> Regarding Russia/Ukraine conflict there's even more. There's no separate Ukrainian nation. It's not genes, it's not anything else
You seem to think that because Ukrainians and Russians have some shared heritage (cultural, linguistic and biological), they cannot be separate nations. But many other pairs of nations also share a significant degree of these things – Germany and Austria (and German-speaking Switzerland too), France and Belgium (Wallonia), Belgium and the Netherlands (Flanders), the US and Canada, the UK and Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Do you apply the same standards to any of them?
> Republic of Ukraine was created by Lenin and later was supported by Stalin who promoted "ukrainization" of eastern regions of Russia.
Neither Lenin nor Stalin invented the Ukrainian nationalist movement. There were already people within Ukraine who viewed themselves as belonging to a distinct nation from Russia; Lenin and Stalin just decided to ally themselves with some of these people and grant them some of their policy wishes.
> We do not yet fully understand why they did it
Marxism was originally an anti-nationalist movement–hence, it was very natural for the Bolsheviks to oppose Russian nationalism and support the demands of ethnic minorities for autonomy. Then, in the 1930s, Stalin gradually changed his mind about the topic – he began to see ethnic autonomy movements as a potential threat to his rule, and started promoting Russian nationalism and Russification in response.
>Ukraine has existed as a country for a very long time. It has been fought over and divided by neighboring countries for most of its existence. I am saying that it's time for Ukrainians to find, define, and defend their identity.
I ask, what is its identity? Because historically it has close ties to Russia and a shared history with all Slavic people. In fact, how do we define what Ukraine was over history, since if that image I posted is correct most of it's territory was given by the Russian empire or Soviet leaders. Furthermore, Kiev was just as much the birthplace of Russia as Ukraine- current Russia and Ukraine were once indistinguishable as the principality of Kiev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rus_de_Kiev_en_1237.png
>Stalin wanted to assimilate the rest of the soviet republics into one homogenized Russian-based people. Holodomor was a part of it. Re-read the Wikipedia article and the primary sources.
Re. Stalin: Let's not re-write history. USSR was Russia and Russia was USSR. No other country really mattered under Stalin and it was the Russian way or the highway.
Perhaps I am not familiar enough with it. Nonetheless, interesting how the hundreds of years of years of shared history should be disregarded because of the actions of one man who was ethnically neither Ukrainian nor Russian, and yet, according to you, killed Ukrainians in the name of Russians.
>Lots of them were banished from the island by Russian Empire.
You either use this as a very politically loaded term for Stalinist Soviet Union (which is a problem with your post on its own right), or you are wrong.
>- But russians usually don't remember Dagestan(Russia) or the Chechen Republic(Russia) where the number of russians is less than 5%. Or Belgium with german speaking people .
Russia and Belgium, unlike Ukraine, aren't nation states. Russia is a multi-ethnic country, which is stated in its constitution.
> Ukrainian regions were a part of the Russian Empire for quite a long time. Why would they not join Russia?
Why should they?
>- Crimea is an autonomy, but even now russians stimulated by pro-Russia politicians say that they want Ukraine to be a federation. Do they know what is the difference between autonomy and federation?
So some Russians say one thing, other Russians say different things, so what? I tell you that there is a great deal of difference between unitary state with some autonomies and federation (which is obvious really, think Spain and USA).
>If you look at the Russian Imperial Census of 1897 you will see that people living in the eastern part of modern Ukraine were 80-90% ukrainian speaking. And now if you go to the country area of eastern regions you will see lots of ukrainian speaking people.
How is the census of 1897 related? You wouldn't say parts of Far East and Siberia, which were predominantly Ukrainian-speaking then should be parts of Ukraine now?
>There were 3 man-made famine in Ukrainian SSR conducted by Soviet regime and lots of repressions killed more ukrainians than ukrainians died during the 2 World War.
Oh, now 3 man-made famines specifically designed to destroy Ukrainian nation, great. What do you think of people of Lower Volga, North Caucasus and Siberia who perished of famine of 1932-1933? I guess you prefer not to notice their existence because they don't serve your political goals of the day.
>And now guess what Stalin does? He invites russians to the industrial western part of Ukraine. This region required a work force at that time.
Yeah, I guess it's also Stalin (a Georgian btw) who put all the iron ore and coal there, just to extinguish all the Ukrainians so when Ukraine becomes independent there are less Ukrainian-speaking people there? What a prophet, wasn't he? Or should he just ignore industrial potential of Eastern Ukraine whatsoever?
This is a really telling example of Russia-directed scare-mongering, I feel uneasy about it, as a Russian.
That's beside the point. Right now, there's a growing nationalist sentiment growing in Ukraine. If you go to Ukraine and shout this historical fact in the streets of, say, Kiyv, you might just encounter a group of people who violently disagree with the "underlying idea" (which you won't express, but they'll perceive) that Ukraine is Russia's bitch.
Imagine shouting about the Armenian genocide in Instanbul, or about the extermination and oppression of Native Americans in a major city in Texas.
Maybe not exactly, but you get the idea.
> My ancestors never immigrated from a country called Ukraine even though they were Ukrainian (or back then often called Ruthenian)
> Ukraine was geographically and culturally part of Russia for centuries
No, it wasn't, though much of it was politically, through conquest, part of Russia for a couple centuries (and a bit more of of it for just over one century) prior to the formation of the USSR, and there was certainly an intense effort by Russia to colonize Ukraine with Russians to break it's distinct culture during that period where much of it was under the Russian imperial rule.
Clearly, you view Russia’s own territory as anything that has ever in the past been subjugated by Russia independently of where modern nation-states lie, and in that respect, sure, Russia may be primarily concerned with fighting wars to re-establish empire in those places.
But that's not a sign of a peace-loving nation, but instead of a warmongering imperialist one that prioritizes restoring it's “glorious” past.
> Except Ukrainians and Russians are the same people
I don't think that's for either of us to declare.
I'm at least quarter-Ukrainian from my father's side (I think my parental grandfather was Russian, but parental grandmother was certainly Ukrainian). You sound like you have much less than that in you. We're in no position to dictate who's one people and who aren't.
I do consider Ukrainians and Belarussians brotherly peoples, from my view as a Russian. I wish either of them no harm, and all the best, and hope that no major conflict arises between either of the three.
But they're going to be the ones to tell me what nation they are and what other traits they identify themselves with.
> and Slavic culture has always been defined by culture, not necessarily ethnicity.
I don't think Slavic culture – if there is, indeed, such a thing – defines itself with itself. It can't be its own description, see?
Aside from that... Don't you think there's this whole new massive issue of nationality that defines a people?
> You must also understand that in Russian culture it was common to mock Ukrainians as dumb farmer hicks, while thinking of themselves as highly technologically advanced.
Where did you get this info from? My experience growing up in USSR (in areas that are now Russia and Ukraine) was totally different. Ukraine had a reputation (well deserved) as a major tech hub. Most of Soviet space industry (military for one) was there -- rockets, missiles, rocket engines, electronics. Kyiv University was one of the major places of learning rivaling MGU (Moscow State University). People from all over the Soviet Union were fighting nail and tooth to be allowed to move and live in Kyiv. Yes, there were folk-jokes (anekdoty) about Ukrainians like about anybody else. This does not reflect in any form upon the fact that Ukraine was very highly developed republic within USSR. 3 out of 7 leader of USSR were Ukrainians (Khrushchev - 8 years, Brezhnev - 18 years in power, Chernenko - 2 years). Ukraine has always been a force to recon with.
>This is exactly the patronizing point of view that the Russians take of the Ukrainian identity: that it does not exist or that Ukraine is simply a part of Russia.
Personally I believe Ukraine and Russia should be equals in whatever future association they make. I see nothing wrong with saying Russia should equally be a part of Ukraine. It is just easier to imagine the opposite because Russia is bigger.
>This is exactly what the protesters are fighting. The fact that there are protesters on the streets right now is proof enough.
There are all sorts of protesters out there, and I have read that most of them are protesting corruption, not the trade agreement or East vs West. Anyway, let the elections decide.
>Just because one country invades another and subjugates its people for a period of time, does not make the occupied country a part of the occupying country.
Except Ukraine willingly joined the Russian empire in 1654. And again, many Ukrainians would like closer ties to Russia.
>Moreover, any cultural identity does not exist in a vacuum. By your logic we can argue that the US has no identity of its own and is still just a breakaway British colony that is due to join the UK any day now.
The similarity is that the US and the UK have very strong relations, and a difference is that many hundreds of years have elapsed since the American revolution. But, similarly, during the American revolution, there were royalists, and a foreign power (the French) did intervene to defeat the British. The point is that many Ukrainians would like closer ties to Russia, particularly those in the East.
Also, why pick the US when you can pick Canada- the Queen still comes by to visit, we have a governor-general, we are part of the commonwealth, and so on. A lot of people here feel close ties to the UK because of their British heritage.
Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or control over other countries (usually through coercion) to pursue its interests.
British political theorist Roger Griffin has stated that ultranationalism is essentially xenophobic and is known to legitimise itself "through deeply mythicized narratives of past cultural or political periods of historical greatness or of old scores to settle against alleged enemies".
I'm sure you will agree that the general Russian attitude toward Ukrainians fits that description. In my reply above, I gave references to show that it also describes a Ukrainian perspective toward ethnic Russians in Ukraine. The Russian case more fits the first quote and the Ukrainian more fits the second.
I gave Taras Kuzio as an example because he is a Ukrainian historian who is well-known in the West. Richard Sakwa is interesting to read alongside Kuzio because they cover the same history but from opposing perspectives.
Thank you for the Times of Israel article about the Azov fighter. That was quite interesting to get a first-hand perspective.
>> Based on what is written about this article elsewhere...
BTW, if you know of references discussing the Jeffrey Burds article, I really do want to see them.
> All the Russian speaking Ukrainians are pro Ukraine and want the Russians out.
I didn't say they wanted Russian occupation necessarily, just that they were separatist from Ukraine. They were all significantly in favor of Ukrainian independence from USSR of course.
> So how likely do you think it is that those regions are really separatist?
Are you in denial of the existence of Ukrainian separatist regions and the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic?
> what would the alternative reasons be and why would he not want to spell them out?
He has spelled it out before--he believes that Ukrainians are really Russians, and therefore Ukraine should not exist as a separate country because why divide a nation in two.
> Ethnic cleansing? Never mind that Russians and Ukrainians have the same ethnicity, what is this supposed to mean?
They really don't. Even ignoring the fact that it's idiotic to talk about a single Russian ethnicity given the Russian Federation is comprised of multiple distinct ethnic and cultural heritages, Ukraine has a distinct and independent ethnicity.
Just because they look alike to you and you can't tell apart which language is which, that does not mean they are not separate and distinct ethnicities. Hell, don't take my word for it. Just listen to what Russia's regime has to say about Ukraine and what they perceive their untermensch role towards Russia should be to understand how silly it is to not talk about ethnic cleansing.
> Ukraine has far more in common with Russia culturally than with America.
So do Serbia, Bulgaria and to a much lesser extent Poland, Latvia and a bunch of others. That does not mean that they are not sovereign countries though.
> My dad worked extensively in Ukraine doing public health development. He was remarking to me the other day how even though it and Russia purported to be part of Europe, they reminded him much more of the developing nations in Asia that he’s worked in than Western Europe.
They are culturally and ideologically closer than anything in Asia. Economically, maybe.
> Historically, there was not much holding back punches between Russia and Ukraine. You may start reading about Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not.
This is such a demagogy and a narrow-sighted view of history. It is always brought up only for the purpose of pouring more oil on the flames and turning up nationalistic tensions.
Holodomor has nothing to do with Ukrainians or Russians. It had happened all over the Soviet Union.
Much more Kazakhs had died relatively to their total population, and almost the same amount of Russians in an absolute value.
Hungers of 1930s were a global event, not something conjured by one particularly nasty Georgian.
Yes Azov was founded right after, which tells you already there is some correlation with the Maidan. But do you think Azov was founded by a bunch of newborns, or maybe by the same militarly trained people who participated in the Maidan?
> The irony here is that you claim to be concerned about the dangers of Nazism. But then almost in the same breath, you dive head-first into weird tribalist diatribes like this.
So since you have nothing to deny the fact that Ukraine's identity is deeply rooted in nazism and violence, you resort to defining what I say as "weird tribalist diatribes", which is nonsense.
> I don't think you'd see anything close to this level of resistance if victory would mean an authoritarian Ukraine rather than a democratic Ukraine.
Ah, well: I do.
I think this has extraordinarily little to do with any "political system", of which Ukraine and Russia were both quite similar.
One Nation invaded another, and in such moments people's nationalism is trigged. One defends' "one's own nation" regardless.
This is a vastly more powerful reaction than any intellectual-sentimental philosophy. This "Nation" is "Ours" and not "Yours".
Indeed, the heart of the matter is that Russia isnt nationalist. They're still operating in a pre-National era of loose ethnicities being "of a common group" and hence do not think these borders matter so much.
What russia hasnt fully understood is that essentially the rest of the world has become nationalist, whilst it still operates under an ethnic-imperial model.
> And it's not the first time the Russians have committed genocide against Ukrainians
im curious, when do you think was the first one? i mean there was the period of famine while ukraine was part of the ussr, but if thats what you mean lets get few simple facts straight
1) ukraine was an equal republic of the ussr
2) russia was a seperate republic of the ussr. russia had no authority about what goes on in ukraine
3) ussr at that time had a supreme ruler who was of georgian ethnicity
so even if we agree that systematic genocide did happen, it is very hard to argue that russia had anything to do with it
curiously, every time a russian ruled ussr, ukraine was rather well off. for example, under lenin ussr promoted ukranianization [1], under
khrushchev ukraine got gifted crimea, while the ussr got a ukranian as its supreme leader [2]
The point is that in case of Ukraine the pro-russian half of the population did not want to be governed by us-installed government who started their reign by changing the language legislature in favor of the ukranian language. The anti-russian political tilt resulted in federalisation demands from the eastern regions as well as crimea which progressed into full-blown separatism (eventually supported by russia).
I believe it is quite immoral to blame Russia for supporting pro-russian separatists when the federal government installed by the US was effectively nationalistic.
> There are Ukrainians and Ukrainians. There’s no other people that want “other country”.
This is very untrue. East Ukraine is mostly Russian ethnically. Even languages are different in Western and Eastern Ukraine.
Before 2014 some guys who are now in Azov Batallion identified themselves an Russian nationalists.
While many things changed since, there are still many people on the East who identify themselves as Russians.
Think about it - Mariupol was taken by DPR troops and Crimean marines. Basically by people who live on territories Ukraine claims its own. Donetsk is shelled
> Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples.
Except they really are all different situations. Turks and Kurds are completely different ethnic groups with different languages, origins and history. Kurds are closely related to Iranians, not Turks.
> Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no?
Because there's revisionist history which states Ukrainians and Russians are different ethnic groups. They're not. They've shared the same history and culture for over a thousand years, they're the same ethnic group. Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples.
You seem to think that because Ukrainians and Russians have some shared heritage (cultural, linguistic and biological), they cannot be separate nations. But many other pairs of nations also share a significant degree of these things – Germany and Austria (and German-speaking Switzerland too), France and Belgium (Wallonia), Belgium and the Netherlands (Flanders), the US and Canada, the UK and Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Do you apply the same standards to any of them?
> Republic of Ukraine was created by Lenin and later was supported by Stalin who promoted "ukrainization" of eastern regions of Russia.
Neither Lenin nor Stalin invented the Ukrainian nationalist movement. There were already people within Ukraine who viewed themselves as belonging to a distinct nation from Russia; Lenin and Stalin just decided to ally themselves with some of these people and grant them some of their policy wishes.
> We do not yet fully understand why they did it
Marxism was originally an anti-nationalist movement–hence, it was very natural for the Bolsheviks to oppose Russian nationalism and support the demands of ethnic minorities for autonomy. Then, in the 1930s, Stalin gradually changed his mind about the topic – he began to see ethnic autonomy movements as a potential threat to his rule, and started promoting Russian nationalism and Russification in response.
reply