Katsav
    Brilliant! I would also agree Odessa and Transnistria to the equation. They are hot points ready to explode any moment.

    They tried that already. They didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. gerad says:
    @Latvian woman
    I hope this doesn't derail into another WW2 "discussion".

    On the topic: assuming (hypothetically), that Donbas was excised and that would be viewed as some sort of a compromise between Kiev and Donbas (Russia).. what happens with the new border of Ukraine? Right now the situation is absolutely unacceptable - Ukraine has no control over the border and anything can get into the country. So let's assume there is a new border. That whole area is now highly militarized. For Ukraine (and Europe) to feel safe, that area would have to be demilitarized. For instance, during the Cold War, Norway, a founding country of NATO that also has a border with Russia, would not place any military equipment or infrastructure (with the exception of one radar, I think), within a certain distance from the border. They created some kind of a "clean" space there (even if not big). Who would do this for Eastern Ukraine? Would Donbas be demilitarized? It would be naive to think that.

    Latvian woman……

    The simple facts are that the Donbass rebels could easily have taken more territory and killed more Nazi soldiers in this time….but haven’t. They have proven themselves to be very reliable. Practically all the civilian murders and injuries have been done by the Kiev side. DNR and LNR, in very difficult situations, have got 4 million citizens massively behind them are are existing as fully functional governments….an incredible achievement.

    It is up to the Kiev side to demilitarize and actually show some goodwill instead of being a bunch of morons all their lives. That includes recognising the current DNR/LNR authorities as legitimate politicians/officials…..openly negotiating with them…and working from there.

    Y0u are intelligent but there is a danger you are inaccurately equating Russia and the Donbass rebels with the murdering scum of the Kiev regime and their western backers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. gerad says:
    @Khan Bodin
    Every fool has his worldview too. But whoever wishes to be Ukranian can be so. Nobody is forcing anyone on anything. Those oblasts who wish to be Ukranian can continue to be, but I sense that not many will if there is nothing they can parasitize on. They are only Ukranians as long as they can parasitize on those productive Novorossiyan oblasts. Let us see how long those "true Ukranian" regions will continue to be Ukranian when there is noone to support their Ukranianess. ehehehe

    But those oblast who do not want to continue to be clowns in the circus or useful fools for the interests of the Vatican, City of London and Washinton DC, can have referendums to express themselves and join Russia if they wish so. They will seek those referendums themselves. They must have an option to go home if they choose so. That's only fair.

    Well said Khan Bodin

    Some extremely smart and lucid analysis in your posts. Very illuminating to read

    Read More
    • Replies: @Khan Bodin
    Thanks. It's just common sense you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. JL, absolutely would not have been there without Ukraine conflict! Even in 2008, after the Georgia conflict, even though there was a stir, the talk of “American bases” was still highly hypothetical. So in that regard, yes, unfortunately, it has spread and, ofc, it is a highly negative development.

    But my point was about Donbas. A good start would be for this ceasefire to last.

    I agree in that I also do not see a real motive or benefit from an invasion. But the problem is that a hybrid war is a real war, too. With real human costs (not just state of the art airports).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. gerad says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    To Avery: Ukraine is certainly (and unfortunately) *much* poorer than it should be. Indeed, surely one would think that a country with so much industry and with such an educated population would have achieved *a lot* more over the last 25 years.

    Frankly, it appears that corruption and political dysfunction in Ukraine affects both pro-Western politicians and pro-Russian ones--after all, neither Kuchma, nor Yushchenko, nor Yanukovych, nor Poroshenko was able to deliver large-scale economic growth to Ukraine.

    If the west hadn’t been moronic enough to support the cretin Yushchenko and this Orange Revolution, then even under the flawed Yanukovich, Ukraine would have been able to sustain until the crash, being the fastest economy in Europe. Instead these western idiots stopped this, persuaded Kiev into many anti–Russian moves….and the country that had a 12% GDP growth in 2004 ,had far less growth for the next few years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. gerad says:
    @H von P
    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn', then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see "surzhyk", the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by @Latvian woman, as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN'T mean that Ukrainian isn't a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    Quit with the philosophizing and look into actual linguistic science. Russian is only about 50-60% mutually intelligible with Ukrainian. Ukrainian is closest to Belarusian, then Rusyn’, then Polish. https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    Now, due to Russian occupation, most Ukrainians have had to learn Russian as well. (And some regions do see “surzhyk”, the mixture of Russian and Ukrainian referenced by , as predominating over both pure Ukrainian and pure Russian). Obviously, that DOESN’T mean that Ukrainian isn’t a distinct language (and a more pleasant-sounding one at that!)

    There was never any Russian “occupation” you dimwit.

    That “academic study” is a load of politicised bollocks. Most words,style of words,phrases used in Ukrainian language everyday, are heavily linked, and in many cases ..identical to Russian.

    There isn’t a single moron in the world who find Ukrainian a more pleasant sounding language than Russian. That explains why the vast majority of educated Ukrainians, even after 1991 , still prefer to speak, watch their favourite tv programes, read their favourite newspapers, watch the most popular Ukrainian political debate show…..in Russian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Avery
    You make good points.

    With its incredible natural wealth, abundant rich farmland, seashore..... Ukraine should be at least as prosperous as Russia. Actually, by all rights, could be a lot more prosperous.

    Yet.

    2015 Per Capita GDP:
    Ukraine ~$ 7,500
    Russia ~$25,000

    They are slowly self-destructing.
    Really strange behaviour.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Yeah.

    Ukraine is being looted by Neocon gangsters in suits, the same way Russia was looted under drunkard Yeltsin. At least Yeltsin had the momentary clarity in his alcohol addled mind to pass the baton on to Putin.

    No such person in Ukraine as far as I know.
    All the people elected in Ukraine since independence have been crooks, with varying levels of corruption: some more, some less.

    [Ukraine Agreed to a Monsanto “Land Grab” to Get a $17 Billion Loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)]
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-agreed-to-a-monsanto-land-grab-to-get-a-17-billion-loan-from-the-international-monetary-fund-imf/5424058

    I'd say serves Ukraine right, but the sad part is the ordinary people who had no part in the disastrous decisions of the "leaders", nor elected them, are the ones suffering the worst.

    By the time the vultures are done looting all its natural wealth and have picked the bones of the carcass clean, entire Ukraine will be like the Chernobyl radioactive exclusion zone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. utu says:
    @Latvian woman
    I hope this doesn't derail into another WW2 "discussion".

    On the topic: assuming (hypothetically), that Donbas was excised and that would be viewed as some sort of a compromise between Kiev and Donbas (Russia).. what happens with the new border of Ukraine? Right now the situation is absolutely unacceptable - Ukraine has no control over the border and anything can get into the country. So let's assume there is a new border. That whole area is now highly militarized. For Ukraine (and Europe) to feel safe, that area would have to be demilitarized. For instance, during the Cold War, Norway, a founding country of NATO that also has a border with Russia, would not place any military equipment or infrastructure (with the exception of one radar, I think), within a certain distance from the border. They created some kind of a "clean" space there (even if not big). Who would do this for Eastern Ukraine? Would Donbas be demilitarized? It would be naive to think that.

    Latvian woman, I like your nickname. It is explicit. I wish some of commenters used equally explicit nicknames like Serbian chauvinist or Russian supremacist or Armenian genocide victim… You know who I mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {.....or Armenian genocide victim…}

    As soon as you yourself start using an explicit nickname, so will I.
    Deal?

    (...although not what you suggest: I am not the victim of Genocide; still alive. Some of my direct ancestors were though).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Avery says:
    @utu
    Latvian woman, I like your nickname. It is explicit. I wish some of commenters used equally explicit nicknames like Serbian chauvinist or Russian supremacist or Armenian genocide victim... You know who I mean.

    {…..or Armenian genocide victim…}

    As soon as you yourself start using an explicit nickname, so will I.
    Deal?

    (…although not what you suggest: I am not the victim of Genocide; still alive. Some of my direct ancestors were though).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Avery says:
    @Bill Jones
    Wanna see where the money goes?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/

    Yeah.

    Ukraine is being looted by Neocon gangsters in suits, the same way Russia was looted under drunkard Yeltsin. At least Yeltsin had the momentary clarity in his alcohol addled mind to pass the baton on to Putin.

    No such person in Ukraine as far as I know.
    All the people elected in Ukraine since independence have been crooks, with varying levels of corruption: some more, some less.

    [Ukraine Agreed to a Monsanto “Land Grab” to Get a $17 Billion Loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)]

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-agreed-to-a-monsanto-land-grab-to-get-a-17-billion-loan-from-the-international-monetary-fund-imf/5424058

    I’d say serves Ukraine right, but the sad part is the ordinary people who had no part in the disastrous decisions of the “leaders”, nor elected them, are the ones suffering the worst.

    By the time the vultures are done looting all its natural wealth and have picked the bones of the carcass clean, entire Ukraine will be like the Chernobyl radioactive exclusion zone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    Yeltsin reformed the Russian economy. Not well, not enough but enough to make Russia more resilient and observably less corrupt than Ukraine. His big mistake was not allowing foreigners to invest in the privatization programmes. This made Russian less competitive and allowed the local oligarchs more scope for corruption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. utu, that’s right. :) I thought it would be honest in this kind of a forum to reveal identity, to see who is who.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. Avery, my condolences about your relatives.

    Regarding Monsanto, they shouldn’t have been allowed into Ukraine (I know that they need money and bargaining power but they should be careful). Hopefully, they don’t get to do much there. Ukraine should do like the EU countries – half of them (including Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany) have banned the cultivation of GMOs. The US tried to change that (by lobbying with individual governments) but as far as I know nothing has changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Thanks Latvian woman.

    US corporate gangsters using the power of US Gov to force countries to accept GMO is a crime in itself. GMO may or may not be harmful to humans' health in the long run, but no Gov has any business partnering with a private company to force it - literally - down people's throat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Rehmat says:
    @JL

    I’m sorry to burst your anti-Russian balloon.
     
    I've been accused of many things in my life, but anti-Russian is a first.

    Ukraine had several pro-Russian governments
     
    Do you care to elaborate, besides an irrelevant and self-referential blog post? Which Ukrainian governments were pro-Russian and how were these pro-Russian views manifested into policy? The funny thing is that you are perpetuating a mainstream myth in the information war against Russia. So if anyone in this discussion is displaying anti-Russian tendencies, it's you. I understand, though, it's out of ignorance and not maliciousness.

    Count your Star of Zion darling for not calling you a SELF-HATING JEW, darling.

    Vladimir Putin is his address at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow said his regime has decided to house the disputed Schneerson Library in the JMTC complex. According to Russian daily Pravda (June 17, 2013), Putin told his Jewish audience that “the decision to nationalize the library was made in the 1920s by the first Soviet government, 80 to 85 percent of whose members were Jewish.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/06/19/putin-i-smile-to-jews-will-they-smile-back/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Cranky says:

    What a bunch of tribal comments= huge timewaster.

    I stand by my earlier comments, just issue passports to anyone that wants one.

    Russia should concentrate on their future, not this mess of a place with a coal mine and a rusted out factory base.

    So much to do in Russia, and yet they worry about control and looting instead of development and progress.

    Deliver progress and much repression is forgiven, that is the true lesson of the 1950s, and yet everyone wants glory instead of a new car.

    Or an apartment where everything works, or a governing system that works well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. 5371 says:
    @Philip Owen


    Of course, Ukraine is the heir to Byzantium. The Russian Orthodox Church left the Constantinople Patriarchy. Marriages of princesses whose fathers have lost their empires hardly count to the same standard as endorsement by the Church as true successors to Prince (note not an independent King but a Prince of Byzantium baptized on territory that was still arguably Byzantine. Do monks every write the truth?) Vladimir of Kievean Rus.

    [Prince (note not an independent King but a Prince of Byzantium baptized on territory that was still arguably Byzantine]

    Are you even human, or a poorly scripted bot? That’s word salad, not a contribution to the discussion.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Avery says:
    @Latvian woman
    Avery, my condolences about your relatives.

    Regarding Monsanto, they shouldn't have been allowed into Ukraine (I know that they need money and bargaining power but they should be careful). Hopefully, they don't get to do much there. Ukraine should do like the EU countries - half of them (including Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany) have banned the cultivation of GMOs. The US tried to change that (by lobbying with individual governments) but as far as I know nothing has changed.

    Thanks Latvian woman.

    US corporate gangsters using the power of US Gov to force countries to accept GMO is a crime in itself. GMO may or may not be harmful to humans’ health in the long run, but no Gov has any business partnering with a private company to force it – literally – down people’s throat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Saker, as always, you’re an idiot.

    Ukraine is an artificial country, always has been. This is Russian land, populated largely by Russian people, even those pretending to be “Ukrainian” today because they were force-fed the fraudulent Ukrainian language.

    Russia is the sole bulwark against Jewish World domination.

    The final battle between Rus & Khazar is coming. The territory this war engulfed? Neo-Khazaria, it’s capital Kiev, it’s leaders the new Kagans… Valtzmann et al.

    Get the fuck out of the business of telling true Rus what to do. And take your fukking shekels with you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Would you care to elaborate on your assettion about the improved and improving Russian economy.

    BTW have you - or any other reader of this - read the recent issue of Foreign Affairs with many articles on Russia? If so any comment?

    Would you care to elaborate on your assettion about the improved and improving Russian economy.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/06/boston-globe-is-right-on-money.html

    BTW have you – or any other reader of this – read the recent issue of Foreign Affairs with many articles on Russia? If so any comment?

    I stopped reading, or rather treat seriously, most of US foreign policy media outlets, even such trying to be more or less presentable source as Foreign Affairs, after 2008. Today, most of West’s main stream “foreign policy” thought is a panopticon of pretentious hacks, who refuse to face reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Romanian
    That wasn't the point, but thanks for the other gratuitous insult. I never mentioned any blood, I just clarified a few historical issues and made allusions to the importance of national mythologizing. I don't need you to tell me about Roman history. I studied it myself and know what the Roman empire was and wasn't and the origin of the Legions stationed around here which mustered out their veterans as a form of colonization. Many of those soldiers were not Roman, indeed. But this wasn't about blood, it was about cultural affinity and the elements of belonging to wider culture, like linguistic links and common identity. Again, look at the haplogroups and my own use of 23andme. I may be getting trolled here, but I merely replied to your sweeping pronouncements against established history in my neck of the woods. Meanwhile, you're the one who states that Russia is the heir of Byzantium without noticing the irony that you were mocking another's claim to a much smaller and less ambitious inheritance. Have a good day!

    My day will be good or bad regardless of your wishes. The fact that Russia is the heir of Byzantium is not an ambition, it’s a fact. When Western Roman Empire fell, Roman emperor and ruling class left for Constantinople. When Constantinople fell, Byzantine ruling dynasties left for Grand Duchy of Moscow which quickly became Russian Empire. That’s how it goes. But it’s trivial. Roman Empire has been dead for 1.500 years and Byzantium for half a millenium. It’s not like Byzantine people existed as Byzantine people so they could resurrect themselves after the fall, or that there were Roman people so they could survive the invasion. That’s the thing with empires, when they die, they die. No people, no resurrection when resources run dry or excessive corruption kills it. For that fact alone, every empire without its ethnic base is destined to die eventually, for empire is just a set if administrative divisions under the same jurisdiction. Chinese or Indian people can set up one empire after another (should they have resources or national character for it), but Romans could only set up one, because they were so tiny as people that they had ethnically vanished long before their empire died. Only their culture survived. They probably ceased to exist during the fight with other Italic tribes. That’s how tiny they were. But their culture remained, most likely because they stole everything they could from other tribes (they weren’t culturally rich to begin with, but they refined themselves along the conquest) around them, and they were inclusive on basis of merit (whoever deserved to become Roman was accepted, and since those other tribes around them were ethnically very similar or identical to the Romans, nobody could tell a difference between a true Roman and one who became so, it wasn’t like they were accepting Africans like westerners are). In any case, rest assured that those legionares you had guarding borders in today Romania weren’t of Roman origin. They were people from all over the Empire. Mercenaries.

    So you say you have some claims regarding Bessarabia I see. And that claim is grounded on the fact that you took the land during the Russian civil war and kept it till 1940. The region never belonged to Vlachs. What is your inheritence? Your neck of the woods is already way bigger than it deserves to be. USSR should have broken your county into pieces. You have launched an invasion on USSR, lost the war and went on like nothing happened. There should have been blood price and territorial price for you. Communist scum. That also tells something regarding whom communist scum served.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    You've gone off the rails. We're the communist scum? How did we get our Communists and (((Communists))), if not through the USSR's drive to export the revolution abroad? 50 years as prisoners of a retrograde ideology and our elites, faulty as they were, shot through the head in the forests or languishing in prisons. The only sunny side to it was that our Commies tried to distance themselves from Moscow for various reasons. I also find it funny that the supporter of an imperialist power that had 22 million sq kms at its height and 12 million sq kms today not only looks down on us today, but has the temerity to suggest that my people should have had less, as if our enemies cut us some slack for not wiping us out. Whatever evil they could do to us in the circumstances of the time and with the bigger priorities they had then, they did. In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania. That was all there was to it. Without Communism, not only would we have been spared the extreme left, but also the extreme right. Again, have a good day. I'm not being obliquely insulting, I'm being polite and civilized to someone I disagree with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @gerad
    Well said Khan Bodin

    Some extremely smart and lucid analysis in your posts. Very illuminating to read

    Thanks. It’s just common sense you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. AP says:
    @Khan Bodin
    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew you are making more and more a fool of yourself with every added post loaded with truly mindblowing idiotic statements, and to witness how simple-minded you truly are, you are not capable of noticing it. Who else but a genuine idiot keeps trashing his limbs around in the quicksand! ehehehe

    Now let me expand and again further demonstrate how big an imbecile you are. You say that Ukranian language exists and that it's based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If "Ukranian" language is based on Polish language (linguistically speaking, for I've no doubt there are many Polish words and expressions in the language there, especially in western Ukraine which has been part of Poland until 1939/43), Ukranians would have no problem understanding Poles, but that is not the case. Ukranians understand perfectly well Russian language though, because "Ukranian" lanaguage is just a derivation of the Russian language. It doesn't exist anymore than Canadian, Australian or Austrian languages exist. The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well tells one everything he or she needs to know about whose language Belorussians and Ukranians are speaking, and who indeed they are. Just because Bolsheviks created Belorussia as a state in 1920s which became "internationaly recognized" after the fall of USSR in 1991 doesn't mean Belorussia is a nation. Nations are not created by decrees of bureaucrats or politicians, and certainly not by those who did it without the expression of the will of the people or who came to power by a coup (both of which is true for communist Bolsheviks, those creators of Belorussian and Ukranian states). Even a total retard would notice something in the name of Belorussians, but it appears you are not capable even for that. You are just a little propagandist. A very dumb one. I am afraid your imbecilic propaganda is not something a semi-intelligent 6 yo would buy. A good merchant knows that you cannot sell something which has no value. But it is also known that intelligence is required to recognize such a simple truth, something which is truly not there in you case and in the case of your fellow simpletons. ehehehe

    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew

    And so the idiot reveal himself.

    You say that Ukranian language exists and that it’s based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    Naturally you didn’t understand my post. You are incapable of it. But in case others, with at least average intelligence, are reading this:

    Ukrainian language is heavily influenced by Polish, in the same that the English language has been heavily influenced by French, and for similar reasons. Germanic England was conquered by French (specifically, a dialect of French) speaking Normans and had a ruling class that spoke that dialect for centuries. Ukraine was part of Poland for centuries and had a Polish-speaking ruling class; it’s language has thus become heavily influenced by Polish, such that Ukrainian has more words in common with Polish than it does with Russian.

    The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well

    Nope. But you are an ignorant fool, so of course you would say that. Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.
     
    That's a rather dubious assertion, at least in my own experience, though I have no empirical evidence to claim one way or the other so I won't press it. It reminds me of a funny situation I once found myself in, crossing the border from Ukraine into Poland by car. I couldn't understand a damn thing the Polish customs officer was asking me. So a woman in line did her best to assist; she translated into Ukrainian, which I was able to comprehend, and then translated my Russian into Polish.
    , @Khan Bodin
    We have already discussed the so-called Ukranian language, you idiot. You bring noting but a fresh round of imbecility and ignorance to the discussion. I will repeat you again: When we see Murican, Irish, Australian, Canadian or Scottish language, then I might conclude that such a language exists if only to be consistent with classification. Ukrop languge is nothing more than Galician dialect taken to be the base for the whole Ukraine, which used to be Pskov dialect during the USSR if I remember well reading about it. As for your equally stupid notion regarding English and French languages, I can tell you that English language is not any more influenced by French than French is by English (regardless of how many new words each of them use from the other). As far as I know they came to be roughly around the same time period, and they both heavily borrowed from older languages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. JL says:
    @AP

    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew
     
    And so the idiot reveal himself.

    You say that Ukranian language exists and that it’s based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
     
    Naturally you didn't understand my post. You are incapable of it. But in case others, with at least average intelligence, are reading this:

    Ukrainian language is heavily influenced by Polish, in the same that the English language has been heavily influenced by French, and for similar reasons. Germanic England was conquered by French (specifically, a dialect of French) speaking Normans and had a ruling class that spoke that dialect for centuries. Ukraine was part of Poland for centuries and had a Polish-speaking ruling class; it's language has thus become heavily influenced by Polish, such that Ukrainian has more words in common with Polish than it does with Russian.

    The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well
     
    Nope. But you are an ignorant fool, so of course you would say that. Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.

    Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.

    That’s a rather dubious assertion, at least in my own experience, though I have no empirical evidence to claim one way or the other so I won’t press it. It reminds me of a funny situation I once found myself in, crossing the border from Ukraine into Poland by car. I couldn’t understand a damn thing the Polish customs officer was asking me. So a woman in line did her best to assist; she translated into Ukrainian, which I was able to comprehend, and then translated my Russian into Polish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish. Anecdotally, our Russian nanny could not understand spoken Ukrainian when she first heard it, to her surprise.

    Here is a map of lexical distance between languages:

    https://alternativetransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.png

    Ukrainian and Polish have 70% words in common; Ukrainian and Russian, 62% - same as Ukrainian and Czech. In comparison, Swedish and Danish have 79% of words in common, Dutch and German have 75% of words in common, and Serbian and Croatian are identical. Outside of the Slavic languages, lexical difference between the Russian and Ukrainian languages is closest to that between French and Portuguese (61% of words in common).

    Lexical distance is not the same as mutual intelligibility of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @AP

    You IQ is not-existent, Jew. Like a good liberal Jew
     
    And so the idiot reveal himself.

    You say that Ukranian language exists and that it’s based on Polish language because big part of Ukraine was for centuries part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
     
    Naturally you didn't understand my post. You are incapable of it. But in case others, with at least average intelligence, are reading this:

    Ukrainian language is heavily influenced by Polish, in the same that the English language has been heavily influenced by French, and for similar reasons. Germanic England was conquered by French (specifically, a dialect of French) speaking Normans and had a ruling class that spoke that dialect for centuries. Ukraine was part of Poland for centuries and had a Polish-speaking ruling class; it's language has thus become heavily influenced by Polish, such that Ukrainian has more words in common with Polish than it does with Russian.

    The fact that Ukranian, Russian and Belorussian can understand each other perfectly well
     
    Nope. But you are an ignorant fool, so of course you would say that. Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.

    We have already discussed the so-called Ukranian language, you idiot. You bring noting but a fresh round of imbecility and ignorance to the discussion. I will repeat you again: When we see Murican, Irish, Australian, Canadian or Scottish language, then I might conclude that such a language exists if only to be consistent with classification. Ukrop languge is nothing more than Galician dialect taken to be the base for the whole Ukraine, which used to be Pskov dialect during the USSR if I remember well reading about it. As for your equally stupid notion regarding English and French languages, I can tell you that English language is not any more influenced by French than French is by English (regardless of how many new words each of them use from the other). As far as I know they came to be roughly around the same time period, and they both heavily borrowed from older languages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    Scots is a different language from English as is Ulster-Scots an even more obscure form of speech. They are from the same Anglian roots and have very similar histories and mostly mutually intelligible. The 20th century has erased much difference. Hollywood has done between England and the US. It used to take 2 or 3 days off the boat for a new arrival from England to get the hang of American English.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Dave says:
    @European in America
    One thing that needs to be emphasized is the depopulation of Ukraine. This has been going on for a while, is ongoing, and set to continue if not accelerate. Wikipedia gives Ukraine's population as 44 million, but if we subtract Crimea (2 million), rebel Donbass (2 million), 1 million that has fled and migrated to Russia since 2014, and possibly another 1 million to the West, that's 38 million, down from a peak of 52 million in 1990. Throw in a crashing birthrate and accelerated migration due to crushing poverty, endless austerity and war, and we are looking at quite possibly the most catastrophic depopulation of a country in relative peacetime in modern history.

    Even worse, Ukraine is in a for an unprecedented brain drain. Anyone talented and ambitious that is not politically connected and a total crook will *have* to immigrate if they want to make something of themselves. I have seen what 6 years of austerity have done to Greece, and the brain drain there is even worse than what is reported. And that's with a far higher standard of living, less austerity, and *without* war. I agree with the posters that there is something of a Ukrainian nation (all it takes for a nation to exist is a group of people deciding that they are that nation, nothing more. No unique language, ancient history, and certainly not genetics - let's not get into that). But there won't be much of one at this rate. The Ukies have NO idea what they're in for.

    That said, I also agree with the poster that said that the political orientation of Ukrainians, whether pro-Russia or pro-West, is dependent on political circumstances. If the West was ambivalent or neutral about Ukraine, I suspect the political orientation of many Ukrainians would be different. Political orientation is not carved in stone but highly fluid and changeable. There are Ukrainians that are hard-wired to be pro-West or pro-Russia, but I get the feeling the majority are of the "whichever way the wind blows" type. Right now, the wind is still blowing from the West, but it's not inconceivable that that could change in the future.

    Ukrainian women want to live in a city, have lots of fun, marry at 35, and have one or two children. Amish women want to marry young, live on a farm, and have ten children. The Amish are a quarter-million now and doubling every twenty years with zero unemployment. If Ukraine doesn’t solve its depopulation problem in the next 100 years, the Amish will be happy to settle all that fertile land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    That would be wonderful! But I fear that the Chinese will also eager to cultivate that land -- first by leases, move in tens of thousands of laborers and troops to protect them, then later who knows. A Ukraine with only 25 million people or so, which is where we are sadly heading, against eventually a couple hundred thousand Chinese troops.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Romanian says:
    @Khan Bodin
    My day will be good or bad regardless of your wishes. The fact that Russia is the heir of Byzantium is not an ambition, it's a fact. When Western Roman Empire fell, Roman emperor and ruling class left for Constantinople. When Constantinople fell, Byzantine ruling dynasties left for Grand Duchy of Moscow which quickly became Russian Empire. That's how it goes. But it's trivial. Roman Empire has been dead for 1.500 years and Byzantium for half a millenium. It's not like Byzantine people existed as Byzantine people so they could resurrect themselves after the fall, or that there were Roman people so they could survive the invasion. That's the thing with empires, when they die, they die. No people, no resurrection when resources run dry or excessive corruption kills it. For that fact alone, every empire without its ethnic base is destined to die eventually, for empire is just a set if administrative divisions under the same jurisdiction. Chinese or Indian people can set up one empire after another (should they have resources or national character for it), but Romans could only set up one, because they were so tiny as people that they had ethnically vanished long before their empire died. Only their culture survived. They probably ceased to exist during the fight with other Italic tribes. That's how tiny they were. But their culture remained, most likely because they stole everything they could from other tribes (they weren't culturally rich to begin with, but they refined themselves along the conquest) around them, and they were inclusive on basis of merit (whoever deserved to become Roman was accepted, and since those other tribes around them were ethnically very similar or identical to the Romans, nobody could tell a difference between a true Roman and one who became so, it wasn't like they were accepting Africans like westerners are). In any case, rest assured that those legionares you had guarding borders in today Romania weren't of Roman origin. They were people from all over the Empire. Mercenaries.

    So you say you have some claims regarding Bessarabia I see. And that claim is grounded on the fact that you took the land during the Russian civil war and kept it till 1940. The region never belonged to Vlachs. What is your inheritence? Your neck of the woods is already way bigger than it deserves to be. USSR should have broken your county into pieces. You have launched an invasion on USSR, lost the war and went on like nothing happened. There should have been blood price and territorial price for you. Communist scum. That also tells something regarding whom communist scum served.

    You’ve gone off the rails. We’re the communist scum? How did we get our Communists and (((Communists))), if not through the USSR’s drive to export the revolution abroad? 50 years as prisoners of a retrograde ideology and our elites, faulty as they were, shot through the head in the forests or languishing in prisons. The only sunny side to it was that our Commies tried to distance themselves from Moscow for various reasons. I also find it funny that the supporter of an imperialist power that had 22 million sq kms at its height and 12 million sq kms today not only looks down on us today, but has the temerity to suggest that my people should have had less, as if our enemies cut us some slack for not wiping us out. Whatever evil they could do to us in the circumstances of the time and with the bigger priorities they had then, they did. In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania. That was all there was to it. Without Communism, not only would we have been spared the extreme left, but also the extreme right. Again, have a good day. I’m not being obliquely insulting, I’m being polite and civilized to someone I disagree with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania.
     
    And you also did your darnedest to grab a goodly chunk of Southern Russia/Ukraine, including Odessa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_Governorate

    I understand this was supposed to be compensation for Transylvania.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Avery, agree a 100%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. inertial says:
    @Latvian woman
    It is just not true that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible. I don't know how it is for Serbs or Poles or Russians who have lived in Ukraine, but I speak perfect Russian since childhood and I could not understand Ukrainian (or Polish) when I first heard it. Maybe 30% max. Even now, having listened to many Ukrainian programs I do understand more, but not nearly all or even most.

    It is obvious that Ukrainian is closely related to Russian, but it has many words similar to Polish and the pronunciation is more "Polish" sounding. I would need at least 3-5 months of studying Ukrainian to understand it. They are not mutually intelligible. It is not a dialect!

    Here is a map that visualizes the language situation in Ukraine (also in Moldova and Belarus, but let’s ignore them.) The map was created by “Kyiv National Linguistic University.”

    - About half of Ukraine by territory, mostly in the East and South but also in other places, is the home to people who speak Russian language outright. These areas are labeled #1 and are colored in dark pink.

    - Orange (#2) is Surzhyk. It’s the name for dialects that are either a mixture between Russian and Ukrainian or are transitional between the two. Most of the people who speak “Ukrainian” outside of Galizia are speaking Surzhyk. There is no problem with mutual intelligibility between that and Russian; in fact, in many cases Surzhyk is really Russian with an accent and a few regional words. Ukrainian nationalists usually treat Surzhyk and its speakers with disdain – except when they need to inflate the number of Ukrainian speakers.

    - Yellow (#3) is the “true” Ukrainian. Soviet linguists who created the Ukrainian language based it on the Poltava dialect. You can still see it on the map. But it’s not spoken in many places outside of Poltava region.

    - Purple (#4) is Western Ukrainian. This is the version that you heard, most likely. Yep, it’s closer to Polish than to Russian, or indeed to dialects used by most other Ukrainians. If Ukrainian is it’s own language than the Western Ukrainian must be one, too.

    Incidentally, during the Soviet times the Ukrainian language heard on TV, etc., was the “true” Ukrainian, the #3. Over the course of independence this changed to #4. The change happened gradually, so the Ukrainian residents got adapted. But people who grew up in Ukraine, studied the language in school, and then left around the time the USSR has broken up, told me that when they came for a visit a couple of decades later they could no longer fully understand TV announcers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The map is a hoax. No evidence of its existence beyond Russian blogs. "Kyiv National Linguistic University" trains translators.
    , @Khan Bodin
    That's a very telling and educational map. So there are 2 Ukranian "languages," communists made Poltava dialect "Ukranian language" and Bandera nazis made that western ukranian dialect from a region that is part of Ukraine from 1943 a official "Ukranian language." I knew it's a travesty and a circus. Bolsheviks served those western bankster financiers of theirs you see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. inertial says:
    @Romanian
    You've gone off the rails. We're the communist scum? How did we get our Communists and (((Communists))), if not through the USSR's drive to export the revolution abroad? 50 years as prisoners of a retrograde ideology and our elites, faulty as they were, shot through the head in the forests or languishing in prisons. The only sunny side to it was that our Commies tried to distance themselves from Moscow for various reasons. I also find it funny that the supporter of an imperialist power that had 22 million sq kms at its height and 12 million sq kms today not only looks down on us today, but has the temerity to suggest that my people should have had less, as if our enemies cut us some slack for not wiping us out. Whatever evil they could do to us in the circumstances of the time and with the bigger priorities they had then, they did. In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania. That was all there was to it. Without Communism, not only would we have been spared the extreme left, but also the extreme right. Again, have a good day. I'm not being obliquely insulting, I'm being polite and civilized to someone I disagree with.

    In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania.

    And you also did your darnedest to grab a goodly chunk of Southern Russia/Ukraine, including Odessa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_Governorate

    I understand this was supposed to be compensation for Transylvania.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    It was a bargaining chip to hold what we really wanted. Ask Trump, he'll tell you how it's done. Just like going ahead in 1919 and invading Hungary all the way to the Tisza. We said we could keep it, the Allies said no, go back to your borders. We went for Budapest. Then we went back. But the borders were the ones in 1918, with the Transylvanian unification, and that was made permanent at Trianon. So we got exactly what we wanted. We based our claims on Wilson's principles of self-determination for majorities (though Sections of the country were majority minority, like Bugeac, Cernauti and Szekely Land in the interior of the country). The area from the border to the Tisza was very very Hungarian. There was no way we could have kept it and no way we would have viciated the new National project by purposefuly decreasing our majority in the enlarged state which was already diverse enough. Likewise for the Governorate area. It was full of Ukrainians. It doesn't make sense for Romania to trade land it has always wanted and maintained has always been majority Romanian (though the straight center of the country, Harghita and Covasna, has been and is today majority Hungarian, which shows how awful we are to our minorities) for a land that was not part of the three traditional principalities and was full of people who would have hated our guts because they had had their own thwarted short lived ethnostate previously. Our problem was that Hungary in WW2 had taken Northern Transylvania and our authoritarian king Carol II and the later executive powers (the legionaries and Antonescu) were rightists. They were nationalist first, but they abhorred Communism. So they were going to convince Hitler that NT was ours. Step 1. Attack the USSR, even going beyond Bessarabia to show our support, though that was internally debated until Antonescu put his foot down. step 2 ??? Step 3 profit. We do not know how it would have turned out had the war not gone the other way, maybe we would have had a straight fight against Hungary or some form of swap with Germany or an admission of a fait accompli had the Germans sided with the Hungarians. Who knows? But Romanians had their hearts set on NT, not Transnistria. Even today, I believe a majority of Romanians would like unification with central Bessarabia (the Republic of Moldova) but are totally cold on Transnistria, meaning the part beyond the Dniester. Not ours, no siree. One of our first thoughts after the 1989 whirlwind was to mobilize the military in Transylvania for any sort of sudden movement on the part of Hungary. It was supposedly one of the readons we did not gut the Securitate as we should have, because we needed them to hamper any pre-invadion ground game on the part of Hungary. Lazlo Tokes was on the Hungarian payroll as an irredentist activist. And in the memoirs of one of our diplomats, I believe, I read about a conversation with a Russian diplomat on why we were going for NATO in 1994, when we entered the Partnership for Peace. His reply, which was obviously only part of the truth, that we wanted a clean break from the Russian orbit, was that Hungary was doing the same and history taught us we had always gone to war with Hungary for Transylvania whenever we were in rival military alliances. So now we would be allies. History is complicated.
    , @Romanian
    Now, I'll grant you that every nation will have its individuals at important historical crossroads, especially in places of power, with a devil on their shoulder saying "why not keep it and assume the mantle of empire". There might have been individuals in the leadership who thought it would be dandy to keep it all, including Odessa (what Romanian cares about Odessa?), even at the cost of Transylvania, though it would have been a very bad trade IMO. But those people would have been the ones to view their people as fungible - give up millions of Romanians and get millions of Ukrainians in turn. A bad idea anyway you put it. And a betrayal. Romanian territorial aspirations, however you may view them, and history shows a people views its own aspirations as legitimate and those of others as illegitimate when the two exclude eachother, ended with Greater Romania in 1918. That was everything we had striven for. Mission accomplished. The golden age. There was nothing else to be done short of abandoning the nationalist project and embarking on imperial conquest and domination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Romanian,

    “Without Communism, not only would we have been spared the extreme left, but also the extreme right.”

    This! Very good point. But I don’t want to start another convo about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Avery
    Yeah.

    Ukraine is being looted by Neocon gangsters in suits, the same way Russia was looted under drunkard Yeltsin. At least Yeltsin had the momentary clarity in his alcohol addled mind to pass the baton on to Putin.

    No such person in Ukraine as far as I know.
    All the people elected in Ukraine since independence have been crooks, with varying levels of corruption: some more, some less.

    [Ukraine Agreed to a Monsanto “Land Grab” to Get a $17 Billion Loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)]
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-agreed-to-a-monsanto-land-grab-to-get-a-17-billion-loan-from-the-international-monetary-fund-imf/5424058

    I'd say serves Ukraine right, but the sad part is the ordinary people who had no part in the disastrous decisions of the "leaders", nor elected them, are the ones suffering the worst.

    By the time the vultures are done looting all its natural wealth and have picked the bones of the carcass clean, entire Ukraine will be like the Chernobyl radioactive exclusion zone.

    Yeltsin reformed the Russian economy. Not well, not enough but enough to make Russia more resilient and observably less corrupt than Ukraine. His big mistake was not allowing foreigners to invest in the privatization programmes. This made Russian less competitive and allowed the local oligarchs more scope for corruption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Khan Bodin
    We have already discussed the so-called Ukranian language, you idiot. You bring noting but a fresh round of imbecility and ignorance to the discussion. I will repeat you again: When we see Murican, Irish, Australian, Canadian or Scottish language, then I might conclude that such a language exists if only to be consistent with classification. Ukrop languge is nothing more than Galician dialect taken to be the base for the whole Ukraine, which used to be Pskov dialect during the USSR if I remember well reading about it. As for your equally stupid notion regarding English and French languages, I can tell you that English language is not any more influenced by French than French is by English (regardless of how many new words each of them use from the other). As far as I know they came to be roughly around the same time period, and they both heavily borrowed from older languages.

    Scots is a different language from English as is Ulster-Scots an even more obscure form of speech. They are from the same Anglian roots and have very similar histories and mostly mutually intelligible. The 20th century has erased much difference. Hollywood has done between England and the US. It used to take 2 or 3 days off the boat for a new arrival from England to get the hang of American English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Romanian says:
    @inertial

    In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania.
     
    And you also did your darnedest to grab a goodly chunk of Southern Russia/Ukraine, including Odessa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_Governorate

    I understand this was supposed to be compensation for Transylvania.

    It was a bargaining chip to hold what we really wanted. Ask Trump, he’ll tell you how it’s done. Just like going ahead in 1919 and invading Hungary all the way to the Tisza. We said we could keep it, the Allies said no, go back to your borders. We went for Budapest. Then we went back. But the borders were the ones in 1918, with the Transylvanian unification, and that was made permanent at Trianon. So we got exactly what we wanted. We based our claims on Wilson’s principles of self-determination for majorities (though Sections of the country were majority minority, like Bugeac, Cernauti and Szekely Land in the interior of the country). The area from the border to the Tisza was very very Hungarian. There was no way we could have kept it and no way we would have viciated the new National project by purposefuly decreasing our majority in the enlarged state which was already diverse enough. Likewise for the Governorate area. It was full of Ukrainians. It doesn’t make sense for Romania to trade land it has always wanted and maintained has always been majority Romanian (though the straight center of the country, Harghita and Covasna, has been and is today majority Hungarian, which shows how awful we are to our minorities) for a land that was not part of the three traditional principalities and was full of people who would have hated our guts because they had had their own thwarted short lived ethnostate previously. Our problem was that Hungary in WW2 had taken Northern Transylvania and our authoritarian king Carol II and the later executive powers (the legionaries and Antonescu) were rightists. They were nationalist first, but they abhorred Communism. So they were going to convince Hitler that NT was ours. Step 1. Attack the USSR, even going beyond Bessarabia to show our support, though that was internally debated until Antonescu put his foot down. step 2 ??? Step 3 profit. We do not know how it would have turned out had the war not gone the other way, maybe we would have had a straight fight against Hungary or some form of swap with Germany or an admission of a fait accompli had the Germans sided with the Hungarians. Who knows? But Romanians had their hearts set on NT, not Transnistria. Even today, I believe a majority of Romanians would like unification with central Bessarabia (the Republic of Moldova) but are totally cold on Transnistria, meaning the part beyond the Dniester. Not ours, no siree. One of our first thoughts after the 1989 whirlwind was to mobilize the military in Transylvania for any sort of sudden movement on the part of Hungary. It was supposedly one of the readons we did not gut the Securitate as we should have, because we needed them to hamper any pre-invadion ground game on the part of Hungary. Lazlo Tokes was on the Hungarian payroll as an irredentist activist. And in the memoirs of one of our diplomats, I believe, I read about a conversation with a Russian diplomat on why we were going for NATO in 1994, when we entered the Partnership for Peace. His reply, which was obviously only part of the truth, that we wanted a clean break from the Russian orbit, was that Hungary was doing the same and history taught us we had always gone to war with Hungary for Transylvania whenever we were in rival military alliances. So now we would be allies. History is complicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Romanian says:
    @inertial

    In WW2, we were essentially reactionary. Our priority was to maintain our state. We handed over Bessarabia beyond the Prut then, so we did our darndest to get it back and then we did our darndest to get back Northern Transylvania.
     
    And you also did your darnedest to grab a goodly chunk of Southern Russia/Ukraine, including Odessa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_Governorate

    I understand this was supposed to be compensation for Transylvania.

    Now, I’ll grant you that every nation will have its individuals at important historical crossroads, especially in places of power, with a devil on their shoulder saying “why not keep it and assume the mantle of empire”. There might have been individuals in the leadership who thought it would be dandy to keep it all, including Odessa (what Romanian cares about Odessa?), even at the cost of Transylvania, though it would have been a very bad trade IMO. But those people would have been the ones to view their people as fungible – give up millions of Romanians and get millions of Ukrainians in turn. A bad idea anyway you put it. And a betrayal. Romanian territorial aspirations, however you may view them, and history shows a people views its own aspirations as legitimate and those of others as illegitimate when the two exclude eachother, ended with Greater Romania in 1918. That was everything we had striven for. Mission accomplished. The golden age. There was nothing else to be done short of abandoning the nationalist project and embarking on imperial conquest and domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Wiki says that Antonescu intended to keep the territory, eventually. He didn't have to worry about the local Ukrainians (or whoever was the majority at the time.) That was the period of time when it was easy-peasy to get rid of of the locals and create a little lebensraum for yourself. Just expel them. Or murder them. Germans were doing that at the time, or planning to - so why not their juniors allies? They certainly followed German lead in respect to Jews. Why not Slavs as well?

    As for breaking from the Russian orbit, I had an impression that Russia wasn't that interested in Romania. Until now, that is. Now, Russian nuclear forces have Romania as one of the priority targets. The clean break policy was obviously a roaring success. Romanian people must be ecstatic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. inertial, thank you for posting the map, it is quite fascinating. It is more diverse than I realized. But I’d still have to figure out whether I can understand Surzhyk or not. There is Russian spoken with a Ukrainian accent (sort of like the way Gorbachev used to speak but even more accented, I noticed some women in Gorlovka / Horlivka (which is supposed to be predominantly Russian) spoke that way and also in Mariupol, and probably all across Ukraine). That is very easy to understand, but I don’t think that’s Surzhyk.

    So it seems that there has been an attempt to “Ukrainianize” the country. So the language used in the Ukrainian politics is Western Ukrainian, right? For instance, I tried to watch Espreso TV, I understood some, but not nearly enough to make complete sense.

    Scots is probably the toughest English accent to understand. I’m embarrassed to admit that sometimes I don’t understand most of it. And not just the Neds speaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    inertial, thank you for posting the map, it is quite fascinating.
     
    The map he posted is a hoax. It's pretty common on Russian blogs and a lot of Russians believe it is genuine. It is not.

    Scots is probably the toughest English accent to understand.
     
    Scots is not English spoken with a Scottish accent but a separate language that developed in Scotland for centuries. It is not,actually, very common in modern Scotland - you'll mostly just hear English spoken with a Scottish accent in Scottish cities.
    , @inertial
    Western Ukrainian politicians speak Western Ukrainian, naturally. As for the rest, almost all of them speak Russian in private. Many of them learned to speak Ukrainian as adults. They treat Ukrainian as a kind of ceremonial language spoken at state occasions or for show. But if they start yelling at each other at government meetings, they yell in Russian. When they are secretly recorded, they speak Russian. And so on.

    And even when they try to speak Ukrainian they are not always successful. People can tell when it's a second language for them. A few months ago, Poroshenko had to ask his secretary during a press conference how to say "wallet" in Ukrainian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Dave
    Ukrainian women want to live in a city, have lots of fun, marry at 35, and have one or two children. Amish women want to marry young, live on a farm, and have ten children. The Amish are a quarter-million now and doubling every twenty years with zero unemployment. If Ukraine doesn't solve its depopulation problem in the next 100 years, the Amish will be happy to settle all that fertile land.

    That would be wonderful! But I fear that the Chinese will also eager to cultivate that land — first by leases, move in tens of thousands of laborers and troops to protect them, then later who knows. A Ukraine with only 25 million people or so, which is where we are sadly heading, against eventually a couple hundred thousand Chinese troops.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Sure, the Amish are the fastest growing population in the US, but I didn’t know there is not enough land in Ohio left to house many more millions of them. :) Or a number of states in the West which are half empty. (Oh, and don’t tell me the Amish don’t use welfare, which they wouldn’t have in Ukraine). And last time I heard, most Ukrainian women still have kids in their mid 20s.

    And Ukraine is not the only place the Chinese are interested in – I heard they are buying up all this real estate in the US and Canada, pricing the locals (white Americans this time) out of the housing market.

    All that Ukrainians need to do is stabilize their population. 30 million is still a huge number. And they are still far from that. You don’t need that many people to utilize the resources, one can have acres and acres of well tended land with a small rural population (a few of them millionaires). If the Chinese only lease the land and invest, that’s no problem as long as they are forbidden by law to acquire it. If Ukraine could find ways to reduce energy costs, it would help too.

    The age structure is what matters and Ukraine doesn’t have the worst TFR’s. A few more policy improvements and they can reach the Irish level.

    There is lots of potential and there can be a great future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. AP says:
    @JL

    Spoken Ukrainian is about as intelligible for Russian speakers as is spoken Polish.
     
    That's a rather dubious assertion, at least in my own experience, though I have no empirical evidence to claim one way or the other so I won't press it. It reminds me of a funny situation I once found myself in, crossing the border from Ukraine into Poland by car. I couldn't understand a damn thing the Polish customs officer was asking me. So a woman in line did her best to assist; she translated into Ukrainian, which I was able to comprehend, and then translated my Russian into Polish.

    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish. Anecdotally, our Russian nanny could not understand spoken Ukrainian when she first heard it, to her surprise.

    Here is a map of lexical distance between languages:

    Ukrainian and Polish have 70% words in common; Ukrainian and Russian, 62% – same as Ukrainian and Czech. In comparison, Swedish and Danish have 79% of words in common, Dutch and German have 75% of words in common, and Serbian and Croatian are identical. Outside of the Slavic languages, lexical difference between the Russian and Ukrainian languages is closest to that between French and Portuguese (61% of words in common).

    Lexical distance is not the same as mutual intelligibility of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish.
     
    No way. Linguists can classify however they wish, but this doesn't jive at all with reality. While the 50% figure for Ukrainian sounds correct (I was going to say 40-60% in my first comment but decided it was just a figure I was pulling out of my ass), with Polish the intelligibility drops to 10-20% (at best). This is the case for me and all the other Russian speakers I briefly straw polled since your comment.

    The translating techniques I was taught directed towards the identification of roots in unfamiliar words. This makes it possible to generally understand Ukrainian while the technique largely fails with Polish. The difference is of course even more pronounced with the written languages.

    I think it's possible you're simply being disingenuous on this point. On the other hand, I found that spoken Ukrainian varies by region and, generally speaking, the farther West you go, the less intelligible it is for Russian speakers, to the extent that near the Polish border it's hardly more intelligible than Polish. The other allowance I'm willing to make is it that, from what I'm told by people who follow these things more closely than I do, there has been a concerted effort over the past couple of years to de-Russify the Ukrainian language. This has meant that it is less intelligible to Russian speakers and, rather comically, sometimes to Ukrainian speakers themselves.
    , @Philip Owen


    Words in common is not the whole story. English has borrowed almost no words from Welsh (although Dad for father is probably significant!). However, when English, German and Welsh grammar are compared, something not done until quite recently, the differences between English verb tenses and German verb tenses could be entirely explained by the adoption of Welsh grammar (or some Germanic language being spoken by Welsh speakers holding on to their grammar - which is in fact observable today).

    So, various Ukrainian dialects may contain various borrowings of foreign words, reflecting each regions history. What about grammar, which tends to be much more stable. So far as I understand, this is a point of major departure from Polish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. AP says:
    @inertial
    Here is a map that visualizes the language situation in Ukraine (also in Moldova and Belarus, but let's ignore them.) The map was created by "Kyiv National Linguistic University."


    - About half of Ukraine by territory, mostly in the East and South but also in other places, is the home to people who speak Russian language outright. These areas are labeled #1 and are colored in dark pink.

    - Orange (#2) is Surzhyk. It's the name for dialects that are either a mixture between Russian and Ukrainian or are transitional between the two. Most of the people who speak "Ukrainian" outside of Galizia are speaking Surzhyk. There is no problem with mutual intelligibility between that and Russian; in fact, in many cases Surzhyk is really Russian with an accent and a few regional words. Ukrainian nationalists usually treat Surzhyk and its speakers with disdain - except when they need to inflate the number of Ukrainian speakers.

    - Yellow (#3) is the "true" Ukrainian. Soviet linguists who created the Ukrainian language based it on the Poltava dialect. You can still see it on the map. But it's not spoken in many places outside of Poltava region.

    - Purple (#4) is Western Ukrainian. This is the version that you heard, most likely. Yep, it's closer to Polish than to Russian, or indeed to dialects used by most other Ukrainians. If Ukrainian is it's own language than the Western Ukrainian must be one, too.


    Incidentally, during the Soviet times the Ukrainian language heard on TV, etc., was the "true" Ukrainian, the #3. Over the course of independence this changed to #4. The change happened gradually, so the Ukrainian residents got adapted. But people who grew up in Ukraine, studied the language in school, and then left around the time the USSR has broken up, told me that when they came for a visit a couple of decades later they could no longer fully understand TV announcers.

    The map is a hoax. No evidence of its existence beyond Russian blogs. “Kyiv National Linguistic University” trains translators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    A hoax? Have it your way. I am obviously not going to research this.

    But this map is consistent with 2008 Gallup poll that is definitely not a hoax. 83% of Ukrainians prefer to take survey in Russian. It's also consistent with observations and common sense.

    Incidentally, the number of words in common between languages X and Y is not a good criteria when a large chunk of Y's thesaurus was artificially created according to the principle "anything different from X."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    inertial, thank you for posting the map, it is quite fascinating. It is more diverse than I realized. But I'd still have to figure out whether I can understand Surzhyk or not. There is Russian spoken with a Ukrainian accent (sort of like the way Gorbachev used to speak but even more accented, I noticed some women in Gorlovka / Horlivka (which is supposed to be predominantly Russian) spoke that way and also in Mariupol, and probably all across Ukraine). That is very easy to understand, but I don't think that's Surzhyk.

    So it seems that there has been an attempt to "Ukrainianize" the country. So the language used in the Ukrainian politics is Western Ukrainian, right? For instance, I tried to watch Espreso TV, I understood some, but not nearly enough to make complete sense.

    Scots is probably the toughest English accent to understand. I'm embarrassed to admit that sometimes I don't understand most of it. And not just the Neds speaking.

    inertial, thank you for posting the map, it is quite fascinating.

    The map he posted is a hoax. It’s pretty common on Russian blogs and a lot of Russians believe it is genuine. It is not.

    Scots is probably the toughest English accent to understand.

    Scots is not English spoken with a Scottish accent but a separate language that developed in Scotland for centuries. It is not,actually, very common in modern Scotland – you’ll mostly just hear English spoken with a Scottish accent in Scottish cities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. If they meant the Gaelic language, then ofc it is a completely different language. I thought they meant the Scottish accent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    No, not Gaelic. There is Gaelic (a Celtic language), Scots ( a language similar to English that developed in lowland Scotland from the middle ages), and English with a Scottish accent:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language

    Scots seems to be closer to English, than Ukrainian is to Russian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. AP, well, my impression is that the Ukrainian language (the one that I understand only partially based on the Russian knowledge) and that is used by President Poroshenko and many TV stations, is the real / standard Ukrainian and it is widely used. Not only in Halychyna or the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are correct. In Ukraine about 44% of the population use the Ukrainian language as a first preference, and a similar amount use Russian (it was slightly more, but that was before Crimea and urban Donbas left Ukraine). Ukrainian is spoken by around 95% of the people in the western parts of the country, that joined the USSR in 1939 - roughly 20% of Ukraine's population. In this region Ukrainian is spoken in cities and in the countryside (although there is only one large city, Lviv, population 760,000). This accounts for about half of Ukraine's Ukrainian speakers. Lviv speaks standard Ukrainian, with a local accent (it sounds clipped and abrupt; it reminds me somewhat of Urals Russian compared to the Russian one hears in Moscow). The Galician accent is much more common in villages outside Lviv than in Lviv itself.

    The other half of the Ukrainian speakers live in the rest of Ukraine, primarily in rural areas and rayon centers, though it is not uncommon in smaller oblast capitals such as Vynnytsia. Outside the West, the big Ukrainian cities including Kiev are basically Russian-speaking, although one hears the Ukrainian language once in awhile, such as from people from villages, selling things in the markets. However, most of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine can also speak Ukrainian, not only because it is taught in schools but also because it is the language of many of these Russian-speakers' grandparents, or village cousins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. inertial says:
    @Romanian
    Now, I'll grant you that every nation will have its individuals at important historical crossroads, especially in places of power, with a devil on their shoulder saying "why not keep it and assume the mantle of empire". There might have been individuals in the leadership who thought it would be dandy to keep it all, including Odessa (what Romanian cares about Odessa?), even at the cost of Transylvania, though it would have been a very bad trade IMO. But those people would have been the ones to view their people as fungible - give up millions of Romanians and get millions of Ukrainians in turn. A bad idea anyway you put it. And a betrayal. Romanian territorial aspirations, however you may view them, and history shows a people views its own aspirations as legitimate and those of others as illegitimate when the two exclude eachother, ended with Greater Romania in 1918. That was everything we had striven for. Mission accomplished. The golden age. There was nothing else to be done short of abandoning the nationalist project and embarking on imperial conquest and domination.

    Wiki says that Antonescu intended to keep the territory, eventually. He didn’t have to worry about the local Ukrainians (or whoever was the majority at the time.) That was the period of time when it was easy-peasy to get rid of of the locals and create a little lebensraum for yourself. Just expel them. Or murder them. Germans were doing that at the time, or planning to – so why not their juniors allies? They certainly followed German lead in respect to Jews. Why not Slavs as well?

    As for breaking from the Russian orbit, I had an impression that Russia wasn’t that interested in Romania. Until now, that is. Now, Russian nuclear forces have Romania as one of the priority targets. The clean break policy was obviously a roaring success. Romanian people must be ecstatic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    He did declare it, but wiki is not an unbiased source when it comes to historical nuances. Neither am I, of course, but I do my best. Antonescu has never gotten a fair hearing for his actions, the good and the bad and the very bad. I am less interested in the results than in the idea that he is being studied objectively and dispassionately. First we had the Communist takeover, which had its own positions on the issue of the extreme right. And we inherited the reflex condemnation coupled with a refusal to do actual scholarship and public communication on the issue after 1989. Maybe that will slowly change, but I find it unusual for a supposedly sovereign country to not be the most important driver of the study of particular parts of its history, in addition to foreign scholars. I don't think it's a proper retort for you to wink wink at me about the genocide of Ukrainians like we all know that was where it was headed under Antonescu. I won't vouch for what Hitler would have done, but that only underscores that the ultimate decision on the disposition of the conquered areas rested with him and we held it at his sufferance. For Antonescu to declare he's hanging onto the Governorate fits with what I told you about negotiating positions for what you really want. If the Germans want lebensraum with the rich soils, feet deep, that Hitler himself spoke about the Ukrainians having, while his Germans were draining swampland, then Antonescu would oblige him in exchange for NT. But the issue of the Jews underscores how tenuous it all was. Yad Vashem published a report on how Antonescu, an anti-Semite himself, refused to deport the Jews of Romania (though he still harassed them), but deported the Jews of the conquered areas, where he had German military liaisons to worry about. It didn't help that his occupation forces got firebombed by local Jews. He was a straight up career military man, educated at St Cyr, and he did not hesitate to be brutal when the "laws of war" of the time called for it, such as to suppress insurrections. But neither was his occupation as onerous or heavy as that of others, especially for previously starved Ukrainians. If you are a Slav yourself, maybe you are just stoking your own resentment against my people for imaginary scenarios like us ethnically cleansing Ukraine, as is our "proven" wont with our Hungarians and our Turks, Tatars and our Russians and Ukrainians that are all alive and kicking today as they were back then. I can't stop you, of course, nor can I prove a negative, that we weren't going to ethnically cleanse the Ukraine, except with unacceptably romantic arguments like "Romanians are X, not Y", so I'll leave it at that.

    As for the clean break with Russia, I misspoke. A clean break would mean lifting our country physically and setting it in the Atlantic Ocean. We were going to draw the ire eventually, but we did what we had to try not to end up like in those 50 years of Communism again, including joining a far away empire which had in its military alliance all the Western countries we wanted to emulate. We were also too weak at the top to go at it alone and pursue the kind of foreign policy we had during the Ceausescu era. Is that so hard to understand? The Russian people were victims of Communism (and of the Harvard gang), too, but that doesn't change the fact that it came to us from them and they barely let us go. The presence of little green men in Romania (and from other powers) in 1989 is attested, we call them "tourists" , in case our manufactured Revolution were to go out of hand and end up in civil war with the Hungarians to tear the country apart. Thousands of "tourists" exited the country in the weeks after the Revolution. Who knows? Maybe in another 25 years we will see some documents? Also, Romania was targeted with nukes throughout the whole Cold War. I doubt our puny forces, the token presence of some American troops and the missile shield that might or might not work means that much to the Russians in the long run compared to Ukrainians joining NATO as a beachhead for the specter of physical invasions they keep conjuring. If it comes to lobbing nukes around, we're all doomed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    If they meant the Gaelic language, then ofc it is a completely different language. I thought they meant the Scottish accent.

    No, not Gaelic. There is Gaelic (a Celtic language), Scots ( a language similar to English that developed in lowland Scotland from the middle ages), and English with a Scottish accent:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language

    Scots seems to be closer to English, than Ukrainian is to Russian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. inertial says:
    @AP
    The map is a hoax. No evidence of its existence beyond Russian blogs. "Kyiv National Linguistic University" trains translators.

    A hoax? Have it your way. I am obviously not going to research this.

    But this map is consistent with 2008 Gallup poll that is definitely not a hoax. 83% of Ukrainians prefer to take survey in Russian. It’s also consistent with observations and common sense.

    Incidentally, the number of words in common between languages X and Y is not a good criteria when a large chunk of Y’s thesaurus was artificially created according to the principle “anything different from X.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    A hoax? Have it your way. I am obviously not going to research this.
     
    There was a discussion of the hoax-map when it appeared on Russia-Insider a few years ago. Nobody could come up with evidence of its origin as any sort of academic work. It is also obviously factually incorrect. Anyone going to villages marked as "surzhyk" speaking in rural central Ukraine such as outside Kiev would hear not surzhyk (as indicated on the hoax map) but actual Ukrainian. The hoax map also features some allegedly Greek-speaking and Polish-speaking regions. The problem is that the Polish and Greek-speaking regions on the hoax map don't correspond to actual areas of Polish and Greek settlement, and the numbers of speakers aren't close to a majority.

    But this map is consistent with 2008 Gallup poll that is definitely not a hoax. 83% of Ukrainians prefer to take survey in Russian.
     
    A much larger study repeated every year for about 20 years, using similar methodology, showed 40.5% Ukrainian, 43.1% Russian (scroll down to page 5):

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    It’s also consistent with observations and common sense.
     
    Not really. About 20% of Ukrainians live in areas annexed in 1939. These areas are 95% Ukrainian speaking. If the gallup results really indicated speech this would mean that nobody outside western Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. Neither observations nor common sense indicate that virtually 0% of Ukrainians outside the pre-1939 border speak Ukrainian naturally.

    Incidentally, the number of words in common between languages X and Y is not a good criteria when a large chunk of Y’s thesaurus was artificially created according to the principle “anything different from X.
     
    Another myth. Ukrainian is renamed Little Russian, which was developed and standardized in the 19th century based on the Poltava dialect (the region, in the 19th century, with the highest percentage of Ukrainians/Little Russians, thus the "purest"). If the goal was the use as many non-Russian words as possible, it would have been based on the Galician or Transcarpathian speech.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. inertial says:
    @Latvian woman
    inertial, thank you for posting the map, it is quite fascinating. It is more diverse than I realized. But I'd still have to figure out whether I can understand Surzhyk or not. There is Russian spoken with a Ukrainian accent (sort of like the way Gorbachev used to speak but even more accented, I noticed some women in Gorlovka / Horlivka (which is supposed to be predominantly Russian) spoke that way and also in Mariupol, and probably all across Ukraine). That is very easy to understand, but I don't think that's Surzhyk.

    So it seems that there has been an attempt to "Ukrainianize" the country. So the language used in the Ukrainian politics is Western Ukrainian, right? For instance, I tried to watch Espreso TV, I understood some, but not nearly enough to make complete sense.

    Scots is probably the toughest English accent to understand. I'm embarrassed to admit that sometimes I don't understand most of it. And not just the Neds speaking.

    Western Ukrainian politicians speak Western Ukrainian, naturally. As for the rest, almost all of them speak Russian in private. Many of them learned to speak Ukrainian as adults. They treat Ukrainian as a kind of ceremonial language spoken at state occasions or for show. But if they start yelling at each other at government meetings, they yell in Russian. When they are secretly recorded, they speak Russian. And so on.

    And even when they try to speak Ukrainian they are not always successful. People can tell when it’s a second language for them. A few months ago, Poroshenko had to ask his secretary during a press conference how to say “wallet” in Ukrainian.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, well, my impression is that the Ukrainian language (the one that I understand only partially based on the Russian knowledge) and that is used by President Poroshenko and many TV stations, is the real / standard Ukrainian and it is widely used. Not only in Halychyna or the West.

    You are correct. In Ukraine about 44% of the population use the Ukrainian language as a first preference, and a similar amount use Russian (it was slightly more, but that was before Crimea and urban Donbas left Ukraine). Ukrainian is spoken by around 95% of the people in the western parts of the country, that joined the USSR in 1939 – roughly 20% of Ukraine’s population. In this region Ukrainian is spoken in cities and in the countryside (although there is only one large city, Lviv, population 760,000). This accounts for about half of Ukraine’s Ukrainian speakers. Lviv speaks standard Ukrainian, with a local accent (it sounds clipped and abrupt; it reminds me somewhat of Urals Russian compared to the Russian one hears in Moscow). The Galician accent is much more common in villages outside Lviv than in Lviv itself.

    The other half of the Ukrainian speakers live in the rest of Ukraine, primarily in rural areas and rayon centers, though it is not uncommon in smaller oblast capitals such as Vynnytsia. Outside the West, the big Ukrainian cities including Kiev are basically Russian-speaking, although one hears the Ukrainian language once in awhile, such as from people from villages, selling things in the markets. However, most of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine can also speak Ukrainian, not only because it is taught in schools but also because it is the language of many of these Russian-speakers’ grandparents, or village cousins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. AP says:
    @inertial
    A hoax? Have it your way. I am obviously not going to research this.

    But this map is consistent with 2008 Gallup poll that is definitely not a hoax. 83% of Ukrainians prefer to take survey in Russian. It's also consistent with observations and common sense.

    Incidentally, the number of words in common between languages X and Y is not a good criteria when a large chunk of Y's thesaurus was artificially created according to the principle "anything different from X."

    A hoax? Have it your way. I am obviously not going to research this.

    There was a discussion of the hoax-map when it appeared on Russia-Insider a few years ago. Nobody could come up with evidence of its origin as any sort of academic work. It is also obviously factually incorrect. Anyone going to villages marked as “surzhyk” speaking in rural central Ukraine such as outside Kiev would hear not surzhyk (as indicated on the hoax map) but actual Ukrainian. The hoax map also features some allegedly Greek-speaking and Polish-speaking regions. The problem is that the Polish and Greek-speaking regions on the hoax map don’t correspond to actual areas of Polish and Greek settlement, and the numbers of speakers aren’t close to a majority.

    But this map is consistent with 2008 Gallup poll that is definitely not a hoax. 83% of Ukrainians prefer to take survey in Russian.

    A much larger study repeated every year for about 20 years, using similar methodology, showed 40.5% Ukrainian, 43.1% Russian (scroll down to page 5):

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    It’s also consistent with observations and common sense.

    Not really. About 20% of Ukrainians live in areas annexed in 1939. These areas are 95% Ukrainian speaking. If the gallup results really indicated speech this would mean that nobody outside western Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. Neither observations nor common sense indicate that virtually 0% of Ukrainians outside the pre-1939 border speak Ukrainian naturally.

    Incidentally, the number of words in common between languages X and Y is not a good criteria when a large chunk of Y’s thesaurus was artificially created according to the principle “anything different from X.

    Another myth. Ukrainian is renamed Little Russian, which was developed and standardized in the 19th century based on the Poltava dialect (the region, in the 19th century, with the highest percentage of Ukrainians/Little Russians, thus the “purest”). If the goal was the use as many non-Russian words as possible, it would have been based on the Galician or Transcarpathian speech.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. AP says:
    @inertial
    Moldovans themselves call their language Moldovan, and had been doing that for centuries.

    By contrast, almost no one in the modern Ukraine had ever heard of such a language as "Ukrainian" until the Bolsheviks had showed up.

    almost no one in the modern Ukraine had ever heard of such a language as “Ukrainian” until the Bolsheviks had showed up.

    By the time of the Bolshevik Revolution Galician students were mostly enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools and its people were voting for political parties called “Ukrainian.”

    In the parts of Ukraine ruled by the Russian Empire, literacy was quite low and such ideas were unknown by the peasant masses. That didn’t mean the people’s speech was Russian of course – it was Ukrainian (labelled as Little Russian). The small number of literate Ukrainians in this region called their speech and people Ukrainian, however.

    Ukraine became much more Russians-speaking after Bolshevism than it had been before Bolshevism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. This is very interesting stuff, thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. JL says:
    @AP
    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish. Anecdotally, our Russian nanny could not understand spoken Ukrainian when she first heard it, to her surprise.

    Here is a map of lexical distance between languages:

    https://alternativetransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.png

    Ukrainian and Polish have 70% words in common; Ukrainian and Russian, 62% - same as Ukrainian and Czech. In comparison, Swedish and Danish have 79% of words in common, Dutch and German have 75% of words in common, and Serbian and Croatian are identical. Outside of the Slavic languages, lexical difference between the Russian and Ukrainian languages is closest to that between French and Portuguese (61% of words in common).

    Lexical distance is not the same as mutual intelligibility of course.

    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish.

    No way. Linguists can classify however they wish, but this doesn’t jive at all with reality. While the 50% figure for Ukrainian sounds correct (I was going to say 40-60% in my first comment but decided it was just a figure I was pulling out of my ass), with Polish the intelligibility drops to 10-20% (at best). This is the case for me and all the other Russian speakers I briefly straw polled since your comment.

    The translating techniques I was taught directed towards the identification of roots in unfamiliar words. This makes it possible to generally understand Ukrainian while the technique largely fails with Polish. The difference is of course even more pronounced with the written languages.

    I think it’s possible you’re simply being disingenuous on this point. On the other hand, I found that spoken Ukrainian varies by region and, generally speaking, the farther West you go, the less intelligible it is for Russian speakers, to the extent that near the Polish border it’s hardly more intelligible than Polish. The other allowance I’m willing to make is it that, from what I’m told by people who follow these things more closely than I do, there has been a concerted effort over the past couple of years to de-Russify the Ukrainian language. This has meant that it is less intelligible to Russian speakers and, rather comically, sometimes to Ukrainian speakers themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    No way. Linguists can classify however they wish, but this doesn’t jive at all with reality. While the 50% figure for Ukrainian sounds correct (I was going to say 40-60% in my first comment but decided it was just a figure I was pulling out of my ass), with Polish the intelligibility drops to 10-20% (at best). This is the case for me and all the other Russian speakers I briefly straw polled since your comment.
     
    You are right - I was mistaken. I should have reread the paper I was thinking about before making my comment.

    Here is a detailed academic article about mutual intelligibility among Slavic languages (the author, who runs a blog, is actually a very pro-Putin, anti "Ukrainian junta" Russophile, who he can hardly be accused of anti-Russian bias):

    https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    The author takes an approach that favors the existence of many languages, so he claims for example Ukraine has various separate languages, the "balachka" of Kuban is its own language separate from both Russian and Ukrainian, Poland has multiple separate languages, etc. His threshold for the labeling of a language vs. dialect is 90% mutual intelligibility. Be that as it may, he writes:

    "It is not true at all that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible, as Russian only has 50% intelligibility of Ukrainian."

    However for Polish it is 15% to 20%.

    On his blog, the author writes: "It is often said that Ukrainian and Russian are intelligible with each other or even that they are the same language (a view perpetuated by Russian nationalists). It is not true at all that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible, as Russian only has 50% intelligibility of Ukrainian....Ukrainian and Russian only have 60% lexical similarity. Polish and Ukrainian have higher lexical similarity at 72%, and Ukrainian intelligibility of Polish is ~50%+."

    Serbian-Croatian has 55% mutual intelligibility with Macedonian; that's the closest analogue (other than Ukrainian and Polish) to Ukrainian and Russian.

    At any rate, given slightly greater intelligibility between Ukrainian and Polish than Ukrainian and Russian, and significantly smaller lexical distance between Ukrainian and Polish vs. Ukrainian and Russian, if one were to make the silly argument that Ukrainian is a dialect rather than a "real language" it would be a Polish dialect (written in Cyrillic) rather than a Russian dialect.


    I’m willing to make is it that, from what I’m told by people who follow these things more closely than I do, there has been a concerted effort over the past couple of years to de-Russify the Ukrainian language.
     
    That is one way of putting it. It is a return to the Kharkiv standard of 1927; in the 1930s the Soviets tried to streamline the Ukrainian language with Russian (for example, eliminating the Ukrainian letter "g" from the language and making Ukrainian "h" correspond exactly with Russian "g"). Those types of changes have been undone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Romanian says:
    @inertial
    Wiki says that Antonescu intended to keep the territory, eventually. He didn't have to worry about the local Ukrainians (or whoever was the majority at the time.) That was the period of time when it was easy-peasy to get rid of of the locals and create a little lebensraum for yourself. Just expel them. Or murder them. Germans were doing that at the time, or planning to - so why not their juniors allies? They certainly followed German lead in respect to Jews. Why not Slavs as well?

    As for breaking from the Russian orbit, I had an impression that Russia wasn't that interested in Romania. Until now, that is. Now, Russian nuclear forces have Romania as one of the priority targets. The clean break policy was obviously a roaring success. Romanian people must be ecstatic.

    He did declare it, but wiki is not an unbiased source when it comes to historical nuances. Neither am I, of course, but I do my best. Antonescu has never gotten a fair hearing for his actions, the good and the bad and the very bad. I am less interested in the results than in the idea that he is being studied objectively and dispassionately. First we had the Communist takeover, which had its own positions on the issue of the extreme right. And we inherited the reflex condemnation coupled with a refusal to do actual scholarship and public communication on the issue after 1989. Maybe that will slowly change, but I find it unusual for a supposedly sovereign country to not be the most important driver of the study of particular parts of its history, in addition to foreign scholars. I don’t think it’s a proper retort for you to wink wink at me about the genocide of Ukrainians like we all know that was where it was headed under Antonescu. I won’t vouch for what Hitler would have done, but that only underscores that the ultimate decision on the disposition of the conquered areas rested with him and we held it at his sufferance. For Antonescu to declare he’s hanging onto the Governorate fits with what I told you about negotiating positions for what you really want. If the Germans want lebensraum with the rich soils, feet deep, that Hitler himself spoke about the Ukrainians having, while his Germans were draining swampland, then Antonescu would oblige him in exchange for NT. But the issue of the Jews underscores how tenuous it all was. Yad Vashem published a report on how Antonescu, an anti-Semite himself, refused to deport the Jews of Romania (though he still harassed them), but deported the Jews of the conquered areas, where he had German military liaisons to worry about. It didn’t help that his occupation forces got firebombed by local Jews. He was a straight up career military man, educated at St Cyr, and he did not hesitate to be brutal when the “laws of war” of the time called for it, such as to suppress insurrections. But neither was his occupation as onerous or heavy as that of others, especially for previously starved Ukrainians. If you are a Slav yourself, maybe you are just stoking your own resentment against my people for imaginary scenarios like us ethnically cleansing Ukraine, as is our “proven” wont with our Hungarians and our Turks, Tatars and our Russians and Ukrainians that are all alive and kicking today as they were back then. I can’t stop you, of course, nor can I prove a negative, that we weren’t going to ethnically cleanse the Ukraine, except with unacceptably romantic arguments like “Romanians are X, not Y”, so I’ll leave it at that.

    As for the clean break with Russia, I misspoke. A clean break would mean lifting our country physically and setting it in the Atlantic Ocean. We were going to draw the ire eventually, but we did what we had to try not to end up like in those 50 years of Communism again, including joining a far away empire which had in its military alliance all the Western countries we wanted to emulate. We were also too weak at the top to go at it alone and pursue the kind of foreign policy we had during the Ceausescu era. Is that so hard to understand? The Russian people were victims of Communism (and of the Harvard gang), too, but that doesn’t change the fact that it came to us from them and they barely let us go. The presence of little green men in Romania (and from other powers) in 1989 is attested, we call them “tourists” , in case our manufactured Revolution were to go out of hand and end up in civil war with the Hungarians to tear the country apart. Thousands of “tourists” exited the country in the weeks after the Revolution. Who knows? Maybe in another 25 years we will see some documents? Also, Romania was targeted with nukes throughout the whole Cold War. I doubt our puny forces, the token presence of some American troops and the missile shield that might or might not work means that much to the Russians in the long run compared to Ukrainians joining NATO as a beachhead for the specter of physical invasions they keep conjuring. If it comes to lobbing nukes around, we’re all doomed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AP says:
    @JL

    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish.
     
    No way. Linguists can classify however they wish, but this doesn't jive at all with reality. While the 50% figure for Ukrainian sounds correct (I was going to say 40-60% in my first comment but decided it was just a figure I was pulling out of my ass), with Polish the intelligibility drops to 10-20% (at best). This is the case for me and all the other Russian speakers I briefly straw polled since your comment.

    The translating techniques I was taught directed towards the identification of roots in unfamiliar words. This makes it possible to generally understand Ukrainian while the technique largely fails with Polish. The difference is of course even more pronounced with the written languages.

    I think it's possible you're simply being disingenuous on this point. On the other hand, I found that spoken Ukrainian varies by region and, generally speaking, the farther West you go, the less intelligible it is for Russian speakers, to the extent that near the Polish border it's hardly more intelligible than Polish. The other allowance I'm willing to make is it that, from what I'm told by people who follow these things more closely than I do, there has been a concerted effort over the past couple of years to de-Russify the Ukrainian language. This has meant that it is less intelligible to Russian speakers and, rather comically, sometimes to Ukrainian speakers themselves.

    No way. Linguists can classify however they wish, but this doesn’t jive at all with reality. While the 50% figure for Ukrainian sounds correct (I was going to say 40-60% in my first comment but decided it was just a figure I was pulling out of my ass), with Polish the intelligibility drops to 10-20% (at best). This is the case for me and all the other Russian speakers I briefly straw polled since your comment.

    You are right – I was mistaken. I should have reread the paper I was thinking about before making my comment.

    Here is a detailed academic article about mutual intelligibility among Slavic languages (the author, who runs a blog, is actually a very pro-Putin, anti “Ukrainian junta” Russophile, who he can hardly be accused of anti-Russian bias):

    https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family

    The author takes an approach that favors the existence of many languages, so he claims for example Ukraine has various separate languages, the “balachka” of Kuban is its own language separate from both Russian and Ukrainian, Poland has multiple separate languages, etc. His threshold for the labeling of a language vs. dialect is 90% mutual intelligibility. Be that as it may, he writes:

    “It is not true at all that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible, as Russian only has 50% intelligibility of Ukrainian.”

    However for Polish it is 15% to 20%.

    On his blog, the author writes: “It is often said that Ukrainian and Russian are intelligible with each other or even that they are the same language (a view perpetuated by Russian nationalists). It is not true at all that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible, as Russian only has 50% intelligibility of Ukrainian….Ukrainian and Russian only have 60% lexical similarity. Polish and Ukrainian have higher lexical similarity at 72%, and Ukrainian intelligibility of Polish is ~50%+.”

    Serbian-Croatian has 55% mutual intelligibility with Macedonian; that’s the closest analogue (other than Ukrainian and Polish) to Ukrainian and Russian.

    At any rate, given slightly greater intelligibility between Ukrainian and Polish than Ukrainian and Russian, and significantly smaller lexical distance between Ukrainian and Polish vs. Ukrainian and Russian, if one were to make the silly argument that Ukrainian is a dialect rather than a “real language” it would be a Polish dialect (written in Cyrillic) rather than a Russian dialect.

    I’m willing to make is it that, from what I’m told by people who follow these things more closely than I do, there has been a concerted effort over the past couple of years to de-Russify the Ukrainian language.

    That is one way of putting it. It is a return to the Kharkiv standard of 1927; in the 1930s the Soviets tried to streamline the Ukrainian language with Russian (for example, eliminating the Ukrainian letter “g” from the language and making Ukrainian “h” correspond exactly with Russian “g”). Those types of changes have been undone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @inertial
    Here is a map that visualizes the language situation in Ukraine (also in Moldova and Belarus, but let's ignore them.) The map was created by "Kyiv National Linguistic University."


    - About half of Ukraine by territory, mostly in the East and South but also in other places, is the home to people who speak Russian language outright. These areas are labeled #1 and are colored in dark pink.

    - Orange (#2) is Surzhyk. It's the name for dialects that are either a mixture between Russian and Ukrainian or are transitional between the two. Most of the people who speak "Ukrainian" outside of Galizia are speaking Surzhyk. There is no problem with mutual intelligibility between that and Russian; in fact, in many cases Surzhyk is really Russian with an accent and a few regional words. Ukrainian nationalists usually treat Surzhyk and its speakers with disdain - except when they need to inflate the number of Ukrainian speakers.

    - Yellow (#3) is the "true" Ukrainian. Soviet linguists who created the Ukrainian language based it on the Poltava dialect. You can still see it on the map. But it's not spoken in many places outside of Poltava region.

    - Purple (#4) is Western Ukrainian. This is the version that you heard, most likely. Yep, it's closer to Polish than to Russian, or indeed to dialects used by most other Ukrainians. If Ukrainian is it's own language than the Western Ukrainian must be one, too.


    Incidentally, during the Soviet times the Ukrainian language heard on TV, etc., was the "true" Ukrainian, the #3. Over the course of independence this changed to #4. The change happened gradually, so the Ukrainian residents got adapted. But people who grew up in Ukraine, studied the language in school, and then left around the time the USSR has broken up, told me that when they came for a visit a couple of decades later they could no longer fully understand TV announcers.

    That’s a very telling and educational map. So there are 2 Ukranian “languages,” communists made Poltava dialect “Ukranian language” and Bandera nazis made that western ukranian dialect from a region that is part of Ukraine from 1943 a official “Ukranian language.” I knew it’s a travesty and a circus. Bolsheviks served those western bankster financiers of theirs you see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. colm says:

    The Nazis were the only people who ever built a bridge over the Kerch straits. The Soviets attempted to build one with the stuff left over by the Nazis, but wikipedia says the bridge was destroyed by — floating ICE!

    I have never heard anything more ridiculous than that. And , 70 yrs later, Russia still can’t build a f’king bridge over that strait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. colm says:
    @Khan Bodin
    Did you people know that there was Serbian land in Ukraine, hmm? It was called Slavo-Serbia. Look!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavo-Serbia

    Russian Czar gave it to us. Unfortunatelly there weren't many Serbs who left there, so the oblast was later abolished.

    Serbia is guilty for inciting World War I, something its leaders still think as a good thing. Don’t worry, once Putin goes, Serbia will pay its long-overdue fines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. colm says:

    Also, isn’t it time to give Lvov back to Poland, and Uzhhorod back to Hungary where it belonged until 1944? “The Ukraine” never owned these territories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @AP
    Linguists classify Ukrainian as 50% intelligible for Russian speakers, same as Polish. Anecdotally, our Russian nanny could not understand spoken Ukrainian when she first heard it, to her surprise.

    Here is a map of lexical distance between languages:

    https://alternativetransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.png

    Ukrainian and Polish have 70% words in common; Ukrainian and Russian, 62% - same as Ukrainian and Czech. In comparison, Swedish and Danish have 79% of words in common, Dutch and German have 75% of words in common, and Serbian and Croatian are identical. Outside of the Slavic languages, lexical difference between the Russian and Ukrainian languages is closest to that between French and Portuguese (61% of words in common).

    Lexical distance is not the same as mutual intelligibility of course.

    Words in common is not the whole story. English has borrowed almost no words from Welsh (although Dad for father is probably significant!). However, when English, German and Welsh grammar are compared, something not done until quite recently, the differences between English verb tenses and German verb tenses could be entirely explained by the adoption of Welsh grammar (or some Germanic language being spoken by Welsh speakers holding on to their grammar – which is in fact observable today).

    So, various Ukrainian dialects may contain various borrowings of foreign words, reflecting each regions history. What about grammar, which tends to be much more stable. So far as I understand, this is a point of major departure from Polish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Ukrainian is classified as an East Slavic language so I assume it's grammar is closer to Russian than it is to Polish. However, Ukrainian (like Polish) has retained the old Slavic vocative case, which Russian has lost in the regular language and only retained in certain expressions such as "Боже мой!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. gerad says:
    @AP

    First off, simpleton
     
    Remind again of Serbia's national average IQ?

    there is no such thing as Ukranian people (ethnically speaking!), Ukranian language or Ukranian culture, anymore than there is of Floridian, CaliPornian, Canadian, Australian, Australian, Essexan, Yorkshirean, Bosniak, Kosovar or Montenegrin people, culture or language.
     
    Nice mythology. Unfortunately Ukrainian language exists. This shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact that the land called UKriane was part of Lithuania and Poland for centuries. In terms of vocabulary it is closer to Polish than to Russian. Ukrainians are genetically distinct, and genetic distance places Ukrainians closer to Belarussians and Slovaks than to Russians (though differences are all slight). Historically, Ukrainian territory was part of the West longer than it was part of Russia.

    This is all probably too complicated for you to understand, hence your comments.

    It seems you have been capable of learning a little about your native Balkans, and now see the entire world as another Balkans. It's the best you can do, given your limitations. Good luck with that.

    Is the "gerad" guy also a Serb, by the way?

    Khan Bodin is an intellectual…you are a POS troll with no facts …just moronic BS off the internet.

    Ukraine never existed until Russia created it you braindead prick. ” Poland ruled for centuries” is garbage…garbage that only applies to small parts of modern day Ukraine.

    Most….in fact large majority of Ukrainian words are derived from Russian you twat….this is why so much of the Ukrainian mentality and culture is in conjunction with Russia and not Poland. This is why all “nationalist” Ukrainian politicians almost all speak Russian as their natural language, this is why they can’t have 2 state languages because they know, the vast majority , including in the rural areas which are mythologized as being just Ukrop-speaking,…..would all chose to sideline Ukrainian…just like they do when picking their favourite newspapers, watching their favourite television shows , expressing their emotions like in swearing …and so on.

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?

    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine. This is despite having had a very bad civil war with what are now it’s neighbours, no real allies other than Russia ..who have only been on the resurgence since 2000, Serbia has nowhere close to Ukraine’s amount of natural resources….or handouts from Russia that the Ukrainian parasites have received these last 25 years. It doesn’t have a vast network of cretinous failure diaspora lobbying their “interests” in the Canadian and USA governments like the Nazi Ukrainian freaks do.

    Despite all these (and others) major handicaps……..Serbians still outperform Ukrainians you dumb POS. Incidentally Ukrainian were again major flops in the Olympics. Armenia,Kazakhstan,Georgia and Uzbekistan were much,much better even though all those teams had a fraction of the 200 plus that Ukraine sent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Khan Bodin is an intellectual
     
    According to..gerad, another "intellectual."

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Poland ruled for centuries” is garbage
     
    Consult a history book. You can sort of read. At least, you can write. But is it like from the Chukchi joke?

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?

    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine.
     
    Cool. So if that's the measure Russians must be very dumb compared to Americans.

    Again, remind me what Serbia's average IQ is? You can find it here:

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. AP says:
    @Philip Owen


    Words in common is not the whole story. English has borrowed almost no words from Welsh (although Dad for father is probably significant!). However, when English, German and Welsh grammar are compared, something not done until quite recently, the differences between English verb tenses and German verb tenses could be entirely explained by the adoption of Welsh grammar (or some Germanic language being spoken by Welsh speakers holding on to their grammar - which is in fact observable today).

    So, various Ukrainian dialects may contain various borrowings of foreign words, reflecting each regions history. What about grammar, which tends to be much more stable. So far as I understand, this is a point of major departure from Polish.

    Ukrainian is classified as an East Slavic language so I assume it’s grammar is closer to Russian than it is to Polish. However, Ukrainian (like Polish) has retained the old Slavic vocative case, which Russian has lost in the regular language and only retained in certain expressions such as “Боже мой!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. AP says:
    @gerad
    Khan Bodin is an intellectual...you are a POS troll with no facts ...just moronic BS off the internet.

    Ukraine never existed until Russia created it you braindead prick. " Poland ruled for centuries" is garbage...garbage that only applies to small parts of modern day Ukraine.

    Most....in fact large majority of Ukrainian words are derived from Russian you twat....this is why so much of the Ukrainian mentality and culture is in conjunction with Russia and not Poland. This is why all "nationalist" Ukrainian politicians almost all speak Russian as their natural language, this is why they can't have 2 state languages because they know, the vast majority , including in the rural areas which are mythologized as being just Ukrop-speaking,.....would all chose to sideline Ukrainian...just like they do when picking their favourite newspapers, watching their favourite television shows , expressing their emotions like in swearing ...and so on.

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?
     
    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine. This is despite having had a very bad civil war with what are now it's neighbours, no real allies other than Russia ..who have only been on the resurgence since 2000, Serbia has nowhere close to Ukraine's amount of natural resources....or handouts from Russia that the Ukrainian parasites have received these last 25 years. It doesn't have a vast network of cretinous failure diaspora lobbying their "interests" in the Canadian and USA governments like the Nazi Ukrainian freaks do.

    Despite all these (and others) major handicaps........Serbians still outperform Ukrainians you dumb POS. Incidentally Ukrainian were again major flops in the Olympics. Armenia,Kazakhstan,Georgia and Uzbekistan were much,much better even though all those teams had a fraction of the 200 plus that Ukraine sent.

    Khan Bodin is an intellectual

    According to..gerad, another “intellectual.”

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Poland ruled for centuries” is garbage

    Consult a history book. You can sort of read. At least, you can write. But is it like from the Chukchi joke?

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?

    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine.

    Cool. So if that’s the measure Russians must be very dumb compared to Americans.

    Again, remind me what Serbia’s average IQ is? You can find it here:

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    Ukraine has been ruled by all sorts of different groups. The golden horde, the ottomans, the russians. The area was pretty much always a suzerainty of another empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @AP

    Khan Bodin is an intellectual
     
    According to..gerad, another "intellectual."

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Poland ruled for centuries” is garbage
     
    Consult a history book. You can sort of read. At least, you can write. But is it like from the Chukchi joke?

    Remind again of Serbia’s national average IQ?

    Serbia has a GDP per capita 80% bigger than Ukraine.
     
    Cool. So if that's the measure Russians must be very dumb compared to Americans.

    Again, remind me what Serbia's average IQ is? You can find it here:

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

    Ukraine has been ruled by all sorts of different groups. The golden horde, the ottomans, the russians. The area was pretty much always a suzerainty of another empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It's a common feature of Slavs, other than Poles*, to be ruled by foreigners. Rus was ruled by Scandinavians, who did not become Slavicized until centuries into their rule, not long before the state split up into warring principalities who were then conquered by the Mongols/Tatars. Russia spent a couple hundred years under the Golden Horde before liberating itself. However much of its ruling class was not of native descent. The historian Vernadsky provided a survey of 17th century Russian noble family origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility, whom we would now consider Ukrainian and Belarussian), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified "Russian" origin. And this was before the influx of Baltic Germans who occupied many administrative positions. The Revolution swept most of these people aside, but Russia's new Soviet ruling class was over-represented by Jews, Caucasians and Latvians. With respect to leadership, the post-Stalin Soviet era was perhaps the most purely ethnic Russian one in Russia's history.

    As for a breakdown of who ruled Ukraine for how long, as is obvious the idea of eternal Russian rule is a myth:

    For Eastern Ukraine (Kiev plus east of the Dnipro river such as Poltava, Chernihiv but not as far east as Kharkiv): 300 years Lithuania and Poland (1350-1650), 50 years self-rule (Hetmanate until 1709), 50 years limited autonomy under Russia (post-Poltava Hetmanate, 1709-1764) , 150 years full integration with Russia (1764-1917), 70 years Ukrainian SSR (1921-1991), 25 years independent Ukraine (1991-present).

    For central Ukraine (everything east of Galicia and west of of the Dnipro River other than the city of Kiev): 443 years Lithuania and Poland (1350-1793), 124 years full integration with Russia (1793-1917), 70 years Ukrainian SSR (1917-1991), 25 years independent Ukraine (1991-current).

    For Galicia: 422 years Polish rule (1350-1772), 146 years Austrian rule (1772-1918), 20 years Polish rule again (1919-1939), 50 years Ukrainian SSR (1939-1991 with 2 year break under German occupation during W.W. II), 25 years independent Ukraine.

    As is obvious, to different degrees depending on region, Ukraine was historically tied to the West more than it had been tied to Russia. It is the only Orthodox country with this situation. This explains why the country's ethnic heartland shifts to the West when given the chance.

    Southern Ukraine was settled in the late 18th century mostly by ethnic Ukrainians moving south from the center and east, but with significant Russian settlement also (especially in cities such as Odessa). This explains its divided loyalty. Donbas was settled largely in Soviet times by an ethnic mix, slightly favoring Russians. This explains its pro-Russian orientation.

    *The period during the Partitions and the Soviet occupation were a minority of Poland's history.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Well, I think we should all make up and work to improve life in EE.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. Another ignorant rant by Saker.

    Russia is far closer to breakdown than Ukraine. It is still largely the leavings of Tsarist empire with the ethnic cracks that exist in every empire. Russia is not stable. Ukraine, by comparison, is compact in territory and has few ethnic cracks, because those groups have chosen their preference of Kyiv over Moscow.

    Ukraine has it’s problems, but is laboring to overcome them. Putin, OTOH, is cementing the corruption, placing himself at the center. He’s established a fascist regime in Crimea to keep dissent tamped down. Because of it, Crime will never amount to anything as long as the Russians occupy stolen property.

    Putin violated the Minsk agreements before the ink was dry. None have been ratified by Ukraine, for good reason. Russia took on nothing in good faith and, like the Soviet Union, has violated every agreement it ever signed. Putin is a congenital liar, like every Chekist before him.

    No, Russia is on a path to an appointment with death. The same road Lenin and Stalin put the soviet Union on, and for the same reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm Kyiv you must be one of the Ukraine products the only product they have left at this time.!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. AP says:
    @Epochehusserl
    Ukraine has been ruled by all sorts of different groups. The golden horde, the ottomans, the russians. The area was pretty much always a suzerainty of another empire.

    It’s a common feature of Slavs, other than Poles*, to be ruled by foreigners. Rus was ruled by Scandinavians, who did not become Slavicized until centuries into their rule, not long before the state split up into warring principalities who were then conquered by the Mongols/Tatars. Russia spent a couple hundred years under the Golden Horde before liberating itself. However much of its ruling class was not of native descent. The historian Vernadsky provided a survey of 17th century Russian noble family origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility, whom we would now consider Ukrainian and Belarussian), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin. And this was before the influx of Baltic Germans who occupied many administrative positions. The Revolution swept most of these people aside, but Russia’s new Soviet ruling class was over-represented by Jews, Caucasians and Latvians. With respect to leadership, the post-Stalin Soviet era was perhaps the most purely ethnic Russian one in Russia’s history.

    As for a breakdown of who ruled Ukraine for how long, as is obvious the idea of eternal Russian rule is a myth:

    For Eastern Ukraine (Kiev plus east of the Dnipro river such as Poltava, Chernihiv but not as far east as Kharkiv): 300 years Lithuania and Poland (1350-1650), 50 years self-rule (Hetmanate until 1709), 50 years limited autonomy under Russia (post-Poltava Hetmanate, 1709-1764) , 150 years full integration with Russia (1764-1917), 70 years Ukrainian SSR (1921-1991), 25 years independent Ukraine (1991-present).

    For central Ukraine (everything east of Galicia and west of of the Dnipro River other than the city of Kiev): 443 years Lithuania and Poland (1350-1793), 124 years full integration with Russia (1793-1917), 70 years Ukrainian SSR (1917-1991), 25 years independent Ukraine (1991-current).

    For Galicia: 422 years Polish rule (1350-1772), 146 years Austrian rule (1772-1918), 20 years Polish rule again (1919-1939), 50 years Ukrainian SSR (1939-1991 with 2 year break under German occupation during W.W. II), 25 years independent Ukraine.

    As is obvious, to different degrees depending on region, Ukraine was historically tied to the West more than it had been tied to Russia. It is the only Orthodox country with this situation. This explains why the country’s ethnic heartland shifts to the West when given the chance.

    Southern Ukraine was settled in the late 18th century mostly by ethnic Ukrainians moving south from the center and east, but with significant Russian settlement also (especially in cities such as Odessa). This explains its divided loyalty. Donbas was settled largely in Soviet times by an ethnic mix, slightly favoring Russians. This explains its pro-Russian orientation.

    *The period during the Partitions and the Soviet occupation were a minority of Poland’s history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. bluedog says:
    @Quartermaster
    Another ignorant rant by Saker.

    Russia is far closer to breakdown than Ukraine. It is still largely the leavings of Tsarist empire with the ethnic cracks that exist in every empire. Russia is not stable. Ukraine, by comparison, is compact in territory and has few ethnic cracks, because those groups have chosen their preference of Kyiv over Moscow.

    Ukraine has it's problems, but is laboring to overcome them. Putin, OTOH, is cementing the corruption, placing himself at the center. He's established a fascist regime in Crimea to keep dissent tamped down. Because of it, Crime will never amount to anything as long as the Russians occupy stolen property.

    Putin violated the Minsk agreements before the ink was dry. None have been ratified by Ukraine, for good reason. Russia took on nothing in good faith and, like the Soviet Union, has violated every agreement it ever signed. Putin is a congenital liar, like every Chekist before him.

    No, Russia is on a path to an appointment with death. The same road Lenin and Stalin put the soviet Union on, and for the same reasons.

    Hmm Kyiv you must be one of the Ukraine products the only product they have left at this time.!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Better yet Russia should leave Ukraine alone. Their suffering under Russian oppression goes back to their attempts to free themselves during the Russian Revolution. Apologize for the starvation and slaughter of some six to eight million Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1930s as vengeance for defying Soviet central authority. Russia should take back those ethnic Russians who’s grandparents were brought in to occupy the property of the slaughtered and starved Ukrainians. If they want to be Russians let them move back to Russia.

    While their at it they should do the same in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I’m sure they would a gladly be rid of the ethnic Russians that Stalin moved in to replace the hundreds of thousands that he either killed outright or shipped to the gulags never to return. The US never recognized Russian reincorporation of the Baltics.

    The Putin regime is just Russian imperialism Rev.3. The French had the good sense to raze the hated Bastille. The Russians just changed the name over the door at Lubyanka from KGB to FSB.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    Take a hike and let the Borat Sagdiyevenkos make their own arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Pavlo says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Better yet Russia should leave Ukraine alone. Their suffering under Russian oppression goes back to their attempts to free themselves during the Russian Revolution. Apologize for the starvation and slaughter of some six to eight million Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1930s as vengeance for defying Soviet central authority. Russia should take back those ethnic Russians who's grandparents were brought in to occupy the property of the slaughtered and starved Ukrainians. If they want to be Russians let them move back to Russia.

    While their at it they should do the same in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I'm sure they would a gladly be rid of the ethnic Russians that Stalin moved in to replace the hundreds of thousands that he either killed outright or shipped to the gulags never to return. The US never recognized Russian reincorporation of the Baltics.

    The Putin regime is just Russian imperialism Rev.3. The French had the good sense to raze the hated Bastille. The Russians just changed the name over the door at Lubyanka from KGB to FSB.

    Take a hike and let the Borat Sagdiyevenkos make their own arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Martin Jr.
    Oh poor baby! What a little person you must be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Pavlo
    Take a hike and let the Borat Sagdiyevenkos make their own arguments.

    Oh poor baby! What a little person you must be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    Weak.

    Maybe your wife's son can help you write better trash talk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Pavlo says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Oh poor baby! What a little person you must be.

    Weak.

    Maybe your wife’s son can help you write better trash talk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Maybe you could find a middle school student to help you write a cogent response. One word for you. Holodomor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    If I wanted a middle school argument I'd ask for your input.

    But since you want more than rude insinuations about your home life, I will give you this: the 'Holodomor' is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one - and their own heroes' part in it. I don't care what your mail-order bride told you in her halting English, no serious scholar believes in the 'genocide famine' bunkum, and only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government - loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism - a foreign occupation.

    But most importantly, Я не читав свій сайт.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Pavlo says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Maybe you could find a middle school student to help you write a cogent response. One word for you. Holodomor.

    If I wanted a middle school argument I’d ask for your input.

    But since you want more than rude insinuations about your home life, I will give you this: the ‘Holodomor’ is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one – and their own heroes’ part in it. I don’t care what your mail-order bride told you in her halting English, no serious scholar believes in the ‘genocide famine’ bunkum, and only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government – loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism – a foreign occupation.

    But most importantly, Я не читав свій сайт.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Martin Jr.
    Right and the great terror never happened, the gulags are a fairies tale, Stalin was a kindly old grandfather and all those former occupied nations declared their independence the first chance they got because of their great love of Russian occupation and cultural repression.

    Do they pay you by the word or the post from your cubicle in the Internet Research center building on St. Petersburg's Savushkina Street?

    , @AP

    "the ‘Holodomor’ is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one – and their own heroes’ part in it."
     
    Ah, the leftist fairy tale publicized by Canadian labor activist Douglas Tottle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tottle

    no serious scholar believes in the ‘genocide famine’ bunkum
     
    While whether or not this was an anti-Ukrainian national genocide, vs. class-based mass murder, is controversial (I am ambivalent), there are "serious scholars" who consider it to be genocide:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question

    only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government – loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism – a foreign occupation.
     
    Bolshevism came to Ukraine (other than Donbas and Kharkiv, on Ukraine's periphery) through an invasion from Russia. That's how occupations often begin.

    In the Soviet government of the 1920s and 1930s, Jews, Caucasian and Latvians were over-represented, and Ukrainians and Russians were under-represented. As for Soviet Ukraine itself, very few Ukrainians ran it:

    The Ukrainian Communist Party's central committee originally consisted of: Ivan Amosov, Andrei Bubnov, Afanasiy Butsenko, Shulim Gruzman, Vladimir Zatonsky, Lavrentiy Kartvelishvili, Emmanuil Kviring, Stanislav Kosior, Isaak Kreisberg, Yuriy Lutovinov, Yuriy Pyatakov, Rafail Farbman, Pinkhus Rovner, Leonid Tarsky (Sokolovsky), Isaak Shvarts. Almost all non-Ukrainians.

    The General Secretaries of the Communist Party in Ukraine were Emanuel Kwiring (ethnic German from Russia, 1923-1925), Lazar Kaganovich (Jew, 1925-1928), Kosior (ethnic Pole from Donbas, 1928-1938), Khrushchev (Russian, 1938-1947).

    That's how "loaded with ethnic Ukrainians" the Soviet state that created the Holodomor was.

    Yes, for a few years a Ukrainian was allowed to run the education ministry, where he conducted some efforts to slow down Russification, after which he committed suicide and his followers were purged and executed. But for the most part it was a non-Ukrainian occupation government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Pavlo
    If I wanted a middle school argument I'd ask for your input.

    But since you want more than rude insinuations about your home life, I will give you this: the 'Holodomor' is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one - and their own heroes' part in it. I don't care what your mail-order bride told you in her halting English, no serious scholar believes in the 'genocide famine' bunkum, and only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government - loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism - a foreign occupation.

    But most importantly, Я не читав свій сайт.

    Right and the great terror never happened, the gulags are a fairies tale, Stalin was a kindly old grandfather and all those former occupied nations declared their independence the first chance they got because of their great love of Russian occupation and cultural repression.

    Do they pay you by the word or the post from your cubicle in the Internet Research center building on St. Petersburg’s Savushkina Street?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Svidomites are down to the bottom of the barrel if they've drafted you.
    , @Pavlo
    Neither, we members of the Federal Couch Force get hourly rates.

    However I do get paid extra for every predictable, hackneyed response that I generate from dullards like yourself - by cutting straight to the old 'Savushkina Street' line you've earned me a nice little bonus.

    Have a great day and try not to dislocate your jaw prepping the bull.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. AP says:
    @Pavlo
    If I wanted a middle school argument I'd ask for your input.

    But since you want more than rude insinuations about your home life, I will give you this: the 'Holodomor' is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one - and their own heroes' part in it. I don't care what your mail-order bride told you in her halting English, no serious scholar believes in the 'genocide famine' bunkum, and only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government - loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism - a foreign occupation.

    But most importantly, Я не читав свій сайт.

    “the ‘Holodomor’ is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one – and their own heroes’ part in it.”

    Ah, the leftist fairy tale publicized by Canadian labor activist Douglas Tottle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tottle

    no serious scholar believes in the ‘genocide famine’ bunkum

    While whether or not this was an anti-Ukrainian national genocide, vs. class-based mass murder, is controversial (I am ambivalent), there are “serious scholars” who consider it to be genocide:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question

    only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government – loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism – a foreign occupation.

    Bolshevism came to Ukraine (other than Donbas and Kharkiv, on Ukraine’s periphery) through an invasion from Russia. That’s how occupations often begin.

    In the Soviet government of the 1920s and 1930s, Jews, Caucasian and Latvians were over-represented, and Ukrainians and Russians were under-represented. As for Soviet Ukraine itself, very few Ukrainians ran it:

    The Ukrainian Communist Party’s central committee originally consisted of: Ivan Amosov, Andrei Bubnov, Afanasiy Butsenko, Shulim Gruzman, Vladimir Zatonsky, Lavrentiy Kartvelishvili, Emmanuil Kviring, Stanislav Kosior, Isaak Kreisberg, Yuriy Lutovinov, Yuriy Pyatakov, Rafail Farbman, Pinkhus Rovner, Leonid Tarsky (Sokolovsky), Isaak Shvarts. Almost all non-Ukrainians.

    The General Secretaries of the Communist Party in Ukraine were Emanuel Kwiring (ethnic German from Russia, 1923-1925), Lazar Kaganovich (Jew, 1925-1928), Kosior (ethnic Pole from Donbas, 1928-1938), Khrushchev (Russian, 1938-1947).

    That’s how “loaded with ethnic Ukrainians” the Soviet state that created the Holodomor was.

    Yes, for a few years a Ukrainian was allowed to run the education ministry, where he conducted some efforts to slow down Russification, after which he committed suicide and his followers were purged and executed. But for the most part it was a non-Ukrainian occupation government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    The Banderite with a doctorate. Good of you to come and defend the honour of our fatherland.

    Bolshevism 'came to Ukraine' because the Bolsheviks won the civil war for control of the country Ukraine was part of, notwithstanding the notional 'independence' of the Brest-Litovsk period. Ukraine was not in meaningful sense a foreign country from Russia, either then or now.

    I'll dispense with the prefix 'ethnic' since Ukrainian identity is basically self-selected. Krushchev was at least as Ukrainian as Arsen Avakov or Pavlo Klimkin, and I am not sure I understand your objection to describing Kaganovich, Kreisberg, Shvarts, Gruzman et al as Ukrainians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. […] Article original paru sur The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  180. 5371 says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Right and the great terror never happened, the gulags are a fairies tale, Stalin was a kindly old grandfather and all those former occupied nations declared their independence the first chance they got because of their great love of Russian occupation and cultural repression.

    Do they pay you by the word or the post from your cubicle in the Internet Research center building on St. Petersburg's Savushkina Street?

    Svidomites are down to the bottom of the barrel if they’ve drafted you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Martin Jr.
    So now you move to the racial epithet. How classy. If that's all you have left then it is you who has reached the bottom of the barrel. Tell us dear Savushkina Street troll was Russia ever held accountable for the Hitler Stalin Pact? The invasion if Poland, the illegal annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia? Did it ever atone for the millions killed in the Gulags? How about the mass executions of Polish military officers? How about their deliberately halting outside of Warsaw while the Nazis slaughtered the Polish Resistance. How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. How about apologies for the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolt and the Czech spring. Yeah you all were just nice sweet benevolent imperialists. And now you are naked revanchists. Call me a the names you want. They don't hide Russia's crimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Pavlo says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Right and the great terror never happened, the gulags are a fairies tale, Stalin was a kindly old grandfather and all those former occupied nations declared their independence the first chance they got because of their great love of Russian occupation and cultural repression.

    Do they pay you by the word or the post from your cubicle in the Internet Research center building on St. Petersburg's Savushkina Street?

    Neither, we members of the Federal Couch Force get hourly rates.

    However I do get paid extra for every predictable, hackneyed response that I generate from dullards like yourself – by cutting straight to the old ‘Savushkina Street’ line you’ve earned me a nice little bonus.

    Have a great day and try not to dislocate your jaw prepping the bull.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Pavlo says:
    @AP

    "the ‘Holodomor’ is a lame Nazi fairy tale, peddled as an alternative Holocaust by people who would prefer the world forgot the actual one – and their own heroes’ part in it."
     
    Ah, the leftist fairy tale publicized by Canadian labor activist Douglas Tottle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tottle

    no serious scholar believes in the ‘genocide famine’ bunkum
     
    While whether or not this was an anti-Ukrainian national genocide, vs. class-based mass murder, is controversial (I am ambivalent), there are "serious scholars" who consider it to be genocide:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question

    only a world-class cretin would call the Soviet government – loaded with ethnic Ukrainians and hopelessly in love with its own watered-down brand of Ukrainian nationalism – a foreign occupation.
     
    Bolshevism came to Ukraine (other than Donbas and Kharkiv, on Ukraine's periphery) through an invasion from Russia. That's how occupations often begin.

    In the Soviet government of the 1920s and 1930s, Jews, Caucasian and Latvians were over-represented, and Ukrainians and Russians were under-represented. As for Soviet Ukraine itself, very few Ukrainians ran it:

    The Ukrainian Communist Party's central committee originally consisted of: Ivan Amosov, Andrei Bubnov, Afanasiy Butsenko, Shulim Gruzman, Vladimir Zatonsky, Lavrentiy Kartvelishvili, Emmanuil Kviring, Stanislav Kosior, Isaak Kreisberg, Yuriy Lutovinov, Yuriy Pyatakov, Rafail Farbman, Pinkhus Rovner, Leonid Tarsky (Sokolovsky), Isaak Shvarts. Almost all non-Ukrainians.

    The General Secretaries of the Communist Party in Ukraine were Emanuel Kwiring (ethnic German from Russia, 1923-1925), Lazar Kaganovich (Jew, 1925-1928), Kosior (ethnic Pole from Donbas, 1928-1938), Khrushchev (Russian, 1938-1947).

    That's how "loaded with ethnic Ukrainians" the Soviet state that created the Holodomor was.

    Yes, for a few years a Ukrainian was allowed to run the education ministry, where he conducted some efforts to slow down Russification, after which he committed suicide and his followers were purged and executed. But for the most part it was a non-Ukrainian occupation government.

    The Banderite with a doctorate. Good of you to come and defend the honour of our fatherland.

    Bolshevism ‘came to Ukraine’ because the Bolsheviks won the civil war for control of the country Ukraine was part of, notwithstanding the notional ‘independence’ of the Brest-Litovsk period. Ukraine was not in meaningful sense a foreign country from Russia, either then or now.

    I’ll dispense with the prefix ‘ethnic’ since Ukrainian identity is basically self-selected. Krushchev was at least as Ukrainian as Arsen Avakov or Pavlo Klimkin, and I am not sure I understand your objection to describing Kaganovich, Kreisberg, Shvarts, Gruzman et al as Ukrainians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. AP says:

    I am not a Banderite. But I understand that both Banderites and anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists find it pleasing to consider every Ukrainian who doesn’t support the Russian nationalist project in Ukraine, to be a “Banderite.”

    Bolshevism ‘came to Ukraine’ because the Bolsheviks won the civil war for control of the country Ukraine was part of, notwithstanding the notional ‘independence’ of the Brest-Litovsk period.

    The Ukraine that was invaded by the Bolsheviks had its own (chaotic) government, army, schools, etc. It was officially recognized as an independent state by numerous countries – the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria), other newly emergent Eastern European countries (Baltics, later Czechoslovakia), the Vatican, and the Soviet Union itself. Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden recognized it de facto.

    But anyways, the bottom line: the Soviet government was installed in Ukraine by an invasion from Russia. It was run during the 1920s and 1930s by non-Ukrainians. That’s a rather clear invasion/occupation.

    Krushchev was at least as Ukrainian as Arsen Avakov or Pavlo Klimkin

    Ethnic Armenian Avakov has lived in Ukraine since age two. Ethnic Russian Khrushchev moved to Ukraine at age fourteen but later spent much of his life in Russia. A comparison of Khrushchev to Klimkin is more realistic. At any rate, none of the three are ethnic Ukrainians. Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans). No foreign army brought the modern Ukrainian government to power; the latter came to power thanks to an invasion of over 100,000 troops from Russia.

    I am not sure I understand your objection to describing Kaganovich, Kreisberg, Shvarts, Gruzman et al as Ukrainians.

    You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.

    I’m sure you also don’t understand why chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, a native of the Russian Empire (Reval) and graduate of what is now called the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, isn’t a Russian. Or for that matter why Tolkien, born in South Africa, isn’t a Zulu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo

    I am not a Banderite
     
    Ha.

    You accord Ukrainian 'independence' in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn't an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour, it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.

    Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)
     
    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn't be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn't any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in 'enko'.

    'chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg'
     
    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.

    'You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.'
     
    So it's like that, is it? Well, I suppose you wouldn't be a Saker commenter if you thought otherwise.

    At least now we understand each other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @5371
    Svidomites are down to the bottom of the barrel if they've drafted you.

    So now you move to the racial epithet. How classy. If that’s all you have left then it is you who has reached the bottom of the barrel. Tell us dear Savushkina Street troll was Russia ever held accountable for the Hitler Stalin Pact? The invasion if Poland, the illegal annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia? Did it ever atone for the millions killed in the Gulags? How about the mass executions of Polish military officers? How about their deliberately halting outside of Warsaw while the Nazis slaughtered the Polish Resistance. How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. How about apologies for the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolt and the Czech spring. Yeah you all were just nice sweet benevolent imperialists. And now you are naked revanchists. Call me a the names you want. They don’t hide Russia’s crimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Banderite douchebag with the blood of Polish civilians all over his hands sheds crocodile tears because "Nazis slaughtered the Polish resistance". Top kek.
    , @Avery
    {How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. }

    How about maybe Eastern Europeans paying the USSR, the kin of the Red Army KIA - for saving the Eastern Europeans from total extermination by the genocidal Nazi mass-murderers, 100s and 100s of $Billions?

    How about saying thanks and bowing to people of Soviet Union in gratitude?

    If not for the sacrifice of the peoples of Soviet Union - all 25 million of them - today Western Europe and Eastern Europe would be parts of Greater Germania Union of Germanic Subjects. The swastika would be flying in every subject provincial capital. Except, most of Easter Europe would be empty fields 'cleared' of their indigenous peoples to make room for vast farms to grow food for the Master Germanic Race. The few young, healthy Eastern Europeans Untermenschen who were not 'disposed' of as useless mouths, would be worked to death to feed and cloth the Master Germanic Race.

    After they were used up, the 'wretches' would spend their last days licking and polishing the jackboots of their Nazi masters.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. 5371 says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    So now you move to the racial epithet. How classy. If that's all you have left then it is you who has reached the bottom of the barrel. Tell us dear Savushkina Street troll was Russia ever held accountable for the Hitler Stalin Pact? The invasion if Poland, the illegal annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia? Did it ever atone for the millions killed in the Gulags? How about the mass executions of Polish military officers? How about their deliberately halting outside of Warsaw while the Nazis slaughtered the Polish Resistance. How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. How about apologies for the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolt and the Czech spring. Yeah you all were just nice sweet benevolent imperialists. And now you are naked revanchists. Call me a the names you want. They don't hide Russia's crimes.

    Banderite douchebag with the blood of Polish civilians all over his hands sheds crocodile tears because “Nazis slaughtered the Polish resistance”. Top kek.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Could you possibly get more barbarous in your accusations. Problem is I’m about as WASP as one can be. My father’s family is decendended from the Plantagenents and my mother’s from the Tudors. We’ve got 300 years experience with representative government. Russia has what? 500 years experience with tyrants and slaughter as the primary political weapon. Even the French had the good sense to raze the Bastille. You Russians just changed the name over the door of Lubyanka. You even left Dzerzhindky’s statue in front of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Is that all that they put on your crib sheet, Mr. Plantagenet? You had to start again at the beginning?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. 5371 says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    Could you possibly get more barbarous in your accusations. Problem is I'm about as WASP as one can be. My father's family is decendended from the Plantagenents and my mother's from the Tudors. We've got 300 years experience with representative government. Russia has what? 500 years experience with tyrants and slaughter as the primary political weapon. Even the French had the good sense to raze the Bastille. You Russians just changed the name over the door of Lubyanka. You even left Dzerzhindky's statue in front of it.

    Is that all that they put on your crib sheet, Mr. Plantagenet? You had to start again at the beginning?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Avery says:
    @Joe Martin Jr.
    So now you move to the racial epithet. How classy. If that's all you have left then it is you who has reached the bottom of the barrel. Tell us dear Savushkina Street troll was Russia ever held accountable for the Hitler Stalin Pact? The invasion if Poland, the illegal annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia? Did it ever atone for the millions killed in the Gulags? How about the mass executions of Polish military officers? How about their deliberately halting outside of Warsaw while the Nazis slaughtered the Polish Resistance. How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. How about apologies for the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolt and the Czech spring. Yeah you all were just nice sweet benevolent imperialists. And now you are naked revanchists. Call me a the names you want. They don't hide Russia's crimes.

    {How about maybe paying reparations for nearly half a century of occupation of Eastern Europe. }

    How about maybe Eastern Europeans paying the USSR, the kin of the Red Army KIA – for saving the Eastern Europeans from total extermination by the genocidal Nazi mass-murderers, 100s and 100s of $Billions?

    How about saying thanks and bowing to people of Soviet Union in gratitude?

    If not for the sacrifice of the peoples of Soviet Union – all 25 million of them – today Western Europe and Eastern Europe would be parts of Greater Germania Union of Germanic Subjects. The swastika would be flying in every subject provincial capital. Except, most of Easter Europe would be empty fields ‘cleared’ of their indigenous peoples to make room for vast farms to grow food for the Master Germanic Race. The few young, healthy Eastern Europeans Untermenschen who were not ‘disposed’ of as useless mouths, would be worked to death to feed and cloth the Master Germanic Race.

    After they were used up, the ‘wretches’ would spend their last days licking and polishing the jackboots of their Nazi masters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Pavlo says:
    @AP
    I am not a Banderite. But I understand that both Banderites and anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists find it pleasing to consider every Ukrainian who doesn't support the Russian nationalist project in Ukraine, to be a "Banderite."

    Bolshevism ‘came to Ukraine’ because the Bolsheviks won the civil war for control of the country Ukraine was part of, notwithstanding the notional ‘independence’ of the Brest-Litovsk period.
     
    The Ukraine that was invaded by the Bolsheviks had its own (chaotic) government, army, schools, etc. It was officially recognized as an independent state by numerous countries - the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria), other newly emergent Eastern European countries (Baltics, later Czechoslovakia), the Vatican, and the Soviet Union itself. Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden recognized it de facto.

    But anyways, the bottom line: the Soviet government was installed in Ukraine by an invasion from Russia. It was run during the 1920s and 1930s by non-Ukrainians. That's a rather clear invasion/occupation.


    Krushchev was at least as Ukrainian as Arsen Avakov or Pavlo Klimkin
     
    Ethnic Armenian Avakov has lived in Ukraine since age two. Ethnic Russian Khrushchev moved to Ukraine at age fourteen but later spent much of his life in Russia. A comparison of Khrushchev to Klimkin is more realistic. At any rate, none of the three are ethnic Ukrainians. Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine's government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans). No foreign army brought the modern Ukrainian government to power; the latter came to power thanks to an invasion of over 100,000 troops from Russia.

    I am not sure I understand your objection to describing Kaganovich, Kreisberg, Shvarts, Gruzman et al as Ukrainians.
     
    You forgot to add Trotsky to your list - another "Ukrainian" like the others.

    I'm sure you also don't understand why chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, a native of the Russian Empire (Reval) and graduate of what is now called the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, isn't a Russian. Or for that matter why Tolkien, born in South Africa, isn't a Zulu.

    I am not a Banderite

    Ha.

    You accord Ukrainian ‘independence’ in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn’t an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour, it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.

    Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)

    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn’t be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn’t any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in ‘enko’.

    ‘chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg’

    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.

    ‘You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.’

    So it’s like that, is it? Well, I suppose you wouldn’t be a Saker commenter if you thought otherwise.

    At least now we understand each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You accord Ukrainian ‘independence’ in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn’t an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour,
     
    Neither Ukraine nor the invader were established entities.

    it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.
     
    It was invaded by a country with three times its population.

    "Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)"

    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn’t be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn’t any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in ‘enko’.
     

    If you can't tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can't help you.

    "‘chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg’"

    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.
     

    So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?

    You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.’

    So it’s like that, is it?
     

    You mean an accurate description of someone's ethnicity? Yes, it's like that.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    Again, the bottom line: Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion from Russia that drove away the mostly native, ethnic Ukrainian government and imposed the rule of non-Ukrainians over Ukrainians. Thus it was clearly an invasion/occupation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Joe Martin Jr, a good start would be for the Russian speakers in Russia’s neighboring countries to not be used as a weapon to destabilize the local societies (in this regard, one can even state that the Soviet Union isn’t entirely broken up because these populations are still living in their “host” countries). Russians speakers should be an asset, not a liability. In many cases they are an asset, however, if Russia continues to use them for “separatism”, everyone’s quality of life will just suffer. Above all, those Russians themselves. I have to congratulate Ukraine on its ability to integration so many Russian speakers – not the ones in Donbas obviously, but in Central Ukraine. These are Russian speakers who prefer Ukraine and love Ukraine. That is impressive. The situation in the Baltics is different, I’m afraid. Thankfully, the moment hasn’t come for us to test the loyalty of our Russians. I know that many of them are very invested in the status quo (that is, not interested to have the same fate as the Russians of Donbas), but it would be interesting to see where they would lean on the X hour. Maybe there is something we can learn from Ukraine regarding how to get the Russians on our side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I have to congratulate Ukraine on its ability to integration so many Russian speakers – not the ones in Donbas obviously, but in Central Ukraine. These are Russian speakers who prefer Ukraine and love Ukraine.
     
    Well, most of these Russian speakers are simply urban Ukrainians who speak Russian. Just as there are plenty of English speaking Irish patriots, there are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots, in places such as Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk (and a not insignificant amount in Kharkiv and Odessa). As I has written earlier, many of these Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots have Ukrainian-speaking grandparents or village cousins.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this - the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians, not Russian-speaking ethnic Latvians or Estonians, right? This would make them more like Russian-speakers in Lviv, most of whom left that city after Ukraine's independence (the remaining ones, who chose to stay, often tend to be pro-Ukrainian).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Sorry for the spelling mistakes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. AP says:
    @Pavlo

    I am not a Banderite
     
    Ha.

    You accord Ukrainian 'independence' in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn't an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour, it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.

    Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)
     
    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn't be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn't any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in 'enko'.

    'chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg'
     
    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.

    'You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.'
     
    So it's like that, is it? Well, I suppose you wouldn't be a Saker commenter if you thought otherwise.

    At least now we understand each other.

    You accord Ukrainian ‘independence’ in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn’t an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour,

    Neither Ukraine nor the invader were established entities.

    it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.

    It was invaded by a country with three times its population.

    “Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)”

    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn’t be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn’t any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in ‘enko’.

    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    “‘chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg’”

    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.

    So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?

    You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.’

    So it’s like that, is it?

    You mean an accurate description of someone’s ethnicity? Yes, it’s like that.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    Again, the bottom line: Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion from Russia that drove away the mostly native, ethnic Ukrainian government and imposed the rule of non-Ukrainians over Ukrainians. Thus it was clearly an invasion/occupation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo

    'It was invaded by a country with three times its population.'
     
    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state. The nation they claimed to be serving didn't flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it.

    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.
     
    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR. And not a usual situation in the USSR's closing years.

    'So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?'
     
    There's no commonality.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.
     
    It's a retooling of the 'Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship' line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.
     
    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Pavlo says:
    @AP

    You accord Ukrainian ‘independence’ in the Brest-Litovsk period more weight than it warrants. Ukraine wasn’t an established, independent country invaded by an alien neighbour,
     
    Neither Ukraine nor the invader were established entities.

    it was an ineffective separatist movement that completely failed to sustain itself once faced with a serious challenge from the centre.
     
    It was invaded by a country with three times its population.

    "Comparing modern Ukraine to Soviet Ukraine of the 20s and 30s is very unrealistic: modern Ukraine’s government is mostly Ukrainian, while the latter was almost entirely composed of Klimkins and Avakovs (and Groysmans)"

    All Ukrainian governments have included men who wouldn’t be considered Ukrainian by the lights of the race purists. The Soviet Ukrainian leadership wasn’t any more foreign because it had fewer ministers with names ending in ‘enko’.
     

    If you can't tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can't help you.

    "‘chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg’"

    Calling him that is a bit of a stretch given the contempt the SS had for him, but yes, he was Russian until he absolutely repudiated his ties to the country.
     

    So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?

    You forgot to add Trotsky to your list – another “Ukrainian” like the others.’

    So it’s like that, is it?
     

    You mean an accurate description of someone's ethnicity? Yes, it's like that.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    Again, the bottom line: Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion from Russia that drove away the mostly native, ethnic Ukrainian government and imposed the rule of non-Ukrainians over Ukrainians. Thus it was clearly an invasion/occupation.

    ‘It was invaded by a country with three times its population.’

    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state. The nation they claimed to be serving didn’t flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it.

    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR. And not a usual situation in the USSR’s closing years.

    ‘So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?’

    There’s no commonality.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    It’s a retooling of the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship’ line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.

    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    ‘It was invaded by a country with three times its population.’

    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state.
     

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an "ample opportunity" to build a state. The invasion began soon after the state was declared. There was a several-month respite from the invasion from Russia due to German protection, but this too was disruptive in its own way, due to excessive German demands upon the population. After the Germans left, the invasion resumed.

    The nation they claimed to be serving didn’t flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it
     
    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders, and Ukraine was one of the last places the Bolsheviks subdued. But due to no consolidated state the Ukrainian efforts were not coordinated. And, again - Ukraine was invaded from a country three times its population. Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.

    But again, the bottom line - Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion. Throughout the 20s and 30s it consisted of non-Ukrainians ruling the Ukrainian natives - an occupation.


    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR.
     

    Well, Lenin was a Russian. No head of the Ukrainian SR from 1925-1948 was a Ukrainian.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang (in which ethnic Russians were clearly underrepresented, but far from absent) centered in Russia's main cities. For Ukraine, the coming to power of Bolshevism was an invasion from hijacked Russia.


    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    It’s a retooling of the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship’ line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.
     

    I am not an expert on Black Hundreds ideology. I recall that they believed in stuff like Jewish kidnapping of Christian children to steal their blood (Blood Libel), a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and collective punishment of Jews, through pogroms, for their alleged crimes. I condemn all of those ideas and practices. I'm just pointing out the fact that the government that was forced upon Ukraine by the invasion from Russia consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land that was conquered by the invading Bolshevik army.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.

    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.
     

    Clearly it was an invasion. Probably a deserved one, given the South's practice of Slavery that was ended by the Northern invasion. The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.

    But - was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners for 20 years after the invasion?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Oh, and, Pavlo – I, too, wish Holodomor had never taken place. Unfortunately, one can’t just wish things away. I often think about Holodmor when I cook dinner. To think that my own country, in 1933, was so rich and exported bacon and butter… yet couldn’t send anything to Ukrainians, makes me really sad and angry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    I'd share with you some of grandmother's heart-rending stories about the 'genocide famine' as she witnessed it in Kiev and Poltava in the early thirties, but there aren't any. Some very carefully preserved and very bad memories of the kraut devils your people worship though.

    Your 'holodomor'(still shows up as a spelling error I'm pleased to note) was one of many contemporaneous famines in the USSR - but I don't suppose the inhabitants of southern Russia or northern Kazakhstan are politically worthy targets for your feigned sympathy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. AP says:
    @Pavlo

    'It was invaded by a country with three times its population.'
     
    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state. The nation they claimed to be serving didn't flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it.

    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.
     
    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR. And not a usual situation in the USSR's closing years.

    'So was Tolkien a Zulu, as Rosenberg was a Russian?'
     
    There's no commonality.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.
     
    It's a retooling of the 'Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship' line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.
     
    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.

    ‘It was invaded by a country with three times its population.’

    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state.

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state. The invasion began soon after the state was declared. There was a several-month respite from the invasion from Russia due to German protection, but this too was disruptive in its own way, due to excessive German demands upon the population. After the Germans left, the invasion resumed.

    The nation they claimed to be serving didn’t flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders, and Ukraine was one of the last places the Bolsheviks subdued. But due to no consolidated state the Ukrainian efforts were not coordinated. And, again – Ukraine was invaded from a country three times its population. Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.

    But again, the bottom line – Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion. Throughout the 20s and 30s it consisted of non-Ukrainians ruling the Ukrainian natives – an occupation.

    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR.

    Well, Lenin was a Russian. No head of the Ukrainian SR from 1925-1948 was a Ukrainian.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang (in which ethnic Russians were clearly underrepresented, but far from absent) centered in Russia’s main cities. For Ukraine, the coming to power of Bolshevism was an invasion from hijacked Russia.

    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    It’s a retooling of the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship’ line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.

    I am not an expert on Black Hundreds ideology. I recall that they believed in stuff like Jewish kidnapping of Christian children to steal their blood (Blood Libel), a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and collective punishment of Jews, through pogroms, for their alleged crimes. I condemn all of those ideas and practices. I’m just pointing out the fact that the government that was forced upon Ukraine by the invasion from Russia consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land that was conquered by the invading Bolshevik army.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.

    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.

    Clearly it was an invasion. Probably a deserved one, given the South’s practice of Slavery that was ended by the Northern invasion. The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.

    But – was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners for 20 years after the invasion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state
     
    The communists had their own misfortunes to grapple with. They (unfortunately) built a functioning state that could command the loyalty of its subjects and effectively mobilise them in its defense. Compare that with what the Ukrainian separatists made of their chances - I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of the details of the Kruty battle, the later loss of Kiev, or the defection of the ZUNR army.

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders
     
    And plenty fought for them, or didn't fight at all. A nation struggling to break free of foreign rule might have summoned up the numbers and organisation to withstand the invasion, Ukraine did not.

    Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.
     
    The Ukrainian separatists had Piludski's help, although they would have been better to refuse, given the price he demanded for it. Meanwhile the communists were actively opposed by every major power in the world.

    Well, Lenin was a Russian
     
    No doubt - though I imagine him groaning with rage in his tomb at being named so.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang
     
    I scorn them and all their principles, but the communists were hardly more multinational than the pre-war elite.

    I condemn all of those ideas and practices
     
    Of course.

    consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land
     
    A lot of those Jews were natives of the land, and I rather suspect you'd take a broader view of what constituted a Ukrainian if you thought it would support your argument.

    'Clearly it was an invasion'
     
    The court in Texas v White disagrees.

    The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.
     
    The only occupation regime that killed millions of people in Ukraine was Erich Koch's Reichskommissariat.

    But – was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners?
     
    The exact numbers I couldn't give you, but yes, reconstruction and military rule meant that white southerners were significantly underrepresented in post-war state governments. This doesn't change the fact that the civil war was the defeat by the established government of an armed rebellion, much as the Ukrainian component of the civil war was the successful response of the authorities in Moscow to an outbreak of regional separatism. True, the Ukrainian separatists managed to gain recognition from some foreign states, as the Confederates could not, but this counts for rather less than the military and political failure of their efforts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    Joe Martin Jr, a good start would be for the Russian speakers in Russia's neighboring countries to not be used as a weapon to destabilize the local societies (in this regard, one can even state that the Soviet Union isn't entirely broken up because these populations are still living in their "host" countries). Russians speakers should be an asset, not a liability. In many cases they are an asset, however, if Russia continues to use them for "separatism", everyone's quality of life will just suffer. Above all, those Russians themselves. I have to congratulate Ukraine on its ability to integration so many Russian speakers - not the ones in Donbas obviously, but in Central Ukraine. These are Russian speakers who prefer Ukraine and love Ukraine. That is impressive. The situation in the Baltics is different, I'm afraid. Thankfully, the moment hasn't come for us to test the loyalty of our Russians. I know that many of them are very invested in the status quo (that is, not interested to have the same fate as the Russians of Donbas), but it would be interesting to see where they would lean on the X hour. Maybe there is something we can learn from Ukraine regarding how to get the Russians on our side.

    I have to congratulate Ukraine on its ability to integration so many Russian speakers – not the ones in Donbas obviously, but in Central Ukraine. These are Russian speakers who prefer Ukraine and love Ukraine.

    Well, most of these Russian speakers are simply urban Ukrainians who speak Russian. Just as there are plenty of English speaking Irish patriots, there are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots, in places such as Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk (and a not insignificant amount in Kharkiv and Odessa). As I has written earlier, many of these Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots have Ukrainian-speaking grandparents or village cousins.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians, not Russian-speaking ethnic Latvians or Estonians, right? This would make them more like Russian-speakers in Lviv, most of whom left that city after Ukraine’s independence (the remaining ones, who chose to stay, often tend to be pro-Ukrainian).

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,
     
    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren't Russians . This goes against the grain of the point you are trying to make about Ukraine. Notice how there Irish aren't pathetic like the Ukronazis...the Irish weren't insecure morons complaining about the sidelining of their language for 500 years( one that unlike Ukrainian actually existed) or that the most of their population prefered to speak and write in English.....they accepted it, used postive ways to entice people to learn Irish....and have never questioned not having English as the State Language....whereas as Ukraine has been hamstrung by cretinous POS like you ( as I say "like you" I mean obviously you are an irrelevant , wikipedia copy and pasting, self-loathing nutcase) who dont know the first thing about the country, licking your dipsh*t wounds in America or Canada crying over your pig-raping and elderly/invalid raping POS, coward,turncoat UPA grandfather who fled in disgrace after WW2....but have put pressure on Ukraine that is the main reason it is such an unproductive basketcase
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. AP, that explains why they are so loyal. Are the ones living in Luhansk and Donetsk Russian-speaking Ukrainians mostly or mostly ethnic Russians that came from Russia during the Soviet times? Or ethnic Russians who have lived there for hundreds of years? I just watched a debate on Shuster’s program with some guys from Donetsk who, while angry at the government, seemed like they wanted to stay in Ukraine. There was no doubt. However, there is a big challenge with the mediation / referendum now.

    In the Baltics it is more “ethnic”, obviously because so many people were sent in, but many of them are now integrated and, as I said, very invested in keeping things the way they are. It would be hard to organize a Russian opolchenye without some serious help from Russia (which would be immediately detected).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Donetsk is about 50/50 Ukrainian and Russian, all Russian speaking, and quite mixed. It was sparsely settled until Soviet times, so its population can be considered neither truly Ukrainian nor truly Russian, but "Soviet." This is very different from the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Kiev.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, that explains why they are so loyal. Are the ones living in Luhansk and Donetsk Russian-speaking Ukrainians mostly or mostly ethnic Russians that came from Russia during the Soviet times? Or ethnic Russians who have lived there for hundreds of years? I just watched a debate on Shuster's program with some guys from Donetsk who, while angry at the government, seemed like they wanted to stay in Ukraine. There was no doubt. However, there is a big challenge with the mediation / referendum now.

    In the Baltics it is more "ethnic", obviously because so many people were sent in, but many of them are now integrated and, as I said, very invested in keeping things the way they are. It would be hard to organize a Russian opolchenye without some serious help from Russia (which would be immediately detected).

    Donetsk is about 50/50 Ukrainian and Russian, all Russian speaking, and quite mixed. It was sparsely settled until Soviet times, so its population can be considered neither truly Ukrainian nor truly Russian, but “Soviet.” This is very different from the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Kiev.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Pavlo says:
    @AP

    ‘It was invaded by a country with three times its population.’

    The separatist leadership had ample opportunity to build their state.
     

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an "ample opportunity" to build a state. The invasion began soon after the state was declared. There was a several-month respite from the invasion from Russia due to German protection, but this too was disruptive in its own way, due to excessive German demands upon the population. After the Germans left, the invasion resumed.

    The nation they claimed to be serving didn’t flock to their banner and their Ukrainian state perished for want of Ukrainians to defend it
     
    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders, and Ukraine was one of the last places the Bolsheviks subdued. But due to no consolidated state the Ukrainian efforts were not coordinated. And, again - Ukraine was invaded from a country three times its population. Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.

    But again, the bottom line - Bolshevik rule came to Ukraine via an invasion. Throughout the 20s and 30s it consisted of non-Ukrainians ruling the Ukrainian natives - an occupation.


    If you can’t tell the difference between having, say, 10% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians and having 80% of the government being ethnic Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    Not an unusual situation anywhere in the early USSR.
     

    Well, Lenin was a Russian. No head of the Ukrainian SR from 1925-1948 was a Ukrainian.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang (in which ethnic Russians were clearly underrepresented, but far from absent) centered in Russia's main cities. For Ukraine, the coming to power of Bolshevism was an invasion from hijacked Russia.


    Your implication that there is something antisemitic about that is absurd.

    It’s a retooling of the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik dictatorship’ line beloved of keyboard Black Hundreds everywhere.
     

    I am not an expert on Black Hundreds ideology. I recall that they believed in stuff like Jewish kidnapping of Christian children to steal their blood (Blood Libel), a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and collective punishment of Jews, through pogroms, for their alleged crimes. I condemn all of those ideas and practices. I'm just pointing out the fact that the government that was forced upon Ukraine by the invasion from Russia consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land that was conquered by the invading Bolshevik army.

    clearly an invasion/occupation.

    No more so than the defeat of the purported Confederate States of America by the United States Army.
     

    Clearly it was an invasion. Probably a deserved one, given the South's practice of Slavery that was ended by the Northern invasion. The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.

    But - was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners for 20 years after the invasion?

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state

    The communists had their own misfortunes to grapple with. They (unfortunately) built a functioning state that could command the loyalty of its subjects and effectively mobilise them in its defense. Compare that with what the Ukrainian separatists made of their chances – I’m sure you don’t need me to remind you of the details of the Kruty battle, the later loss of Kiev, or the defection of the ZUNR army.

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders

    And plenty fought for them, or didn’t fight at all. A nation struggling to break free of foreign rule might have summoned up the numbers and organisation to withstand the invasion, Ukraine did not.

    Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.

    The Ukrainian separatists had Piludski’s help, although they would have been better to refuse, given the price he demanded for it. Meanwhile the communists were actively opposed by every major power in the world.

    Well, Lenin was a Russian

    No doubt – though I imagine him groaning with rage in his tomb at being named so.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang

    I scorn them and all their principles, but the communists were hardly more multinational than the pre-war elite.

    I condemn all of those ideas and practices

    Of course.

    consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land

    A lot of those Jews were natives of the land, and I rather suspect you’d take a broader view of what constituted a Ukrainian if you thought it would support your argument.

    ‘Clearly it was an invasion’

    The court in Texas v White disagrees.

    The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.

    The only occupation regime that killed millions of people in Ukraine was Erich Koch’s Reichskommissariat.

    But – was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners?

    The exact numbers I couldn’t give you, but yes, reconstruction and military rule meant that white southerners were significantly underrepresented in post-war state governments. This doesn’t change the fact that the civil war was the defeat by the established government of an armed rebellion, much as the Ukrainian component of the civil war was the successful response of the authorities in Moscow to an outbreak of regional separatism. True, the Ukrainian separatists managed to gain recognition from some foreign states, as the Confederates could not, but this counts for rather less than the military and political failure of their efforts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state"

    The communists had their own misfortunes to grapple with. They (unfortunately) built a functioning state that could command the loyalty of its subjects and effectively mobilise them in its defense.
     

    Unlike the Ukrainian state-builders, the Bolsheviks employed mass terror, took hostages, and were much more ruthless. This enabled effective conscription, and a useful officer class. They were also well-organized. They also had the elite Latvian rifles at their disposal...and they also controlled urban industrial centers so they had no problems with armaments.

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders

    And plenty fought for them, or didn’t fight at all. A nation struggling to break free of foreign rule might have summoned up the numbers and organisation to withstand the invasion, Ukraine did not.
     

    Few fought for them. At most, there were temporary alliances between non-Bolshevik, Ukrainian forces and the Bolsheviks (such as Makhno cooperating with Bolsheviks vs. Denikin) but overall Ukrainians fought against the Bolsheviks. They merely did so ineffectively, as they were divided, not as well led, not as well armed, and victims of an epidemic. Bolsheviks were able to force-conscript millions of people from a country three times Ukraine's population. Ukrainians did not - but they had over 100,000 volunteers in various formations. Ukraine was one of the last places in the former Russian Empire that the Bolsheviks managed to subdue.

    Again, the bottom line, Bolshevism didn't come to power in Ukraine through an internal civil war (the process in Russia itself), but through an invasion from Russia. Other than pockets in Kharkiv and Donbas, it wasn't a local phenomenon, and certainly not an ethnic Ukrainian phenomenon.


    "consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land"

    A lot of those Jews were natives of the land.
     

    Yes, and the writer Bulgakov was a native of Kiev but he was not a Ukrainian either. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

    "For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang"

    I scorn them and all their principles, but the communists were hardly more multinational than the pre-war elite.
     

    For once, a statement of yours I agree with. Though the multinational legitimate owners of Russia, such as its German Tsar, whom the Bolshevik gang replaced were considerably more Russified than Bolsheviks such as Latvian rifles or the Georgian gangster Stalin.

    "The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people."

    The only occupation regime that killed millions of people in Ukraine was Erich Koch’s Reichskommissaria
     

    Well, we've established that Bolsheviks came to power in Ukraine, a state recognized as independent by several countries including that of the Bolsheviks themselves, via an invasion from Russia. We've established that the rule forced upon the Ukrainian natives by the invasion consisted of almost all non-Ukrainians. Do you doubt that the Bolshevik occupation regime in Ukraine killed millions of Ukrainians?

    As for Erich Koch's Ukraine - yes, it too killed millions of Ukrainians. Not quite as many as did the Bolsheviks in the early 1930s (I mean civilian victims of government policies, not war casualties) but more than the Bolsheviks murdered in the late 30s. Koch's policies hit city-dwelling people more than did the earlier Bolshevik policies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Pavlo says:
    @Latvian woman
    Oh, and, Pavlo - I, too, wish Holodomor had never taken place. Unfortunately, one can't just wish things away. I often think about Holodmor when I cook dinner. To think that my own country, in 1933, was so rich and exported bacon and butter... yet couldn't send anything to Ukrainians, makes me really sad and angry.

    I’d share with you some of grandmother’s heart-rending stories about the ‘genocide famine’ as she witnessed it in Kiev and Poltava in the early thirties, but there aren’t any. Some very carefully preserved and very bad memories of the kraut devils your people worship though.

    Your ‘holodomor’(still shows up as a spelling error I’m pleased to note) was one of many contemporaneous famines in the USSR – but I don’t suppose the inhabitants of southern Russia or northern Kazakhstan are politically worthy targets for your feigned sympathy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I’d share with you some of grandmother’s heart-rending stories about the ‘genocide famine’ as she witnessed it in Kiev and Poltava in the early thirties, but there aren’t any.
     
    I have one grandparent from Soviet Ukraine, who lost family members during the Holodomor. This one survived because he had left the village and was living in Kharkiv with the family of Jews whose village cousins the family had sheltered during one of Denikin's pogroms. Starving peasants coming into the city and dying in the streets were a regular occurrence. Much of the village died.

    But if your family were urban dwellers, or rural participants in the Bolshevik experiment, they were okay. I'm sure there were many ethnic Germans in Germany who never experienced the Holocaust.


    Your ‘holodomor’(still shows up as a spelling error I’m pleased to note) was one of many contemporaneous famines in the USSR
     
    Correct. However policies were worse in the Ukrainian SSR than elsewhere, and because the victims were peasants, ethnic Ukrainians were disproportionately affected. A friend from Dnipropetrovsk, whose parents were from villages (her grandmother lost five young siblings during the Holodomor), remarked to me once how some of her friends whose families were from the city for generations didn't take the Holodomor as seriously as she did because no one in their family suffered.

    Ukrainian nationalist activists claim up to 10 million Ukrainian victims. Scholars' consensus is around 3 million. This was about half the victims in the USSR (actually, probably a bit more if one includes the ethnic Ukrainians who starved to death in Kuban). Ukrainians were only 1/3 of the USSR's population.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. AP says:
    @Pavlo
    I'd share with you some of grandmother's heart-rending stories about the 'genocide famine' as she witnessed it in Kiev and Poltava in the early thirties, but there aren't any. Some very carefully preserved and very bad memories of the kraut devils your people worship though.

    Your 'holodomor'(still shows up as a spelling error I'm pleased to note) was one of many contemporaneous famines in the USSR - but I don't suppose the inhabitants of southern Russia or northern Kazakhstan are politically worthy targets for your feigned sympathy.

    I’d share with you some of grandmother’s heart-rending stories about the ‘genocide famine’ as she witnessed it in Kiev and Poltava in the early thirties, but there aren’t any.

    I have one grandparent from Soviet Ukraine, who lost family members during the Holodomor. This one survived because he had left the village and was living in Kharkiv with the family of Jews whose village cousins the family had sheltered during one of Denikin’s pogroms. Starving peasants coming into the city and dying in the streets were a regular occurrence. Much of the village died.

    But if your family were urban dwellers, or rural participants in the Bolshevik experiment, they were okay. I’m sure there were many ethnic Germans in Germany who never experienced the Holocaust.

    Your ‘holodomor’(still shows up as a spelling error I’m pleased to note) was one of many contemporaneous famines in the USSR

    Correct. However policies were worse in the Ukrainian SSR than elsewhere, and because the victims were peasants, ethnic Ukrainians were disproportionately affected. A friend from Dnipropetrovsk, whose parents were from villages (her grandmother lost five young siblings during the Holodomor), remarked to me once how some of her friends whose families were from the city for generations didn’t take the Holodomor as seriously as she did because no one in their family suffered.

    Ukrainian nationalist activists claim up to 10 million Ukrainian victims. Scholars’ consensus is around 3 million. This was about half the victims in the USSR (actually, probably a bit more if one includes the ethnic Ukrainians who starved to death in Kuban). Ukrainians were only 1/3 of the USSR’s population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. AP says:
    @Pavlo

    Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state
     
    The communists had their own misfortunes to grapple with. They (unfortunately) built a functioning state that could command the loyalty of its subjects and effectively mobilise them in its defense. Compare that with what the Ukrainian separatists made of their chances - I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of the details of the Kruty battle, the later loss of Kiev, or the defection of the ZUNR army.

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders
     
    And plenty fought for them, or didn't fight at all. A nation struggling to break free of foreign rule might have summoned up the numbers and organisation to withstand the invasion, Ukraine did not.

    Add the typhus epidemic and the lack of significant foreign support and native industrial base and you have a recipe for defeat.
     
    The Ukrainian separatists had Piludski's help, although they would have been better to refuse, given the price he demanded for it. Meanwhile the communists were actively opposed by every major power in the world.

    Well, Lenin was a Russian
     
    No doubt - though I imagine him groaning with rage in his tomb at being named so.

    For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang
     
    I scorn them and all their principles, but the communists were hardly more multinational than the pre-war elite.

    I condemn all of those ideas and practices
     
    Of course.

    consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land
     
    A lot of those Jews were natives of the land, and I rather suspect you'd take a broader view of what constituted a Ukrainian if you thought it would support your argument.

    'Clearly it was an invasion'
     
    The court in Texas v White disagrees.

    The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.
     
    The only occupation regime that killed millions of people in Ukraine was Erich Koch's Reichskommissariat.

    But – was the CSA recognized as an independent state by anybody, including the Union? Did the post-invasion governments in the South consist of something like 80% non-Southerners?
     
    The exact numbers I couldn't give you, but yes, reconstruction and military rule meant that white southerners were significantly underrepresented in post-war state governments. This doesn't change the fact that the civil war was the defeat by the established government of an armed rebellion, much as the Ukrainian component of the civil war was the successful response of the authorities in Moscow to an outbreak of regional separatism. True, the Ukrainian separatists managed to gain recognition from some foreign states, as the Confederates could not, but this counts for rather less than the military and political failure of their efforts.

    “Being invaded by a country three times their size does not present with an “ample opportunity” to build a state”

    The communists had their own misfortunes to grapple with. They (unfortunately) built a functioning state that could command the loyalty of its subjects and effectively mobilise them in its defense.

    Unlike the Ukrainian state-builders, the Bolsheviks employed mass terror, took hostages, and were much more ruthless. This enabled effective conscription, and a useful officer class. They were also well-organized. They also had the elite Latvian rifles at their disposal…and they also controlled urban industrial centers so they had no problems with armaments.

    Plenty of Ukrainians fought against the invaders

    And plenty fought for them, or didn’t fight at all. A nation struggling to break free of foreign rule might have summoned up the numbers and organisation to withstand the invasion, Ukraine did not.

    Few fought for them. At most, there were temporary alliances between non-Bolshevik, Ukrainian forces and the Bolsheviks (such as Makhno cooperating with Bolsheviks vs. Denikin) but overall Ukrainians fought against the Bolsheviks. They merely did so ineffectively, as they were divided, not as well led, not as well armed, and victims of an epidemic. Bolsheviks were able to force-conscript millions of people from a country three times Ukraine’s population. Ukrainians did not – but they had over 100,000 volunteers in various formations. Ukraine was one of the last places in the former Russian Empire that the Bolsheviks managed to subdue.

    Again, the bottom line, Bolshevism didn’t come to power in Ukraine through an internal civil war (the process in Russia itself), but through an invasion from Russia. Other than pockets in Kharkiv and Donbas, it wasn’t a local phenomenon, and certainly not an ethnic Ukrainian phenomenon.

    “consisted of almost no Ukrainians and instead was almost entirely made up of Jews, Poles, Germans, and Russians rather than of the natives of the land”

    A lot of those Jews were natives of the land.

    Yes, and the writer Bulgakov was a native of Kiev but he was not a Ukrainian either. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

    “For Russia, the coming to power of Bolshevism was a hijacking of the country by a multinational gang”

    I scorn them and all their principles, but the communists were hardly more multinational than the pre-war elite.

    For once, a statement of yours I agree with. Though the multinational legitimate owners of Russia, such as its German Tsar, whom the Bolshevik gang replaced were considerably more Russified than Bolsheviks such as Latvian rifles or the Georgian gangster Stalin.

    “The Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine from Russia, in contrast, brought in an occupation regime that killed millions of people.”

    The only occupation regime that killed millions of people in Ukraine was Erich Koch’s Reichskommissaria

    Well, we’ve established that Bolsheviks came to power in Ukraine, a state recognized as independent by several countries including that of the Bolsheviks themselves, via an invasion from Russia. We’ve established that the rule forced upon the Ukrainian natives by the invasion consisted of almost all non-Ukrainians. Do you doubt that the Bolshevik occupation regime in Ukraine killed millions of Ukrainians?

    As for Erich Koch’s Ukraine – yes, it too killed millions of Ukrainians. Not quite as many as did the Bolsheviks in the early 1930s (I mean civilian victims of government policies, not war casualties) but more than the Bolsheviks murdered in the late 30s. Koch’s policies hit city-dwelling people more than did the earlier Bolshevik policies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. gerad says:
    @AP

    I have to congratulate Ukraine on its ability to integration so many Russian speakers – not the ones in Donbas obviously, but in Central Ukraine. These are Russian speakers who prefer Ukraine and love Ukraine.
     
    Well, most of these Russian speakers are simply urban Ukrainians who speak Russian. Just as there are plenty of English speaking Irish patriots, there are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots, in places such as Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk (and a not insignificant amount in Kharkiv and Odessa). As I has written earlier, many of these Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots have Ukrainian-speaking grandparents or village cousins.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this - the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians, not Russian-speaking ethnic Latvians or Estonians, right? This would make them more like Russian-speakers in Lviv, most of whom left that city after Ukraine's independence (the remaining ones, who chose to stay, often tend to be pro-Ukrainian).

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,

    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians . This goes against the grain of the point you are trying to make about Ukraine. Notice how there Irish aren’t pathetic like the Ukronazis…the Irish weren’t insecure morons complaining about the sidelining of their language for 500 years( one that unlike Ukrainian actually existed) or that the most of their population prefered to speak and write in English…..they accepted it, used postive ways to entice people to learn Irish….and have never questioned not having English as the State Language….whereas as Ukraine has been hamstrung by cretinous POS like you ( as I say “like you” I mean obviously you are an irrelevant , wikipedia copy and pasting, self-loathing nutcase) who dont know the first thing about the country, licking your dipsh*t wounds in America or Canada crying over your pig-raping and elderly/invalid raping POS, coward,turncoat UPA grandfather who fled in disgrace after WW2….but have put pressure on Ukraine that is the main reason it is such an unproductive basketcase

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It's always a pleasure to witness you humiliating yourself as usual, resident fool gerad.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,

    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups

    25.8% of Latvians are Russian, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians.

    That means about 82% of Latvia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    In Estonia, 25.2% of the population are ethnic Russians, 1.7% ethnic Ukrainian, .9% ethnic Belarussians.

    That means about 90.5% of Estonia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    :-)

    Those are the two Baltic states with significant numbers of Russian-speakers.

    As for your nonsensical Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. AP says:
    @gerad

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,
     
    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren't Russians . This goes against the grain of the point you are trying to make about Ukraine. Notice how there Irish aren't pathetic like the Ukronazis...the Irish weren't insecure morons complaining about the sidelining of their language for 500 years( one that unlike Ukrainian actually existed) or that the most of their population prefered to speak and write in English.....they accepted it, used postive ways to entice people to learn Irish....and have never questioned not having English as the State Language....whereas as Ukraine has been hamstrung by cretinous POS like you ( as I say "like you" I mean obviously you are an irrelevant , wikipedia copy and pasting, self-loathing nutcase) who dont know the first thing about the country, licking your dipsh*t wounds in America or Canada crying over your pig-raping and elderly/invalid raping POS, coward,turncoat UPA grandfather who fled in disgrace after WW2....but have put pressure on Ukraine that is the main reason it is such an unproductive basketcase

    It’s always a pleasure to witness you humiliating yourself as usual, resident fool gerad.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,

    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups

    25.8% of Latvians are Russian, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians.

    That means about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    In Estonia, 25.2% of the population are ethnic Russians, 1.7% ethnic Ukrainian, .9% ethnic Belarussians.

    That means about 90.5% of Estonia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    :-)

    Those are the two Baltic states with significant numbers of Russian-speakers.

    As for your nonsensical Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad
    hahahaha!! the gormless troll cretin, glued to Wikipedia all his POS life, yet STILL manages to get basic facts wrong !! I am right (again) but as is typical of a troll cretin like you.....you can only resort to lying.

    I am not going to list all the different non-Russian ,Russian spreaking minorities of which Iwas my central point ( of which the majority are Russian,Belarussian and Ukrainian) when making my point, just to satisfy a troll imbecile like wasting your nonsense life talking drivel some more . Apart from the Finns in Estonia almost all those other groups are in those countries are united by speaking Russian all their lives you idiot. No ethnic lithuanian in the rapidly diminishing Estonia is talking Lithuanian when I'm walking around Tallin. If anything I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state........that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don't tend to include Russians like Tatars - should I link to the Wikipedia page what Tatars are to assist a POS like you?-as "Russians".

    And your lie statistic was wrong anyway...the lie statistic for Latvia would be 78%
    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55% ....in Estonia, Russian speaking , non-Russians are 16%- and that is not even considering that Wikipedia is talking crap on that statistic in the first place. I just came to my original number in my head.....and still am right.

    Like the dumb, slippery , sack of faeces that you are...no surpise that in your further lying you deliberately omit Lithuania, which only reinforces my point more.

    Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.
     
    errrrr.............that is my precise point you incompetant twat. The Irish, like the imaginary country of "Ukraine" has with Russia.....almost all their famous people as writers in Russian as the Irish in English, they have never queried the sane fact that English should be the offial langauge.....unlike lowlife Nazi POS's like you (from outside) Ukraine, causing cretinism. They have kept all their cultures and play their sports like Hurling in a far greater number than the English games like football. No dipshit names like "Olexander" equivalent Irish names trying to bastardise Russian. And again.....the wikipedia cretinism that is your life.....is simply wrong in the Soros funded BS stat of Ukrainian speakers..........imbecile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. gerad says:
    @AP
    It's always a pleasure to witness you humiliating yourself as usual, resident fool gerad.

    In the Baltics there may be more of an ethnic aspect to this – the Russian-speakers are actually ethnic Russians,

    Russian speaking Belarusians,Ukrainians and Russians in the Baltics you dumb prick . 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups

    25.8% of Latvians are Russian, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians.

    That means about 82% of Latvia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    In Estonia, 25.2% of the population are ethnic Russians, 1.7% ethnic Ukrainian, .9% ethnic Belarussians.

    That means about 90.5% of Estonia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    :-)

    Those are the two Baltic states with significant numbers of Russian-speakers.

    As for your nonsensical Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.

    hahahaha!! the gormless troll cretin, glued to Wikipedia all his POS life, yet STILL manages to get basic facts wrong !! I am right (again) but as is typical of a troll cretin like you…..you can only resort to lying.

    I am not going to list all the different non-Russian ,Russian spreaking minorities of which Iwas my central point ( of which the majority are Russian,Belarussian and Ukrainian) when making my point, just to satisfy a troll imbecile like wasting your nonsense life talking drivel some more . Apart from the Finns in Estonia almost all those other groups are in those countries are united by speaking Russian all their lives you idiot. No ethnic lithuanian in the rapidly diminishing Estonia is talking Lithuanian when I’m walking around Tallin. If anything I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state……..that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don’t tend to include Russians like Tatars – should I link to the Wikipedia page what Tatars are to assist a POS like you?-as “Russians”.

    And your lie statistic was wrong anyway…the lie statistic for Latvia would be 78%
    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55% ….in Estonia, Russian speaking , non-Russians are 16%- and that is not even considering that Wikipedia is talking crap on that statistic in the first place. I just came to my original number in my head…..and still am right.

    Like the dumb, slippery , sack of faeces that you are…no surpise that in your further lying you deliberately omit Lithuania, which only reinforces my point more.

    Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.

    errrrr………….that is my precise point you incompetant twat. The Irish, like the imaginary country of “Ukraine” has with Russia…..almost all their famous people as writers in Russian as the Irish in English, they have never queried the sane fact that English should be the offial langauge…..unlike lowlife Nazi POS’s like you (from outside) Ukraine, causing cretinism. They have kept all their cultures and play their sports like Hurling in a far greater number than the English games like football. No dipshit names like “Olexander” equivalent Irish names trying to bastardise Russian. And again…..the wikipedia cretinism that is your life…..is simply wrong in the Soros funded BS stat of Ukrainian speakers……….imbecile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I think it's great that when your errors are exposed you are reduced to semi-coherent sputtering. Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny.

    You couldn't help but make mistakes in your post, however:


    I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state……..that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don’t tend to include Russians like Tatars
     
    Oops.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic_groups

    Scroll down a little. If you can't read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says "Tatars." In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia's population. This small number doesn't substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

    If you do not know what Tatars are I can provide a wikipedia link for you.

    Feel free to be reduced to angry gibberish again. It is very amusing.


    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55%
     
    We already know that you are illiterate, given that you missed the Tatars in the link I provided for you. So now you show that you are innumerate also :-)

    As I described previously, 25.8% of Latvians are Russians, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians. That means about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.


    you deliberately omit Lithuania
     
    I stated that Latvia and Estonia had the significant Russian-speaking populations within the Baltics, thus Lithuania was implied and not omitted. I guess you can't read, however. Only about 8.5% of Lithuania's population are Russian-speaking so it wasn't worth elaborating.

    I just came to my original number in my head
     
    LOL, bad idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. AP says:
    @gerad
    hahahaha!! the gormless troll cretin, glued to Wikipedia all his POS life, yet STILL manages to get basic facts wrong !! I am right (again) but as is typical of a troll cretin like you.....you can only resort to lying.

    I am not going to list all the different non-Russian ,Russian spreaking minorities of which Iwas my central point ( of which the majority are Russian,Belarussian and Ukrainian) when making my point, just to satisfy a troll imbecile like wasting your nonsense life talking drivel some more . Apart from the Finns in Estonia almost all those other groups are in those countries are united by speaking Russian all their lives you idiot. No ethnic lithuanian in the rapidly diminishing Estonia is talking Lithuanian when I'm walking around Tallin. If anything I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state........that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don't tend to include Russians like Tatars - should I link to the Wikipedia page what Tatars are to assist a POS like you?-as "Russians".

    And your lie statistic was wrong anyway...the lie statistic for Latvia would be 78%
    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55% ....in Estonia, Russian speaking , non-Russians are 16%- and that is not even considering that Wikipedia is talking crap on that statistic in the first place. I just came to my original number in my head.....and still am right.

    Like the dumb, slippery , sack of faeces that you are...no surpise that in your further lying you deliberately omit Lithuania, which only reinforces my point more.

    Ukrainian-Irish comparison, about 1.4% of Ireland speaks Gaelic daily as a preferred language (there are more Polish-speakers in Ireland than there are people speaking Gaelic every day in that country), compared to 44% of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian daily as their first language in Ukraine. This, of course, results in different language policies in each country.
     
    errrrr.............that is my precise point you incompetant twat. The Irish, like the imaginary country of "Ukraine" has with Russia.....almost all their famous people as writers in Russian as the Irish in English, they have never queried the sane fact that English should be the offial langauge.....unlike lowlife Nazi POS's like you (from outside) Ukraine, causing cretinism. They have kept all their cultures and play their sports like Hurling in a far greater number than the English games like football. No dipshit names like "Olexander" equivalent Irish names trying to bastardise Russian. And again.....the wikipedia cretinism that is your life.....is simply wrong in the Soros funded BS stat of Ukrainian speakers..........imbecile.

    I think it’s great that when your errors are exposed you are reduced to semi-coherent sputtering. Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny.

    You couldn’t help but make mistakes in your post, however:

    I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state……..that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don’t tend to include Russians like Tatars

    Oops.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic_groups

    Scroll down a little. If you can’t read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says “Tatars.” In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia’s population. This small number doesn’t substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

    If you do not know what Tatars are I can provide a wikipedia link for you.

    Feel free to be reduced to angry gibberish again. It is very amusing.

    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55%

    We already know that you are illiterate, given that you missed the Tatars in the link I provided for you. So now you show that you are innumerate also :-)

    As I described previously, 25.8% of Latvians are Russians, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians. That means about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.

    you deliberately omit Lithuania

    I stated that Latvia and Estonia had the significant Russian-speaking populations within the Baltics, thus Lithuania was implied and not omitted. I guess you can’t read, however. Only about 8.5% of Lithuania’s population are Russian-speaking so it wasn’t worth elaborating.

    I just came to my original number in my head

    LOL, bad idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny
     
    They don't go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ....they have been there since Soviet times or earlier....speaking Russian

    Scroll down a little. If you can’t read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says “Tatars.” In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia’s population. This small number doesn’t substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

     

    hahaha! Yet again the Nazi trash plays stupid....given my multiple references to you just being a grandson of rapist UPA loser , copying and pasting BS off Wikipedia dimwit....the sarcasm of the Wikipedia reference should have been obvious.

    I was using the Tatars as an example of several of the ethnicities living in Russia or who are not composed of the classification of "Russian " you idiot. The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union....are mainly speaking Russian....the Jews ....are speaking Russian.....Georgians ,Chuvash and so on. Again a troll nutcase expects me to occupy his cretinous , waste of space life by listing all of the dozens of them....which add up to a great deal of Russian speakers.

    Yes, dealing with an imbecile like you ...I did the sums in my head. They were accurate in what I was calculating...except that I was doing it as the numerator of russian speaking non ethnic russians...and a denominator of russian speaking russians instead of updating the denominator to all russian speakers.....but frankly I couldnt give a toss.....the basic principle of what I am saying is true.

    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian. In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense.....31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian. Lithuania have more than half the amount of Russian speakers that Estonia do. It is about 31% non-ethnic Russian , Russian speakers for them too. I originally said the "big error" of 35-40% you cretin.

    Only about 8.5% of Lithuania’s population are Russian-speaking so it wasn’t
    worth elaborating
     
    Lithuania has 2.5 times the population of Estonia , with the only caveat there being the Poles are speaking Polish ...which isnt much the case in the long-standing Poles in the other two.

    The intellectual Pavlo dealt with your even more moronic crap about the imaginary Golodomor. Really shameful lying garbage you are talking there
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. I’m sorry – nobody in the Baltics and Ukraine wants to have the Irish situation. The Irish are an admirable people, but to us, Balts, they are a symbol of what can happen after a thousand of years of colonization. They keep a very distinct culture, now have statehood, but lost their ancestral language. That’s exactly what we do not want. I don’t think that’s something Ukraine should aspire to or be compared to.

    gerad, our original point was that Russian speaking Ukrainians are quite loyal to Ukraine – that is something that surprised me when I was watching all these political talk shows on Ukrainian TV. Many Ukrainians spoke in fluent Russian yet not only wanted Ukraine to stay united but were even ready to go to war for that (in fact, I noticed many soldiers like that too who are already fighting – I’m not talking about separatists or their supporters – and it would also be interesting to find out what their real numbers are). The people from Donbass also seemed quite constructive, in fact (the so called opposition, Party of Regions).

    AP told me that most of them are actually ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian now. I guess their ancestors spoke Ukrainian so that makes them linguistically assimilated into Russian but loyal to Ukraine as a state – I thought it was a great achievement because I thought they are ethnic Russians who support Ukraine! Russians in Latvia (most of them are ethnic Russian, other Russian speakers are Ukrainians, Jews, Belorussians, some of them speak their ethnic language too, I think we even have a Ukrainian language public school) are not as loyal to Latvia. Although, at this point, many of them might be (maybe more loyal than I assume, especially to their local cities / regions). The three biggest pro-Russian activists in Latvia are in fact Jews. By now most people speak two (or even three) languages anyway. However, the language spaces are separate – unlike in Ukraine, where I noticed, at least on TV, people switch from Russian and Ukrainian with great ease.

    In a crisis like in Eastern Ukraine, this stuff might turn out quite important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    AP told me that most of them are actually ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian now. I guess their ancestors spoke Ukrainian so that makes them linguistically assimilated into Russian but loyal to Ukraine as a state
     
    Yes, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Kiev are like the English-speaking Irish patriots of Dublin. Fortunately for them, their language is still spoken by about half the country. These urban Russian-speaking Ukrainians from Kiev support Ukrainianization school policies, for example, despite feeling more comfortable speaking Russian in their day-to-day life.

    What is interesting is that some of the most extremely anti-Russian figures in Ukraine now, are Russian-speakers. Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh is from, Dnipropetrovsk - ethnic Ukrainian, but even more Russian-speaking than Kiev. The infamous Azov battalion is led by a man born in Kharkiv.


    I thought they are ethnic Russians who support Ukraine
     
    Ethnic Russians in Ukraine are less patriotic than ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine, but they far from being a complete fifth column. Anecdotally they seem to match their neighbors. I know a few ethnic Russians in Lviv who are pro-Ukrainian (unless they were too old to move, the anti-Ukrainian Russians left that city long ago). One of my friends in Moscow (ethnic Russian) has a cousin and husband (also Russian) who moved to Kiev. They love their adopted home and have through the schools have raised Ukrainian-speaking children (although both kids are fluent, the older one speaks Russian with her friends but the younger one - Ukrainian). It is probably easier for ethnic Russians in Kiev to become Ukrainian patriots because unlike ethnic Russians in Latvia, the ones in Kiev speak the same language as most of their patriotic Ukrainian neighbors.

    On the other hand - ethnic Russians from Crimea and urban Donbas have left the country.

    The pattern seems to be that where Russians are a relatively small minority they assimilated into Ukrainians, but where they were a majority they were anti-Ukrainian. Fortunately for Ukraine, there no longer majority-Russian regions in Ukraine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. So, yea, those ethnicities do speak Russian (although the majority are ethnic Russian). That’s why we call them “Russian-speakers” and not just Russians. They do retain some of their unique culture, too. Most of them were brought in as foreigners in large numbers, recently, in Ukraine it is different.

    gerad, why can’t you accept that Ukrainians have their own culture / language, Russia is so big, is it not enough that 140 million people already speak your language…

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    gerad, why can’t you accept that Ukrainians have their own culture / language, Russia is so big, is it not enough that 140 million people already speak your language…
     
    Latvian woman....this is what Russia's does with 180 different ethnicities within their land....celebrate their cultures...and to some extent their language. Ukrainian is a dialect. Russians deeply love Ukrainian culture...but that culture isn't enough to say that it is an historically different state. Then there is Ukraine never existing as a state before ....and the fathers of Ukraine are Lenin and Stalin.....when Crimea was there,courtesy of Khrushchev...the total area of land given for free to Ukraine was 40%!

    Russia and Ukraine are culturally interwined and homogenous in a way that Russia isn't with Latvia. This is why Latvians voted overwhelmingly to leave the Soviet Union, but Ukrainians did not.....and even more wanted to bring it back shortly after they left it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. AP, and I’m sorry about the damn Latvian red riflemen in Kharkiv.

    The sad thing is that they were motivated by similar things as Nestor Makhno – their relatives had suffered under the repressions by the tsar after the revolution of 1905.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    No reason to apologize. Bolsheviks of any ethnicity were not representative of their people. They were criminal degenerates. Most Latvians didn't support Bolsheviks, nor did most Russians, most Jews, most Ukrainians, etc. This wasn't like the case of German mass support for Nazism. Latvian Red Rifles played a crucial role for the Bolsheviks and without them it's likely the Revolution would have failed; this doesn't mean Latvians should be blamed collectively for the problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. And, btw, the Russian Empire sent in Cossacks to do that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    I'm sorry - nobody in the Baltics and Ukraine wants to have the Irish situation. The Irish are an admirable people, but to us, Balts, they are a symbol of what can happen after a thousand of years of colonization. They keep a very distinct culture, now have statehood, but lost their ancestral language. That's exactly what we do not want. I don't think that's something Ukraine should aspire to or be compared to.

    gerad, our original point was that Russian speaking Ukrainians are quite loyal to Ukraine - that is something that surprised me when I was watching all these political talk shows on Ukrainian TV. Many Ukrainians spoke in fluent Russian yet not only wanted Ukraine to stay united but were even ready to go to war for that (in fact, I noticed many soldiers like that too who are already fighting - I'm not talking about separatists or their supporters - and it would also be interesting to find out what their real numbers are). The people from Donbass also seemed quite constructive, in fact (the so called opposition, Party of Regions).

    AP told me that most of them are actually ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian now. I guess their ancestors spoke Ukrainian so that makes them linguistically assimilated into Russian but loyal to Ukraine as a state - I thought it was a great achievement because I thought they are ethnic Russians who support Ukraine! Russians in Latvia (most of them are ethnic Russian, other Russian speakers are Ukrainians, Jews, Belorussians, some of them speak their ethnic language too, I think we even have a Ukrainian language public school) are not as loyal to Latvia. Although, at this point, many of them might be (maybe more loyal than I assume, especially to their local cities / regions). The three biggest pro-Russian activists in Latvia are in fact Jews. By now most people speak two (or even three) languages anyway. However, the language spaces are separate - unlike in Ukraine, where I noticed, at least on TV, people switch from Russian and Ukrainian with great ease.

    In a crisis like in Eastern Ukraine, this stuff might turn out quite important.

    AP told me that most of them are actually ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian now. I guess their ancestors spoke Ukrainian so that makes them linguistically assimilated into Russian but loyal to Ukraine as a state

    Yes, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Kiev are like the English-speaking Irish patriots of Dublin. Fortunately for them, their language is still spoken by about half the country. These urban Russian-speaking Ukrainians from Kiev support Ukrainianization school policies, for example, despite feeling more comfortable speaking Russian in their day-to-day life.

    What is interesting is that some of the most extremely anti-Russian figures in Ukraine now, are Russian-speakers. Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh is from, Dnipropetrovsk – ethnic Ukrainian, but even more Russian-speaking than Kiev. The infamous Azov battalion is led by a man born in Kharkiv.

    I thought they are ethnic Russians who support Ukraine

    Ethnic Russians in Ukraine are less patriotic than ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine, but they far from being a complete fifth column. Anecdotally they seem to match their neighbors. I know a few ethnic Russians in Lviv who are pro-Ukrainian (unless they were too old to move, the anti-Ukrainian Russians left that city long ago). One of my friends in Moscow (ethnic Russian) has a cousin and husband (also Russian) who moved to Kiev. They love their adopted home and have through the schools have raised Ukrainian-speaking children (although both kids are fluent, the older one speaks Russian with her friends but the younger one – Ukrainian). It is probably easier for ethnic Russians in Kiev to become Ukrainian patriots because unlike ethnic Russians in Latvia, the ones in Kiev speak the same language as most of their patriotic Ukrainian neighbors.

    On the other hand – ethnic Russians from Crimea and urban Donbas have left the country.

    The pattern seems to be that where Russians are a relatively small minority they assimilated into Ukrainians, but where they were a majority they were anti-Ukrainian. Fortunately for Ukraine, there no longer majority-Russian regions in Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, and I'm sorry about the damn Latvian red riflemen in Kharkiv.

    The sad thing is that they were motivated by similar things as Nestor Makhno - their relatives had suffered under the repressions by the tsar after the revolution of 1905.

    No reason to apologize. Bolsheviks of any ethnicity were not representative of their people. They were criminal degenerates. Most Latvians didn’t support Bolsheviks, nor did most Russians, most Jews, most Ukrainians, etc. This wasn’t like the case of German mass support for Nazism. Latvian Red Rifles played a crucial role for the Bolsheviks and without them it’s likely the Revolution would have failed; this doesn’t mean Latvians should be blamed collectively for the problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. gerad says:
    @AP
    I think it's great that when your errors are exposed you are reduced to semi-coherent sputtering. Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny.

    You couldn't help but make mistakes in your post, however:


    I completely underestimated the non-Russian, Russian-speaking population in Latvia ( make a note to yourself, idiot, Russia is a successful multi-ethnic state……..that means population demographics of places like Latvia and Estonia don’t tend to include Russians like Tatars
     
    Oops.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic_groups

    Scroll down a little. If you can't read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says "Tatars." In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia's population. This small number doesn't substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

    If you do not know what Tatars are I can provide a wikipedia link for you.

    Feel free to be reduced to angry gibberish again. It is very amusing.


    Non Latvian, non-Russian, Russian speakers are 55%
     
    We already know that you are illiterate, given that you missed the Tatars in the link I provided for you. So now you show that you are innumerate also :-)

    As I described previously, 25.8% of Latvians are Russians, only 3.4% Belarussians and 2.3% Ukrainians. That means about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.


    you deliberately omit Lithuania
     
    I stated that Latvia and Estonia had the significant Russian-speaking populations within the Baltics, thus Lithuania was implied and not omitted. I guess you can't read, however. Only about 8.5% of Lithuania's population are Russian-speaking so it wasn't worth elaborating.

    I just came to my original number in my head
     
    LOL, bad idea.

    Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny

    They don’t go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ….they have been there since Soviet times or earlier….speaking Russian

    Scroll down a little. If you can’t read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says “Tatars.” In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia’s population. This small number doesn’t substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

    hahaha! Yet again the Nazi trash plays stupid….given my multiple references to you just being a grandson of rapist UPA loser , copying and pasting BS off Wikipedia dimwit….the sarcasm of the Wikipedia reference should have been obvious.

    I was using the Tatars as an example of several of the ethnicities living in Russia or who are not composed of the classification of “Russian ” you idiot. The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union….are mainly speaking Russian….the Jews ….are speaking Russian…..Georgians ,Chuvash and so on. Again a troll nutcase expects me to occupy his cretinous , waste of space life by listing all of the dozens of them….which add up to a great deal of Russian speakers.

    Yes, dealing with an imbecile like you …I did the sums in my head. They were accurate in what I was calculating…except that I was doing it as the numerator of russian speaking non ethnic russians…and a denominator of russian speaking russians instead of updating the denominator to all russian speakers…..but frankly I couldnt give a toss…..the basic principle of what I am saying is true.

    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian. In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense…..31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian. Lithuania have more than half the amount of Russian speakers that Estonia do. It is about 31% non-ethnic Russian , Russian speakers for them too. I originally said the “big error” of 35-40% you cretin.

    Only about 8.5% of Lithuania’s population are Russian-speaking so it wasn’t
    worth elaborating

    Lithuania has 2.5 times the population of Estonia , with the only caveat there being the Poles are speaking Polish …which isnt much the case in the long-standing Poles in the other two.

    The intellectual Pavlo dealt with your even more moronic crap about the imaginary Golodomor. Really shameful lying garbage you are talking there

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny

    They don’t go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ….they have been there since Soviet times or earlier….speaking Russian
     

    One sentence in and you've already failed.

    There are only 1,882 Lithuanians in Estonia, making .1% of the population, so whether or not they speak Russian makes almost no difference with respect to the fact that over 90% of Estonia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians. Other than your silly claims - the claims of someone w stated that 35%-40% of Russian-speakers in the Baltics aren't ethnic Russians - no evidence exists that Lithuanians in Estonia are primarily Russian-speakers.

    But in Latvia, where there are more Lithuanians, something is written about linguistic preference:

    http://www.onlatvia.com/lithuanians-5

    "As the two Baltic nations are culturally similar, the assimilation is seen as less of a “change” for Latvia’s Lithuanians than for many other ethnic minorities of Latvia. In fact, even among the Latvia’s Lithuanians some half said that Latvian is their native language. "

    According to Latvian census, another 13,000 Lithuanians speak Lithuanian. That leaves virtually none being Russian-speakers.


    The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union….are mainly speaking Russian
     
    There are a little over 2,000 of them, making about .2% of the population. Your lie is thus of no consequence here.

    Georgians ,Chuvash and so on.
     
    There are 490 Georgians and 393 Chuvash. The percentages are .03% and .02%, respectively.

    If you knew basic math you would understand than a dozen of such nationalities added up in Estonia aren't enough to change the fact that about 90% of Estonia's Russian speakers are ethnic Russians.


    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian.
     
    Oops, you failed as usual, even here. Using those numbers would mean about 14% ( a little less, actually) of Russian-speakers in Estonia are non-Russian, not 16%.

    Is 14% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?


    In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense…..31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian.
     
    Well, we can exclude Lithuanians, who are half Latvian-speaking and 45% Lithuanian-speaking (see above), which leaves us a bunch of minorities that are .2% or .1% of the population. Not all of these are even Russian-speaking, of course. For example, 1/2 the Estonians in Latvia are Estonian-speaking. In the end its about what I had written - " about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians." Perhaps 80% or even 78%. That means at most, 22% of Latvia's Russian-speaking people were non-Russian.

    Is 22% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?

    Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you can't get a single fact right in your posts. :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. gerad says:
    @Latvian woman
    So, yea, those ethnicities do speak Russian (although the majority are ethnic Russian). That's why we call them "Russian-speakers" and not just Russians. They do retain some of their unique culture, too. Most of them were brought in as foreigners in large numbers, recently, in Ukraine it is different.

    gerad, why can't you accept that Ukrainians have their own culture / language, Russia is so big, is it not enough that 140 million people already speak your language...

    gerad, why can’t you accept that Ukrainians have their own culture / language, Russia is so big, is it not enough that 140 million people already speak your language…

    Latvian woman….this is what Russia’s does with 180 different ethnicities within their land….celebrate their cultures…and to some extent their language. Ukrainian is a dialect. Russians deeply love Ukrainian culture…but that culture isn’t enough to say that it is an historically different state. Then there is Ukraine never existing as a state before ….and the fathers of Ukraine are Lenin and Stalin…..when Crimea was there,courtesy of Khrushchev…the total area of land given for free to Ukraine was 40%!

    Russia and Ukraine are culturally interwined and homogenous in a way that Russia isn’t with Latvia. This is why Latvians voted overwhelmingly to leave the Soviet Union, but Ukrainians did not…..and even more wanted to bring it back shortly after they left it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. AP, fascinating stuff re: Azov, etc.

    Do you think it is true, as this article states, that Russia took in 1.5 million of Donbass refugees? That is an insanely huge number. I know that there is a big “pereselentsi” problem in Ukraine, too (helping them re-settle).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It may indeed be true. Anecdotally, there seem to be a lot of them in Moscow now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. AP says:
    @gerad

    Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny
     
    They don't go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ....they have been there since Soviet times or earlier....speaking Russian

    Scroll down a little. If you can’t read, ask an adult to read it for you. You will see a column that says “Tatars.” In 2016 there were 1,981 Tatars in Estonia, comprising .2% of Estonia’s population. This small number doesn’t substantially change the overall % of Russian speakers in Estonia being ethnic Russians.

     

    hahaha! Yet again the Nazi trash plays stupid....given my multiple references to you just being a grandson of rapist UPA loser , copying and pasting BS off Wikipedia dimwit....the sarcasm of the Wikipedia reference should have been obvious.

    I was using the Tatars as an example of several of the ethnicities living in Russia or who are not composed of the classification of "Russian " you idiot. The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union....are mainly speaking Russian....the Jews ....are speaking Russian.....Georgians ,Chuvash and so on. Again a troll nutcase expects me to occupy his cretinous , waste of space life by listing all of the dozens of them....which add up to a great deal of Russian speakers.

    Yes, dealing with an imbecile like you ...I did the sums in my head. They were accurate in what I was calculating...except that I was doing it as the numerator of russian speaking non ethnic russians...and a denominator of russian speaking russians instead of updating the denominator to all russian speakers.....but frankly I couldnt give a toss.....the basic principle of what I am saying is true.

    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian. In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense.....31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian. Lithuania have more than half the amount of Russian speakers that Estonia do. It is about 31% non-ethnic Russian , Russian speakers for them too. I originally said the "big error" of 35-40% you cretin.

    Only about 8.5% of Lithuania’s population are Russian-speaking so it wasn’t
    worth elaborating
     
    Lithuania has 2.5 times the population of Estonia , with the only caveat there being the Poles are speaking Polish ...which isnt much the case in the long-standing Poles in the other two.

    The intellectual Pavlo dealt with your even more moronic crap about the imaginary Golodomor. Really shameful lying garbage you are talking there

    “Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny

    They don’t go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ….they have been there since Soviet times or earlier….speaking Russian

    One sentence in and you’ve already failed.

    There are only 1,882 Lithuanians in Estonia, making .1% of the population, so whether or not they speak Russian makes almost no difference with respect to the fact that over 90% of Estonia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians. Other than your silly claims – the claims of someone w stated that 35%-40% of Russian-speakers in the Baltics aren’t ethnic Russians – no evidence exists that Lithuanians in Estonia are primarily Russian-speakers.

    But in Latvia, where there are more Lithuanians, something is written about linguistic preference:

    http://www.onlatvia.com/lithuanians-5

    “As the two Baltic nations are culturally similar, the assimilation is seen as less of a “change” for Latvia’s Lithuanians than for many other ethnic minorities of Latvia. In fact, even among the Latvia’s Lithuanians some half said that Latvian is their native language. ”

    According to Latvian census, another 13,000 Lithuanians speak Lithuanian. That leaves virtually none being Russian-speakers.

    The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union….are mainly speaking Russian

    There are a little over 2,000 of them, making about .2% of the population. Your lie is thus of no consequence here.

    Georgians ,Chuvash and so on.

    There are 490 Georgians and 393 Chuvash. The percentages are .03% and .02%, respectively.

    If you knew basic math you would understand than a dozen of such nationalities added up in Estonia aren’t enough to change the fact that about 90% of Estonia’s Russian speakers are ethnic Russians.

    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian.

    Oops, you failed as usual, even here. Using those numbers would mean about 14% ( a little less, actually) of Russian-speakers in Estonia are non-Russian, not 16%.

    Is 14% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?

    In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense…..31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian.

    Well, we can exclude Lithuanians, who are half Latvian-speaking and 45% Lithuanian-speaking (see above), which leaves us a bunch of minorities that are .2% or .1% of the population. Not all of these are even Russian-speaking, of course. For example, 1/2 the Estonians in Latvia are Estonian-speaking. In the end its about what I had written – ” about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians.” Perhaps 80% or even 78%. That means at most, 22% of Latvia’s Russian-speaking people were non-Russian.

    Is 22% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?

    Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you can’t get a single fact right in your posts. :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Update: the 2000 Latvian census has data for language and ethnicity. In 2000, there were 891,451 Russian speakers and 703,242 ethnic Russians. So, 22% of Latvia's Russian speakers were non-Russians.

    2011 Lithuanian census has 7.2% claiming Russian to be their native language, 5.8% claiming Russian ethnicity. So in Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are not ethnic Russians.

    To summarize:

    In Latvia about 22% of Russians-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Estonia about 14% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.

    Gerad trying to do math: " 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians"


    :-)
    , @gerad
    hahaha...like the obsessive, full of BS, lying tramp you are.....you say the same garbage to points I have already addressed. Everything in your idiot post is wrong again.

    I cant be bothered going through all your crap but will do just this:

    Latvia, Ethnic Russians..25.8%.......Russian speakers.....37.2%


    A simple calculation for even a useless dipshit like you is.....

    1- (25.8/37.2)*100= 31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian in Latvia you braindead moron.

    Latvian woman even alluded in her post to some Jewish people being prominant pro-Russian activists in Latvia which should have brought home to your idiot brain that there are several groups who speak Russian there.

    The same idiocy applies in your lies on Lithuania and Estonia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. AP says:
    @AP

    "Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny

    They don’t go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ….they have been there since Soviet times or earlier….speaking Russian
     

    One sentence in and you've already failed.

    There are only 1,882 Lithuanians in Estonia, making .1% of the population, so whether or not they speak Russian makes almost no difference with respect to the fact that over 90% of Estonia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians. Other than your silly claims - the claims of someone w stated that 35%-40% of Russian-speakers in the Baltics aren't ethnic Russians - no evidence exists that Lithuanians in Estonia are primarily Russian-speakers.

    But in Latvia, where there are more Lithuanians, something is written about linguistic preference:

    http://www.onlatvia.com/lithuanians-5

    "As the two Baltic nations are culturally similar, the assimilation is seen as less of a “change” for Latvia’s Lithuanians than for many other ethnic minorities of Latvia. In fact, even among the Latvia’s Lithuanians some half said that Latvian is their native language. "

    According to Latvian census, another 13,000 Lithuanians speak Lithuanian. That leaves virtually none being Russian-speakers.


    The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union….are mainly speaking Russian
     
    There are a little over 2,000 of them, making about .2% of the population. Your lie is thus of no consequence here.

    Georgians ,Chuvash and so on.
     
    There are 490 Georgians and 393 Chuvash. The percentages are .03% and .02%, respectively.

    If you knew basic math you would understand than a dozen of such nationalities added up in Estonia aren't enough to change the fact that about 90% of Estonia's Russian speakers are ethnic Russians.


    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian.
     
    Oops, you failed as usual, even here. Using those numbers would mean about 14% ( a little less, actually) of Russian-speakers in Estonia are non-Russian, not 16%.

    Is 14% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?


    In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense…..31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian.
     
    Well, we can exclude Lithuanians, who are half Latvian-speaking and 45% Lithuanian-speaking (see above), which leaves us a bunch of minorities that are .2% or .1% of the population. Not all of these are even Russian-speaking, of course. For example, 1/2 the Estonians in Latvia are Estonian-speaking. In the end its about what I had written - " about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians." Perhaps 80% or even 78%. That means at most, 22% of Latvia's Russian-speaking people were non-Russian.

    Is 22% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?

    Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you can't get a single fact right in your posts. :-)

    Update: the 2000 Latvian census has data for language and ethnicity. In 2000, there were 891,451 Russian speakers and 703,242 ethnic Russians. So, 22% of Latvia’s Russian speakers were non-Russians.

    2011 Lithuanian census has 7.2% claiming Russian to be their native language, 5.8% claiming Russian ethnicity. So in Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are not ethnic Russians.

    To summarize:

    In Latvia about 22% of Russians-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Estonia about 14% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.

    Gerad trying to do math: ” 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians”

    :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, fascinating stuff re: Azov, etc.

    Do you think it is true, as this article states, that Russia took in 1.5 million of Donbass refugees? That is an insanely huge number. I know that there is a big "pereselentsi" problem in Ukraine, too (helping them re-settle).

    It may indeed be true. Anecdotally, there seem to be a lot of them in Moscow now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. gerad, I know that Ukrainians are closer to Russians (and I wish the best to both, truly) but neither us, nor Ukraine can be Kadyrov’s Chechnya. That doesn’t mean we have to be enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    In terms of lexical distance, Ukrainian is slightly closer to Russian than Latvian is to Ukrainian. Russian and Ukrainian have 62% of words in common, vs. 58% for Latvian and Lithuanian.

    https://alternativetransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.png

    So it's about the same distance.

    I don't know about analogies with respect to grammar and pronunciation, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AP says:
    @Latvian woman
    gerad, I know that Ukrainians are closer to Russians (and I wish the best to both, truly) but neither us, nor Ukraine can be Kadyrov's Chechnya. That doesn't mean we have to be enemies.

    In terms of lexical distance, Ukrainian is slightly closer to Russian than Latvian is to Ukrainian. Russian and Ukrainian have 62% of words in common, vs. 58% for Latvian and Lithuanian.

    So it’s about the same distance.

    I don’t know about analogies with respect to grammar and pronunciation, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. AP, that’s an interesting graph. Belarusian is much closer to Ukrainian than to Russian.

    It must be hard for Donbass refugees to settle in Moscow, it is more expensive there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    Ukrainian refugees in Moscow are mainly former Kiev-based, Maidan hipster types, who were super enthusiastic for the revolution of dignity, that is, until their draft notices came in the mail. Then it was "suitcase, train station, Moscow," as the saying goes. Many Donbass refugees settled with family and friends, scattered over the regions, but mostly in Southern areas like Rostov. Also, the government offered subsidies and free land to Ukrainian refugees willing to move to low-populated areas like Siberia and the Far East. Quite a few, from what I've read, took that option. Finally, the official number of refugees is somewhere between 1-2 million, but the real number was likely much higher. There are lots of fighting-aged, young Ukrainian men hanging out in Crimea indefinitely, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. JL says:
    @Latvian woman
    AP, that's an interesting graph. Belarusian is much closer to Ukrainian than to Russian.

    It must be hard for Donbass refugees to settle in Moscow, it is more expensive there.

    Ukrainian refugees in Moscow are mainly former Kiev-based, Maidan hipster types, who were super enthusiastic for the revolution of dignity, that is, until their draft notices came in the mail. Then it was “suitcase, train station, Moscow,” as the saying goes. Many Donbass refugees settled with family and friends, scattered over the regions, but mostly in Southern areas like Rostov. Also, the government offered subsidies and free land to Ukrainian refugees willing to move to low-populated areas like Siberia and the Far East. Quite a few, from what I’ve read, took that option. Finally, the official number of refugees is somewhere between 1-2 million, but the real number was likely much higher. There are lots of fighting-aged, young Ukrainian men hanging out in Crimea indefinitely, for example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. gerad says:
    @AP

    "Now you imagine Lithuanians when they come to Estonia must be Russian-speaking. Very funny

    They don’t go there you imbecile ( or remain in Lithuania for that matter either,cretin) ….they have been there since Soviet times or earlier….speaking Russian
     

    One sentence in and you've already failed.

    There are only 1,882 Lithuanians in Estonia, making .1% of the population, so whether or not they speak Russian makes almost no difference with respect to the fact that over 90% of Estonia's Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians. Other than your silly claims - the claims of someone w stated that 35%-40% of Russian-speakers in the Baltics aren't ethnic Russians - no evidence exists that Lithuanians in Estonia are primarily Russian-speakers.

    But in Latvia, where there are more Lithuanians, something is written about linguistic preference:

    http://www.onlatvia.com/lithuanians-5

    "As the two Baltic nations are culturally similar, the assimilation is seen as less of a “change” for Latvia’s Lithuanians than for many other ethnic minorities of Latvia. In fact, even among the Latvia’s Lithuanians some half said that Latvian is their native language. "

    According to Latvian census, another 13,000 Lithuanians speak Lithuanian. That leaves virtually none being Russian-speakers.


    The latvians in Estonia, there for well before the end of the Soviet Union….are mainly speaking Russian
     
    There are a little over 2,000 of them, making about .2% of the population. Your lie is thus of no consequence here.

    Georgians ,Chuvash and so on.
     
    There are 490 Georgians and 393 Chuvash. The percentages are .03% and .02%, respectively.

    If you knew basic math you would understand than a dozen of such nationalities added up in Estonia aren't enough to change the fact that about 90% of Estonia's Russian speakers are ethnic Russians.


    Non-Russian , Russian speakers in Estonia must be about 4 %. Russians are 25%. So 16% of Russian speakers in Estonia are non-Russian.
     
    Oops, you failed as usual, even here. Using those numbers would mean about 14% ( a little less, actually) of Russian-speakers in Estonia are non-Russian, not 16%.

    Is 14% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?


    In Latvia, wasting my time calculating your moronic nonsense…..31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian.
     
    Well, we can exclude Lithuanians, who are half Latvian-speaking and 45% Lithuanian-speaking (see above), which leaves us a bunch of minorities that are .2% or .1% of the population. Not all of these are even Russian-speaking, of course. For example, 1/2 the Estonians in Latvia are Estonian-speaking. In the end its about what I had written - " about 82% of Latvia’s Russian-speakers are ethnic Russians." Perhaps 80% or even 78%. That means at most, 22% of Latvia's Russian-speaking people were non-Russian.

    Is 22% close to your claim of 35% to 40%?

    Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you can't get a single fact right in your posts. :-)

    hahaha…like the obsessive, full of BS, lying tramp you are…..you say the same garbage to points I have already addressed. Everything in your idiot post is wrong again.

    I cant be bothered going through all your crap but will do just this:

    Latvia, Ethnic Russians..25.8%…….Russian speakers…..37.2%

    A simple calculation for even a useless dipshit like you is…..

    1- (25.8/37.2)*100= 31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian in Latvia you braindead moron.

    Latvian woman even alluded in her post to some Jewish people being prominant pro-Russian activists in Latvia which should have brought home to your idiot brain that there are several groups who speak Russian there.

    The same idiocy applies in your lies on Lithuania and Estonia

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You can't help but fail every time, can you?

    Latvia, Ethnic Russians..25.8%…….Russian speakers…..37.2%
     
    In 2011, 26.9% of Latvians were ethnic Russians. That year Russian speakers were 37.2%. Apparently you are incapable of reading the correct dates, and using the 2014 figure for % of ethnic Russians rather than 2011, that matches the % of Russian speakers that year.

    So that year, a little less than 28% of Russian speakers in Latvia were non-Russians.

    1- (26.9/37.2)*100= 27.688%

    This was the highest in all the Baltics.

    And you, in your typical ignorance, claimed 35%-40% for the Baltics :-)

    To summarize:

    In Latvia about 28% of Russians-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Estonia about 14% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.

    Gerad trying to do math: ” 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians”

    :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. AP says:
    @gerad
    hahaha...like the obsessive, full of BS, lying tramp you are.....you say the same garbage to points I have already addressed. Everything in your idiot post is wrong again.

    I cant be bothered going through all your crap but will do just this:

    Latvia, Ethnic Russians..25.8%.......Russian speakers.....37.2%


    A simple calculation for even a useless dipshit like you is.....

    1- (25.8/37.2)*100= 31% of Russian speakers are non-ethnic Russian in Latvia you braindead moron.

    Latvian woman even alluded in her post to some Jewish people being prominant pro-Russian activists in Latvia which should have brought home to your idiot brain that there are several groups who speak Russian there.

    The same idiocy applies in your lies on Lithuania and Estonia

    You can’t help but fail every time, can you?

    Latvia, Ethnic Russians..25.8%…….Russian speakers…..37.2%

    In 2011, 26.9% of Latvians were ethnic Russians. That year Russian speakers were 37.2%. Apparently you are incapable of reading the correct dates, and using the 2014 figure for % of ethnic Russians rather than 2011, that matches the % of Russian speakers that year.

    So that year, a little less than 28% of Russian speakers in Latvia were non-Russians.

    1- (26.9/37.2)*100= 27.688%

    This was the highest in all the Baltics.

    And you, in your typical ignorance, claimed 35%-40% for the Baltics :-)

    To summarize:

    In Latvia about 28% of Russians-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Estonia about 14% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.
    In Lithuania, about 20% of Russian-speakers are non-Russians.

    Gerad trying to do math: ” 35-40 per cent & of them aren’t Russians”
    :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Yes, many minorities speak Russian, especially the ones that arrived after the war. But, for instance, many Poles and Lithuanians who lived here before, are assimilated and speak Latvian (many Latvians have Polish last names too). For instance, one of my doctors speaks Latvian as her first language but she put Polish in her passport (we can choose what ethnicity to call ourselves and we can have it written down in the passport too). I have some friends who are Russian speakers (now bi-lingual) who say they are of Ukrainian or Belorussian heritage, but they don’t speak those languages. There are, however, ethnic schools (state run), out of 811 public schools 104 are ethnic – 94 Russian, 4 Polish, 1 Ukrainian, 2 Jewish, 1 Lithuanian, 1 Estonian, some schools run a Roma program. Btw, we still have some Russian Old Believers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  226. gerad, just because they speak Russian doesn’t mean they are all pro-Russian (plus most of them speak Latvian, too).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  227. This is either just plain stupidity or kremlin instigated trolling.
    Completely removed from reality and common sense.
    The Ukrainian people are united more than ever as one nation which is resisting that crazed russian’s invasion of our land. We have paid for our country in blood and will continue to pack off russian invaders as corpses, for those who come to our land with fire will die by the sword.
    Glory to Ukraine!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?