There's an interesting question there whether the primary distinction for those "minorities with a stronger anti-Soviet sentiment" was ethnic or economic. It just so happens that your average Ukrainian (and, to a lesser extent, southern Russian) peasant was a fair bit more rich - partly because of better soil and climate, and partly because the brutal Russian take on serfdom wasn't practiced as long there as it had been in central Russia. And rich peasants were considered "economic enemies", which Soviets interpreted in very draconian terms (tainted the whole family).
But, of course, this possibility does not exclude the other. If this was the primary motivation, however, it neatly explains why some southern Russian regions were also severely affected despite not having any separatist tendencies.
How is your Russian ethnicity different from average Ukrainian?
But yes, there is, sadly, some discrimination. It's got nothing to do with ethnicity though; it's the same thing that happened to ordinary Germans in 1939-1945, and for the same reasons.
I'm not Russian or Ukrainian, but I suspect this stems from the Stalin's treatment of occupied Ukraine in the early 1930's, where so much of their grain was shipped out of the country that 25% of Ukraine's population had died by 1933.
If you are referencing Holodomor, then it was not targeted at Ukraine. Yes Ukraine was hit hard by it, having half of total death toll from communist-induced famine. But other half were also Russians and Kazakhs.
Bolsheviks while not being shy about ethnic-based genocide didn't really care about ethnicity of victims at that case.
He glosses over the fact that native Ukrainians in those regions were displaced in the 1930s during the Holodomor and replaced with Russian settlers. That might explain why Russian sentiment in those regions is high.
Resistence has been fierce in areas like Kiev where the majority is ethnic Ukrainian. But Russians made their large gains in the south where Russian culture and language is more widespread.
For example Russians took Kherson without too much resistance. It's a city where almost half speak Russian as native language.
I will point to the fact that before the collapse of Soviet Union, most Ukranians did not see any difference between them and Russians, and most of them voted for keeping Soviet Union intact in the referendum held on 17.3.1991 (as in most other USSR republics), ignored then by Yeltsin and other people who wanted to get their share of power sponsored by US. The division between Russia and Ukraine, as far as I know, was mostly administrative. In Odessa and Kiev people laughed at ukranian nationalism, which was then confined to L'vov and such places.
As for "hundreds of years", Russia was seen as liberator by the same eastern Europe when it fought against the Turks and nazi Germany, was seen as oppressor in some of Caucasus and in Poland, which in their turn thought it was their right to take the land of barbaric Russians. And in the Baltic states there are sources from the 16th century (Guagnini, an italian at the service of Polish court) which describe the Lithuanian Vitold governing Russians in Vilnius, stating that there seem to be more Russian Orthodox churches in Vilnius than catholic ones (and Guagnini cannot be suspected in sympathy to Russians).
So you see, you simplify history, and you do so, I think, first because you don't read, and then because your own country just changed one empire for another.
seperatists are eastern ukranians that dont want to be under central kiev government, run by ukranian nationalists with nazi sympathies. that they would rather see themselves as russian just goes to tell you how much of a failure the right wing policies of the ukranian government have been
Except Ukrainians are prepared to fight Russia to preserve their freedom and independence, that's the main difference. The majority of Russians just put up with a totalitarian regime after another because that's what they were always used to do. Also there are language differences, but almost everybody over 40 in Ukraine can speak Russian, mainly because Moscow tried very hard and pretty much succeeded erasing their history and culture.
Even Russia is very diverse ethnicaly and culturaly, as expected of such a huge country. The differences between the Far East, Sankt Petersbug, Daghestan and Buryatia are quite significant.
I don't think so. It's probably a propaganda of the new independent Ukraine government since 1991. Many of my relatives are stuck on Ukraine now because they moved there during USSR times because life there was better. They'd be happy to return to Russia, but they're old and they are citizens of Ukraine and if they sell their property in Ukraine, they'd be unable to buy real estate in Russia, so it's almost impossible for them to return. And they regret that dearly because of politics of nazism and poor state of economy.
Not all republics in USSR were equal, but differences weren't as big as they're now. And contrary to what current propaganda says, most prosperous republics were Baltic republics and Georgia. USSR was investing a lot of money in those republics to buy loyalty. You can find numbers in the USSR statistics. For example, USSR paid more for milk from farmers in Baltic republics than it cost in the grocery shops.
It was a big mistake to invest in those countries. Now they hate us the most despite all that effort and money poured there by Russia.
Who are ethnic Russians in Ukraine? People who move there after WW2 and their ancestors? Why is there so wide margin for the ethnic Russian population? 20-40%? is huge difference, it is from almost nothing to almost half. Either way it is too large. Even when we talk about Russians in Ukraine, it must be made clear what does it mean to be Russian. Is it somebody who self identifies itself Russian? Is it somebody who uses Russian as first language but considers itself Ukrainian?
Based on what is written about this article elsewhere, it looks to be based on small number of asylum seekers who have been attacked by gangs and lack of state investigation of these events. I find both facts plausible. The question is in interpretation. Was it because of systematic repression or because of incompetence and corruption?
This paper also investigates period between 1991 and 2001. It is more than 20 years back from today. A lot has changed from this time, especially since the new government in 2014.
Were you for example aware that most of the Azov Battalion fighters were Russian speakers and it consisted also number of Ukrainian Jews, also among its founders?
Historian Kamil Galeev has many very insightful Twitter threads about Ukraine and Russia (he is born in Kazan).
Very deep historical perspective about this conflict
Except the cultures are almost identical. Same religion, same food, same social norms and customs, same naming conventions, the two languages are mutually intelligible, most Ukrainians also speak Russian, hell even genetically they're almost the same (like I said, east of Galicia and west of Siberia).
I grew up in a Ukrainian-Canadian family, there was no animosity towards Russians whatsoever until the Orange Revolution and the fallout from that... They literally went to the same churches, did all the same things, it was objectively speaking the same culture.
> Most ethnic Russians
> in Ukraine support
> the action too
I think the cause and effect are reversed here: people choose the identity to reflect their political views. So, those who still choose the Russian identity often do so because they support Russia; but it's not a static group, their numbers are dwindling.
I believe that a lot of people who used to consider themselves Russians have now embraced Ukrainian identity to distance themselves from Russia.
The 'ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' in Ukraine has much more to do with self-identification than with anything else.
(I have an example of my grandfather. Having born near Khabarovsk, he moved to Lviv when he was twenty-some.
He considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, while all his family that stayed in Russia consider themselves ethnic Russians.
They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
'Ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' are not some stable groups where members of one cannot become members of another. Basically any Ukrainian can claim to be ethnic Russian, and almost any Russian from Ukraine (except perhaps late immigrants — but even those can usually find some Ukrainian roots) can claim to be ethnic Ukrainian.
> The inevitable outcome is that
> like with Crimea, Russia will
> successfully annex the parts
> of Ukraine that are
> overwhelmingly populated
> by Russians who prefer
> Russian rule.
I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
> 'Ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' are not some stable groups where members of one cannot become members of another. Basically any Ukrainian can claim to be ethnic Russian, and almost any Russian from Ukraine (except perhaps late immigrants — but even those can usually find some Ukrainian roots) can claim to be ethnic Ukrainian.
That may or may not be true, but having spoken with some that's not what they think. It's definitely not cut and dried. Even so, if you imagine a rainbow you could think of yellow as being west Slavic Ukrainian and green as east Slavic Russian. Then sure, you have a fair amount of yellow-green in the spectrum, but that doesn't mean yellow and green don't both exist as meaningful categories.
I do agree thought that many, even perhaps most, Slavic people in the region can trace themselves back to Rurik's days and thus have some tie to the various successor states.
> They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
How much of this was due to the founding of Ukraine and the somewhat artificial creation of a new Ukrainian nationality to supersede Ruthenian and whatever else people who lived there called themselves before? I honestly have no idea on this, but from a distance it looks like the standard consequences of a great power coming in and drawing borders without much regard for the ethnic groups living there.
I have a Polish buddy whose uncle lives in western Ukraine. The uncle considers himself Ukrainian, but his Polish family all consider him Polish. The Ukrainian he speaks even sounds to them like Polish with funny grammar.
It's nice and all to say people choose their identity, but one observable fact about ethnic conflicts is that your self-identity matters considerably less than how others identify you. Look at the powerful west Slav bias in Poland's refugee acceptance for example.
> I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
One nice thing about this conversation is we're both making verifiable predictions. So let's see how it shakes out.
If you look at surveys conducted even when the region was under Ukraine, you'll see that it's always had a very pro-Russia bias (Eastern Ukraine in general was staunchly opposed to the Euromaiden protests).
However, it's worth mentioning that Eastern Ukraine has also been heavily targeted with Russian propaganda for decades now and it's quite likely that had an impact. I haven't read into it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also encourage Russians to move to Ukraine to make it more ethnically Russian. This is pretty much in the playbook of every colonizer (e.g. Israel with Palestine, Morocco with SADR, or China with Xinjiang).
It's not just about borders. Ukraine has some Russian Empire's/USSR's most fertile land. It was facing serious overpopulation (i.e. peasants with no land to work on) in the end of the 19th century, while Russia had a lot of unpopulated land in Siberia and the Far East, facing imperial Japan and potentially China.
Ukrainian peasants were offered free land and transport if they moved east in an attempt to solve these two problems, and many used the opportunity.
But, of course, this possibility does not exclude the other. If this was the primary motivation, however, it neatly explains why some southern Russian regions were also severely affected despite not having any separatist tendencies.
reply