The history of that region is indeed very long and very complex, and the black and white picture painted by both western and Russian media is downright frustrating.
To give examples, Crimea was historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian, it was Tatar, and Ukraine is itself a weird cultural patchwork of Poles, Lithuanians, Prussians, Russians and a long list of other minor ethnic groups.
>Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
> I ask, what is its identity? Because historically it has close ties to Russia and a shared history with all Slavic people...
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. This is exactly what the protesters are fighting. The fact that there are protesters on the streets right now is proof enough.
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. 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. By that logic Poland has nearly as much claim on Ukraine as Russia does. Or, and I really like this one, Russia is just a part of Ukraine, and should immediately surrender all of its territories to Kiev immediately. After all Kiev was where Russia came from when Moscow was an insignificant fortress in the north.
>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.
> 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.
> However, it uses the Russian spelling of Crimean place names on its maps in Russia, rather than the Ukrainian spelling.
The vast majority of people in Crimea are Russian speakers (as well as being ethnically Russian). It's been that way since the Russian Empire conquered the peninsula from the Ottomans in 1783. In fact, there's nearly as many Tartar (descendents of Ottomans) speakers in Crimea than Ukrainian. Last time I was there (early this year), I saw a number of new mosques under construction.
I'm not justifying the recent annexation, just noting the linguist realities on the ground. Also, politics aside, if you ever have the chance to visit, do it. The peninsula is very beautiful and there's lots of interesting geographical features and historical sights to see. Also, the infrastructure has improved significantly since the Russian takeover (unfortunately Ukraine being poor, neglected the peninsula after the collapse of the USSR) so getting around is easier now.
> 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.
> Demographically, Russian speakers in this part were reliant on Ukraine for much of its access to natural resources and capital, there is a sense of being poor and looked down upon by the Ukranians in the West and its exactly this class divide that fuels ethno-nationalism.
You mean: like Latvia. Where it works just fine.
> To simply whip out a PDF and scream disinformation seem awfully short sighted way to influence people's opinions especially because it is condescending to the average HN user who has access to a plethora of fact finding search engines and social media to judge what the truth is.
Yes, the truth is: the Eastern part of Ukraine was the poorest, mostly because of the flow of capital going West-to-East, like in most countries that border even poorer countries to their East and richer countries to their West.
> It's up to the readers to gather information themselves and find the truths, not have it shoved down their throat in some emotional mania state of us vs them primal instincts.
Ah, the 'do your own research' bit. Yes, I remember that from some other context.
> Ukraine was never part of the West and it can never be if you understand the military strategic value of its flatlands.
> It has nothing to do with multiple large ethnic groups that tend to cause tension in the long run, see Israel and Donbas for example.
Please elaborate. As somebody from the East of Ukraine (and, incidentally, as someone who lived in Israel for some years too), I am curious what I am supposed to learn about ethnic tensions from these two examples.
> 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.
> Demographically, Russian speakers in this part were reliant on Ukraine for much of its access to natural resources and capital, there is a sense of being poor and looked down upon by the Ukranians in the West and its exactly this class divide that fuels ethno-nationalism.
Half of Ukraine speaks Russian, including most of Kyiv. It wasn't looked down until Russia started the aggression. If anything western Ukraine (being less wealthy) was stereotypized as less developed and Ukrainian language was associated with that.
It became fashionable for Russian speaking Ukrainians to switch to speak Ukrainian after 2014 which is understandable.
In short you're wrong about almost everything.
> Ukraine was never part of the West and it can never be if you understand the military strategic value of its flatlands.
Ukraine was part of the west for over 300 years and why should it matter anyway? Ukrainians have the right to decide what they want to do.
> 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.
> 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.
>That's a very complicated situation that has been going on for a very long time.
So is the Russia / Ukraine situation. They have been fighting for more than 300 years. Russia even annexed Crimea in the 1700s. The idea that it is not long or complicated seems erroneous to me. History didn't start when you were born.
>It's not a useful comparison to Ukraine defending itself from an invader. Repeatedly trying to introduce Israel here just sounds (to me) like you're arguing in bad faith.
The problem is both Israel and Ukraine consider themselves as being on the defensive. Israel is trying to retake the land they controlled a few thousand years ago while Ukraine is trying to retake land they controlled a couple decades ago.
At what point is it no longer your land? You probably don't think Israel has a legitimate claim over Palestine so obviously 2500 years ago is too much. The Kievan Rus (ancestors to Ukraine) took Ukraine in 1037 so you obviously don't think the people who controlled Ukraine prior to them are the legitimate owners of the land. You think Ukraine should control Crimea so 20 years ago is legitimate.
At what point is the cut off? 50 years? 100? If Russia controls Crimea for that long would you say Russia is the legitimate ruler?
My issue with this whole argument is that people don't have any underlying principles on which they are forming their views. It is strictly emotional.
If somebody shouldn't be forced to offensively support Israel than they shouldn't be forced to offensively support Ukraine. The only difference is the time frame.
Probably quite favorably. There appears to be broad support for Ukrainians across the entire political spectrum in the western world. I can’t think of any other recent issues that have united the western world so completely.
No problem. Thanks for reading it. It was somewhat cathartic to write.
> It just shows how we just see one side of the picture in the West.
Yes, and feel I could only make sense of the differences because I grew up and lived first half of my life West. As such, I fully understand both cultures and the "feel" of them, but also have two sets of sources for history, general approaches to politics, and news.
I firml believe had I not originally been son of immigrants, it wouldn't have been so.
> Also, if I may add to this: according to polls in 2013[1], popular support for Ukraine joining NATO was very low.
Thanks, I didn't know about that! All this time, based on personal experience, I actually believed outrigh support to be between 35-40%. Eye opening !
> This is to say that maybe it was more like "the US was pushing for Ukraine to be part of NATO" rather than Ukraine (as in the Ukraininan people) "was the one asking for NATO membership".
> Especially how the Ukrainian speaking part of Ukraine has treated the Russian speaking Ukrainians
I live in Poland. I was in Ukraine many times. I work with Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians. My cousin married an Ukrainian. There's millions of them here. Literally nobody except for Russian propagandists ever complained about abuse of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
Kyiv (the capital) was mostly Russian-speaking till very recently. Most of Ukrainian politicians up to this point were Russian speaking. 5 of 6 presidents of Ukraine so far come from eastern Ukraine and were speaking Russian as their first language - including all the western-leaning ones (Yushchenko, Poroshenko, Zelenski).
Eastern ("russian-speaking") Ukraine is much more wealthy, almost all big cities and universities are there - because it's where the natural resources are. Western Ukraine is mostly countryside. Most of the Ukrainian elites come from the east.
Most Ukrainians speak both languages and switch depending on the context.
Ukrainian got more popular not because of some imagined persecution, but because Ukrainians started to associate Russian language with invaders and genociders after Russians:
- poisoned presidential candidate
- falsified elections
- invaded Crimea and Donbas
- annexed Donbas
- invaded the rest of Ukraine
This didn't started in 2014 - it started in 2004.
As for neo-nazis exerting control - neonazis tried to run for parliament after 2014. They got 0.7% of votes. That's lower than in most countries in the western Europe, including Germany (AfD has ~15% support) and my own country Poland.
Not to mention that Russia currently is a totalitarian dictatorship that actively promotes killing Ukrainians on the TV. There's more neonazis in one russian division than in the whole of Ukraine.
Thank you for that nuanced point of view.
The history of that region is indeed very long and very complex, and the black and white picture painted by both western and Russian media is downright frustrating.
To give examples, Crimea was historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian, it was Tatar, and Ukraine is itself a weird cultural patchwork of Poles, Lithuanians, Prussians, Russians and a long list of other minor ethnic groups.
reply