“There’s not a lot of talk about how the United States can be part of the solution. We seem to be disappearing from their calculations,” said Walter Russell Mead, a historian with the Hudson Institute. “From the European standpoint, Putin has become somebody that like it or not that they have to deal with.”
Yeah, yeah. Crimea gone, Donbass gone. The mob has lost all interest and certainly has no interest in picking up any bills.
Topic: Donetsk, Kharkov, Lugansk - way to Russia. - page 10. (Read 734725 times)
Europe's Convinced U.S. Won't Solve Its Problems
FEB 13, 2016 3:32 PM EST
By Josh Rogin
Europe is facing a convergence of the worst crises since World War II, and the overwhelming consensus among officials and experts here is that the U.S. no longer has the will or the ability to play an influential role in solving them.
At the Munich Security Conference, the prime topics are the refugee crisis, the Syrian conflict, Russian aggression and the potential dissolution of the European Union's very structure. Top European leaders repeatedly lamented that 2015 saw all of Europe’s problems deepen, and unanimously predicted that in 2016 they would get even worse.
“The question of war and peace has returned to the continent,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the audience, indirectly referring to Russian military interventions. “We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good."
What was missing from the conference speeches and even the many private discussions in the hallways, compared to previous years, was the discussion of what Europe wanted or even expected the U.S. to do.
Several European officials told me that there was little expectation that President Barack Obama, in his last year in office, would make any significant policy changes to address what European governments see an existential set of crises that can’t wait for a new administration in Washington.
“There’s a shared assessment that the European security architecture is falling apart in many ways,” said Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “There is a growing sense that this U.S. administration is focused on establishing a legacy on what has already been achieved rather than trying to achieve anything more. Yet the problems can get much worse.”
During the first day of the conference, the U.S. role in Europe was hardly mentioned in the public sessions. In the private sessions, many participants told me that European governments are not only resigned to a lack of American assertiveness, they also are now reluctantly accepting a Russia that is more present than ever in European affairs, and not for the better.
“There’s not a lot of talk about how the United States can be part of the solution. We seem to be disappearing from their calculations,” said Walter Russell Mead, a historian with the Hudson Institute. “From the European standpoint, Putin has become somebody that like it or not that they have to deal with.”
On Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech filled with optimism about the future of Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance. He sought to assuage concerns about American withdrawal from the region and paint the current state of affairs in a positive light.
“We know many Europeans right now feel overwhelmed by the latest round of challenges,” he said. “I want to express the confidence of President Obama and all of us in America that, just as it has so many times before, Europe is going to emerge stronger than ever, provided it stays united and builds common responses to these challenges … We are going to do just fine.”
Kerry said the U.S.-Europe relationship was not “unraveling,” as some claim, and he pointed to joint efforts to rebut Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Iran nuclear agreement as examples of successful collaboration. He said the Islamic State would be defeated and he acknowledged the U.S. should do more to help Europe deal with the millions of refugees flowing into the continent.
Kerry then touted his agreement struck last Thursday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria to begin in a week. He didn’t mention that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad publicly rejected the idea, or repeat his statement that if Russia doesn’t stop its indiscriminate bombing in Syria, he would go to an as yet unspecified “Plan B.”
Many in the audience noted that Kerry has little leverage with which to pressure Russia to abide by any cease-fire. There’s little faith among European officials I spoke with that Russia has any plan to end the fighting, unless it is on Moscow's own terms. Lavrov spoke after Kerry and reiterated that Russia would continue to bomb the "terrorists” in Syria, and that Russia’s view of “terrorists” was expansive.
“Kerry is coming in there telling them this is what he hopes they will do, without having a way to elicit a response to them,” said Mead. “That looks like a negotiation, but that’s not actually a negotiation.”
Derek Chollet, who served in the Obama administration from 2009 until last year, told me the White House believes that while the U.S. should stay committed to European security, it is the Europeans who will have to do more to solve their problems.
“It’s a false choice to say either America solves every problem or the problems don’t get solved,” he said. “All of our allies for justifiable reasons want more of the United States, but more of everything is not a strategy.”
In a world of limited resources, according to Chollet, the Obama administration is seeking a way to balance several competing strategic interests and manage the related trade-offs.
“You can put together a long list of individual things you could do more of, but when you add all that up it’s not a sustainable strategy,” he said. “We are not going to solve the European Union’s problems for them.”
That view is not universally held inside the U.S. government. There are officials in the State Department, the U.S. military, and especially in Congress who believe the administration should be doing much more. For example, some support giving arms to the Ukrainian military, establishing safe zones inside Syria, giving the Syrian rebels advanced weaponry to defend themselves, and doing more to remove Assad from power.
In fact, at different times Kerry has supported every one of these policies, but has repeatedly been rebuffed by the White House. Based on his speech, we can conclude he has now come to the same conclusion as European leaders: Obama is not going to drastically change his policies before he leaves office.
For Europe, that might be too long to wait.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-13/europe-s-convinced-u-s-won-t-solve-its-problems
FEB 13, 2016 3:32 PM EST
By Josh Rogin
Europe is facing a convergence of the worst crises since World War II, and the overwhelming consensus among officials and experts here is that the U.S. no longer has the will or the ability to play an influential role in solving them.
At the Munich Security Conference, the prime topics are the refugee crisis, the Syrian conflict, Russian aggression and the potential dissolution of the European Union's very structure. Top European leaders repeatedly lamented that 2015 saw all of Europe’s problems deepen, and unanimously predicted that in 2016 they would get even worse.
“The question of war and peace has returned to the continent,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the audience, indirectly referring to Russian military interventions. “We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good."
What was missing from the conference speeches and even the many private discussions in the hallways, compared to previous years, was the discussion of what Europe wanted or even expected the U.S. to do.
Several European officials told me that there was little expectation that President Barack Obama, in his last year in office, would make any significant policy changes to address what European governments see an existential set of crises that can’t wait for a new administration in Washington.
“There’s a shared assessment that the European security architecture is falling apart in many ways,” said Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “There is a growing sense that this U.S. administration is focused on establishing a legacy on what has already been achieved rather than trying to achieve anything more. Yet the problems can get much worse.”
During the first day of the conference, the U.S. role in Europe was hardly mentioned in the public sessions. In the private sessions, many participants told me that European governments are not only resigned to a lack of American assertiveness, they also are now reluctantly accepting a Russia that is more present than ever in European affairs, and not for the better.
“There’s not a lot of talk about how the United States can be part of the solution. We seem to be disappearing from their calculations,” said Walter Russell Mead, a historian with the Hudson Institute. “From the European standpoint, Putin has become somebody that like it or not that they have to deal with.”
On Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech filled with optimism about the future of Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance. He sought to assuage concerns about American withdrawal from the region and paint the current state of affairs in a positive light.
“We know many Europeans right now feel overwhelmed by the latest round of challenges,” he said. “I want to express the confidence of President Obama and all of us in America that, just as it has so many times before, Europe is going to emerge stronger than ever, provided it stays united and builds common responses to these challenges … We are going to do just fine.”
Kerry said the U.S.-Europe relationship was not “unraveling,” as some claim, and he pointed to joint efforts to rebut Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Iran nuclear agreement as examples of successful collaboration. He said the Islamic State would be defeated and he acknowledged the U.S. should do more to help Europe deal with the millions of refugees flowing into the continent.
Kerry then touted his agreement struck last Thursday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria to begin in a week. He didn’t mention that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad publicly rejected the idea, or repeat his statement that if Russia doesn’t stop its indiscriminate bombing in Syria, he would go to an as yet unspecified “Plan B.”
Many in the audience noted that Kerry has little leverage with which to pressure Russia to abide by any cease-fire. There’s little faith among European officials I spoke with that Russia has any plan to end the fighting, unless it is on Moscow's own terms. Lavrov spoke after Kerry and reiterated that Russia would continue to bomb the "terrorists” in Syria, and that Russia’s view of “terrorists” was expansive.
“Kerry is coming in there telling them this is what he hopes they will do, without having a way to elicit a response to them,” said Mead. “That looks like a negotiation, but that’s not actually a negotiation.”
Derek Chollet, who served in the Obama administration from 2009 until last year, told me the White House believes that while the U.S. should stay committed to European security, it is the Europeans who will have to do more to solve their problems.
“It’s a false choice to say either America solves every problem or the problems don’t get solved,” he said. “All of our allies for justifiable reasons want more of the United States, but more of everything is not a strategy.”
In a world of limited resources, according to Chollet, the Obama administration is seeking a way to balance several competing strategic interests and manage the related trade-offs.
“You can put together a long list of individual things you could do more of, but when you add all that up it’s not a sustainable strategy,” he said. “We are not going to solve the European Union’s problems for them.”
That view is not universally held inside the U.S. government. There are officials in the State Department, the U.S. military, and especially in Congress who believe the administration should be doing much more. For example, some support giving arms to the Ukrainian military, establishing safe zones inside Syria, giving the Syrian rebels advanced weaponry to defend themselves, and doing more to remove Assad from power.
In fact, at different times Kerry has supported every one of these policies, but has repeatedly been rebuffed by the White House. Based on his speech, we can conclude he has now come to the same conclusion as European leaders: Obama is not going to drastically change his policies before he leaves office.
For Europe, that might be too long to wait.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-13/europe-s-convinced-u-s-won-t-solve-its-problems
Except Ukrainian has a different alphabet than Russian.
Not at all. Ukrainian is basically Russian - Cyrillic - alphabet with 2 Latin characters (i and ї) inserted by the alphabet's creator Pantilemon Kulish to record particularities in the Galician dialect at the end of 1800s.
For graphical comparison see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabets
...
Maybe you should update that wikipedia page because section 2.1.3 under East Slavic languages is incorrect according to you, i.e. that Ukrainian is basically Russian. See what will happen if you do that.
By your logic all these other languages are basically "Russian".
Except Ukrainian has a different alphabet than Russian.
Not at all. Ukrainian is basically Russian - Cyrillic - alphabet with 2 Latin characters (i and ї) inserted by the alphabet's creator Pantilemon Kulish to record particularities in the Galician dialect at the end of 1800s.
For graphical comparison see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabets
...
Maybe you should update that wikipedia page because section 2.1.3 under East Slavic languages is incorrect according to you, i.e. that Ukrainian is basically Russian. See what will happen if you do that.
By your logic all these other languages are basically "Russian".
If you want to make a linguistic detour, let me point out a few facts.
First, a more appropriate parallel for the English-speaking readers is in order. Consider languages spoken in England, Texas and Australia. They are all English language with at times quite large local variations in pronunciation and meaning of some of the words. Relationship between Ukrainian and Russian is much the same as the relationship between British and Texan. If I go to Texas, publish a "new" alphabet with a few additional characters to denote Texan speech, would that make Texan a different language? No.
Second, alphabets change, and that also applies to Russian. Letters were added, like ё at the time of Catherine the Great, and letters were removed after the revolution of 1917. Did that make Russian a different language? No.
Third, as Bryant pointed to Serbian and Croat - attempts to latinise Slavic languages were performed before. Shortly after "Ukrainian" was created, the same authors tried to latinise it. That attempt flopped. Lenin tried to latinise Russian - neither that got traction. Croatian and Serbian is one language with the artificial separation of the way it's written - and hey, the same people are divided too.
Fourth, just like in the evolution of the species, where by small genetic mutations you can see when a pair of species last had a common ancestor, so in linguistics you can trace when any pair or languages or dialects parted ways.
Russian and Belorussian are closest (written Belorussian is very reminiscent of the way Moscow dialect is spoken). Ukrainian and Russian are a little further apart - mostly due to the onslaught of the imported and invented words from the turn of 1800/1900. These are still so close as to be considered dialects. I know of bigger differences between the Norwegian dialects than what exists between Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian.
Interestingly, Bulgarian and Russian is the next in closeness. Bulgarian is a language written in Cyrillic, but it is reminiscent of the way people would have been talking in Rus about 300 years ago. (The name "Bulgarian" is actually a name of the origin of these people - Volga river: Volgarí is the contemporary name of the people living on that great Russian river's shores. The change between b-v /u-o are in fact such linguistic "genetic" markers, which change, "mutate" with time.)
Serbian and Russian are still further apart. Czech and Russian have a common linguistic ancestor further still. Incidentally, Czech was initially written in Cyrillic, but got later latinised with the advancement of Catholicism. Polish and Russian follow further still. Then comes Latvian - which is still a Slavic language. After that the Germanic influence becomes stronger and you get Scandinavian languages, and German...
Bryant, the short history of Ukrainian "language" - in reality a local dialect, to which a partially latinised alphabet was adapted, an then enforced by the Austrians - is quite interesting. I'll have a publication on that later.
The funny thing is: if Ukrainian is a language, then transferring this attitude to Norway, one must admit that Bergensian, Trondheimian, Stavangerian are all different languages, which have nothing to do with Norwegian.
The funny thing is: if Ukrainian is a language, then transferring this attitude to Norway, one must admit that Bergensian, Trondheimian, Stavangerian are all different languages, which have nothing to do with Norwegian.
I don't have any issue at all, if they want to upgrade a dialect to a full-fledged language. But they should not impose it on anyone. In some of the former Yugoslav nations, they have already done that. For example, Bosnian, Serbian and Croat are essentially the same language. But they have artificially separated the language based on ethnicity. It is like saying that American English is a separate language, when compared to the Australian version of English.
Except Ukrainian has a different alphabet than Russian.
You sound like your buddy Vladimir Zhirinovsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky
Maybe incorporate Poland and Czech Republic while you at it. So all Slavic languages are essentially Russian, right?
By applying your logic, Russian is a dialect of Czech. After all Czechs were a country way before Moscow was a village
But they have artificially separated the language based on ethnicity.
Based on Monotheist Religions.
"Victory" condoms.
I think it´s a Russian dialect of a Russian borderland. It´s a country that doesn´t seem to have much of a national identity much less unity. An artificial construct.
Even if you consider the Ukrainian language as separate from Russian, that doesn't hide the fact that it is not the native language of the vast majority of the Ukrainian residents. The official "Ukrainian language" is native only to a small part of Western Ukraine, especially in the oblasts of Lvov, Ternopol, Rivne and Volyn. It was never spoken in the other parts of Ukraine.
Yes of course. Russian is widely spoken. At least in the traditional Russian parts of this land I guess.
And now the nutsos in charge are trying to force national unity on people. Like that one has worked well in history. Of course the other side of that coin is usually ethnic cleansing.
I think it´s a Russian dialect of a Russian borderland. It´s a country that doesn´t seem to have much of a national identity much less unity. An artificial construct.
Even if you consider the Ukrainian language as separate from Russian, that doesn't hide the fact that it is not the native language of the vast majority of the Ukrainian residents. The official "Ukrainian language" is native only to a small part of Western Ukraine, especially in the oblasts of Lvov, Ternopol, Rivne and Volyn. It was never spoken in the other parts of Ukraine.
I think it´s a Russian dialect of a Russian borderland. It´s a country that doesn´t seem to have much of a national identity much less unity. An artificial construct.
Ukraine made a mistake by allowing ethnic Russians to stay in Ukraine after 1991.
Soviet leadership made a mistake of creating Ukraine after 1917 and performing forced "Ukranisation" of the Russian population on those lands...
You mean Ukrainian republic under USSR. Ukraine first gained independence in 1991.
What other option they had? Wipe the native populations all together?
The "native population" you are referring to are Russians/Rusins. I meant what I wrote - "Ukraine" as an artificial construct, promoted from the end of 1800s by various powers - Poland, Austria, Soviets.
Really? I thought Ukrainians had their own language and culture. I'm not sure about your "artificial construct" idea. There is strong evidence (I mean walking and talking Ukrainians
) that Ukraine is not an artificial construct as you put it.You want to wipe them off the map? fine. Just don't pretend you are doing them a favor or come up with bat-ass crazy assertions to justify your government's actions.
Go easy on that vodka.
Maybe you should update that wikipedia page because section 2.1.3 under East Slavic languages is incorrect according to you, i.e. that Ukrainian is basically Russian. See what will happen if you do that.
By your logic all these other languages are basically "Russian".
By your logic all these other languages are basically "Russian".
Wikipedia is not an authentic source for information. It can be edited by anyone.
That said, I am not claiming that all Slavic languages are the same. They are not. For example, Polish is as different from Russian as French is from English. But that doesn't hide the fact that the differences between Ukrainian and Russian are mostly artificial. Just like the differences between the Croat language and Serb language.
Except Ukrainian has a different alphabet than Russian.
Not at all. Ukrainian is basically Russian - Cyrillic - alphabet with 2 Latin characters (i and ї) inserted by the alphabet's creator Pantilemon Kulish to record particularities in the Galician dialect at the end of 1800s.
For graphical comparison see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabets
By that extension, write down particularities of Arkhangelsk speech, publish it as an "alphabet" and hey presto, you have country Arkhangelenia with nationality Arkhangelian. Neat, eh?
The following interview fragment is exceptionally telling:
http://www.aif.ru/society/people/ne_berite_primer_s_ameriki
(Grigori Krasovskij was born in Moscow in 1968, emigrated to USA in 1978 with his mother and grandmother (translator: I suspect by "the Jewish line" - the only way one could emigrate from USSR at that time), finished Columbian University, served in Police force of Florida, made a carrier as a lawyer. Moved back to Moscow. )
Quote
We arrived in Lugansk in early May 2014. We saw on TV what happened in Odessa, Slavyansk, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, and hoped that we still had time to visit relatives. My grandmother was 98 years old, my mother was 71. But after they were killed, this trip changed my life.
We watched the referendum (on the independence of Donbass - Ed.). I saw how people voluntarily and willingly went to vote. I saw the local guys who did not want nationalists to come bossing them. No "Russian occupiers" were there. Grandmother's lived on the southern outskirts of Lugansk, 150 meters from her house - the headquarters of border guards of the area. I went jogging there in the mornings and suddenly discovered that my smartphone's GPS was off-line. And that can only be done on the Pentagon's orders: they cut civil frequency, so that only military can use GPS for aiming. Later, I learned that at the outpost at the time there were several foreign experts, including one "American".
When I sent the request to Obama, I clearly knew that the actions of the Ukrainian military in Donbass, of the National Guard, of all of these battalions was supervised by US experts - from the CIA, the Pentagon and PMCs (private military companies - Ed.). I wish that the perpetrators are held accountable for everything that happened in Donbass. When they are killing women, children and the elderly - and not only by bombs and mines, but also hunger, lack of medicines, the blockade of issuing pensions - it is a crime against humanity.
I tried to appeal to the foreign media. But they told me that they were clearly warned - no articles on the subject. This applies even to the so-called opposition publications, such as "The Guardian." If you try to understand the conflict in Ukraine, you can learn more truth from the Russian media, than from CNN, BBC, Deutsche Welle and the rest. In America, more than 93% of the media is owned by five corporate groups, and behind them are the same financial investors, who control both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Therefore an average American will hear only what they want him to hear.
...
We watched the referendum (on the independence of Donbass - Ed.). I saw how people voluntarily and willingly went to vote. I saw the local guys who did not want nationalists to come bossing them. No "Russian occupiers" were there. Grandmother's lived on the southern outskirts of Lugansk, 150 meters from her house - the headquarters of border guards of the area. I went jogging there in the mornings and suddenly discovered that my smartphone's GPS was off-line. And that can only be done on the Pentagon's orders: they cut civil frequency, so that only military can use GPS for aiming. Later, I learned that at the outpost at the time there were several foreign experts, including one "American".
When I sent the request to Obama, I clearly knew that the actions of the Ukrainian military in Donbass, of the National Guard, of all of these battalions was supervised by US experts - from the CIA, the Pentagon and PMCs (private military companies - Ed.). I wish that the perpetrators are held accountable for everything that happened in Donbass. When they are killing women, children and the elderly - and not only by bombs and mines, but also hunger, lack of medicines, the blockade of issuing pensions - it is a crime against humanity.
I tried to appeal to the foreign media. But they told me that they were clearly warned - no articles on the subject. This applies even to the so-called opposition publications, such as "The Guardian." If you try to understand the conflict in Ukraine, you can learn more truth from the Russian media, than from CNN, BBC, Deutsche Welle and the rest. In America, more than 93% of the media is owned by five corporate groups, and behind them are the same financial investors, who control both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Therefore an average American will hear only what they want him to hear.
...
Ukraine made a mistake by allowing ethnic Russians to stay in Ukraine after 1991.
Soviet leadership made a mistake of creating Ukraine after 1917 and performing forced "Ukranisation" of the Russian population on those lands...
You mean Ukrainian republic under USSR. Ukraine first gained independence in 1991.
What other option they had? Wipe the native populations all together?
Bryant, the short history of Ukrainian "language" - in reality a local dialect, to which a partially latinised alphabet was adapted, an then enforced by the Austrians - is quite interesting. I'll have a publication on that later.
The funny thing is: if Ukrainian is a language, then transferring this attitude to Norway, one must admit that Bergensian, Trondheimian, Stavangerian are all different languages, which have nothing to do with Norwegian.
The funny thing is: if Ukrainian is a language, then transferring this attitude to Norway, one must admit that Bergensian, Trondheimian, Stavangerian are all different languages, which have nothing to do with Norwegian.
I don't have any issue at all, if they want to upgrade a dialect to a full-fledged language. But they should not impose it on anyone. In some of the former Yugoslav nations, they have already done that. For example, Bosnian, Serbian and Croat are essentially the same language. But they have artificially separated the language based on ethnicity. It is like saying that American English is a separate language, when compared to the Australian version of English.
Nemo, your Crimea article is in a Facebook group covering the sanctions, with a thousand members, which is a lot where I reside.
af_newbie
I'm sorry, but where did you find this nonsense?
I'm sorry, but where did you find this nonsense?
Russification done by Soviets was well done.
There was no russification, but there is a policy of forced ukrainization of russians, tatars, armenians, hungarians, romanians and even greeks by the soviet and ukrainian governments, which was ongoing since 1918. Russians to stay in Ukraine after 1991.
These regions were parts of Russian SFSR, which were ceded to newly formed Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1918. People didn't come from Mars, they were living there for centuries. force Russians to speak the new official language
So you are talking about ethnocide and ethnic cleansing, right? Should we also expel french speaking people from Quebec as well? This is exactly what is being made by orders of the current ukrainian "government".They should have done what Estonia and other Baltic countries did
Believe me, Estonia and Latvia both will eventually respond for their crimes against humanity. Ask the subjected nations about Russification, forced expulsions to Siberia. See what they have to say. Denying it is like saying Earth is flat. It does not make it true, because you don't believe in it. Ask any older Eastern European if they know Russian. How do you think Angela Merkel started learning Russian?
Russian was mandatory in all Soviet satellite countries. In Soviet republics is was an official language and as such a requirement for any job.
BTW, I did say that Russians did a good job, didn't I? They established Greater Russia and forced people to speak the official language. Every conquest has its downside. I argued that Ukrainians should have done the same thing in 1991. The new generation of Russian Ukrainians would identify with Ukraine. Now Ukrainians have to deal with Ukrainian Russians not Russian Ukrainians.
I'm not talking about "ethnocide" whatever that means. When the country was formed, its citizens should learn how to speak and write in the official language. When you become a naturalized citizen of any country, you have to demonstrate a good knowledge of its official language, history and the political system. You are taking an oath of citizenship in the official language. That is the requirement for citizenship in any country around the world, including Russia. Not sure what your objection is. I said that is what they should have done. Since they did not do it, now Russians in Ukraine demand a distinct status, rightfully so, IMHO.
What crimes against humanity did Estonia & Latvia commit? That is a serious allegation. Care to back it up? I hope it is not a threat. Maybe you are confusing it with the Soviet's Russian crimes against humanity when they established (by force BTW) USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention the genocide done during Russian Communist revolution and Stalin's purges on number of nations, including Russians.
Know your own history before you start revising history of others.
Ukraine made a mistake by allowing ethnic Russians to stay in Ukraine after 1991.
Soviet leadership made a mistake of creating Ukraine after 1917 and performing forced "Ukranisation" of the Russian population on those lands...
You mean Ukrainian republic under USSR. Ukraine first gained independence in 1991.
What other option they had? Wipe the native populations all together?
The highlighted statement above was not sounding true to me, so I gave it some thought. My conclusion: "Ukraine" is and was never an independent construct.
In a way, Ukraine was more independent within USSR, with the influential Ukrainian party apparatus, setting the tone of the overall politics of the Union; the soft Ukranisation of the Malorossian and Novorossian population that ended up in the Ukrainian SSR; and the mighty industrialisation of that part of the country.
Ukraine, by the time it got "independent" had the most powerful industrial sector, which over the last 2 decades got systematically destroyed, culminating in the final destruction of Yuzhmash last year and Antonov this year.
When you say "Ukraine first gained independence in 1991", what really happened is that the driving centre of the project for Ukranisation of Malorossia shifted to the new interested parties - this time in USA and Canada. Agenda changed a little and became more aggressive - echoing the ethnocidal and genocidal practice of the Austrian Empire during WWI and its concentration camps for the Russians/Rusins from Malorossia.
The strategy is still "divide and conquer". Those who don't want to get divided get destroyed - the burning of people in Odessa, shooting of people in Crimea, the wholesale murder of cities by artillery in Donbass.
Finally, English are very fond of translating regional names, so why not call "Ukraine" for what it is: "Borderlandia". A few centuries ago, Russian word "Ukraina" denoted the border lands not only West for Moskovia, but also to the East - Urals were also denoted as Ukraina. "Ukrainian" was not denoting a nationality, but a profession - a border guard.
Bryant, the short history of Ukrainian "language" - in reality a local dialect, to which a partially latinised alphabet was adapted, an then enforced by the Austrians - is quite interesting. I'll have a publication on that later.
The funny thing is: if Ukrainian is a language, then transferring this attitude to Norway, one must admit that Bergensian, Trondheimian, Stavangerian are all different languages, which have nothing to do with Norwegian.
Really? I thought Ukrainians had their own language and culture.
Western Ukrainians and Eastern Ukrainians are different groups of people. The language which is known as "Ukrainian" right now, is a Galician dialect native to Western Ukraine. On the other hand, the native language of the Eastern Ukraine is Russian. They don't want to learn Galician, which is more similar to Polish than their own native language.
Jump to: