Latvia getting a taste of Ukraine's nightmare?
The Black Monk
Russian party set to win Latvian election
Today at 17:08
RIGA, Latvia — A center-left ethnic Russian party looks poised to top
the polls in Latvia's general election Saturday, the first time in the
country's 20 years of independence that a pro-Russia party would win
the most seats in Parliament.
Harmony Center, which predominantly consists of ethnic Russians living
in Latvia, almost certainly will not win a majority in the 100-seat
legislature — nor would it be guaranteed a role in the next
government.
However, a strong showing would most likely allow the party to sit in
a future coalition given the high rate of government turnover in the
tiny Baltic state.
Many people fear that Harmony Center would steer Latvia, a country of
2.3 million people, away from NATO and the European Union — it joined
both in 2004 — and toward Russia.
Leaders of Harmony Center, which controls the city council in the
capital, Riga, deny the accusation, though they acknowledge they would
like to recall Latvia's troops from the NATO-led mission in
Afghanistan.
Regardless, the next government will immediately be tasked with making
large budget cuts and tax hikes as part of an austerity program put
together by the International Monetary Fund and the EU.
After four years of stellar growth fueled by a borrow-and-spend boom,
Latvia's economy nose-dived two years ago and has since shed some 25
percent of its size — one of the worst recessions in the world.
Unemployment reached nearly 25 percent, and tens of thousands of young
people fled for greener pastures in countries like England and
Ireland.
Only a €7.5 billion ($10.3 billion) emergency bailout package put
together by the IMF and the EU in December 2008 saved Latvia from
bankruptcy.
President Valdis Zatlers, who has the right to nominate the next prime
minister, has said that one of the criteria in his selection will be a
strict adherence to the bailout program. He also said he would not
allow any shifts in foreign policy, a clear hint that he would be
reluctant to let Harmony Center form the next government.
Analysts agree that the probable third-place winner, the populist
Greens and Farmers Union, will be the kingmaker in any future
coalition as it will hold enough seats to give a majority to either
Harmony Center or Unity, a centrist bloc that controls the current
government and is expect to finish second.
"I voted for Harmony Center," said Sergei Nosov, a Russian who moved
to Latvia 25 years ago and passed the citizenship exam. "I've seen
that something's being done in Riga. They're doing exactly what they
promised before municipal elections."
Raivis Lazdins, a Latvian, said Harmony Center couldn't be trusted.
"They're friends with the Kremlin party United Russia, which is led by
(Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin, so voting for them would be
crazy," said Lazdins, adding that he was going to cast his ballot for
Unity.
The Central Election Committee said voter turnout was 35.7 percent
with four hours remaining before polls closed, which is less than the
same time four years ago. Lines have formed at some voting stations
and led some potential voters to walk away, according to reports.
Read more: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/#ixzz11DO6j5yB
---------------
What percentage of the sets are they projected to get?
BM
vello
Harmony Center is a bit too poetic name for one serious political
party? Maybe it sounds better in Latvian.
Eugene Holman
What is your informed take on this?
Over,
Eugene Holman
EZ
I also would be really interested to hear the implications of the
election outcome.
Hopefully Harmony or Unity ('Vienotība') is not similar to 'Jedinstvo'
in Lithuania in 1991:
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4111&p_d=62825&p_k=2
Best regards,
EZ
Tadas Blinda
Of course they are like Jedinstvo. For those who didn't bother to
open the link, here's the reference to Jedinstvo (which, for the non-
Russian speakers, means 'Unity', just like 'Vienotība' – no
coincidence, that):
8 January 1991
In Šimonių village, Kupiškis Region, six men dressed in
civilian clothes arrived by military ambulance and forcibly took away
Linas Černiauskas, who refused to serve in the Soviet army. Criminal
proceedings were started against him.
In the Kremlin, Soviet president Gorbachev received
Lithuanian prime minister Prunskienė and Lithuania’s Representative in
Moscow Egidijus Bičkauskas. The Lithuanian prime minister asked
Gorbachev not to pursue the announced forcible drafting of Lithuanian
young men into the Soviet army. The issue of Lithuanian-Soviet
intergovernmental negotiations was discussed. Gorbachev said that this
issue would be resolved in the sitting of the Federation Council on
February 12.
From the very morning people started to gather near the
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania. The majority of them
were Russian-speaking people invited to the protest action by
Jedinstvo and the CPSU. Athletically built men armed with stones and
iron bars were seen in the crowd. The meeting urged overturning the
Lithuanian Government and the chairman of the Supreme Council.
At 9.45 a.m. Chairman of the Supreme Council Landsbergis
went on the radio and TV and invited Lithuanian people to come to the
Supreme Council Building and support the government. At 10 a.m. people
invited by Jedinstvo and the CPSU stormed the central entrance of the
Supreme Council Building, tore down the doors and started to force
their way into the Supreme Council. Thirty people succeeded; however,
the security guards shortly forced them outside.
Vidas
> On Oct 2, 12:18 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > Calling Petris in Daugavpils!
>
> > What is your informed take on this?
>
> > Over,
> > Eugene Holman
Not sure if Peteris has access to SCB at the moment.
>
> I also would be really interested to hear the implications of the
> election outcome.
>
> Hopefully Harmony or Unity ('Vienotība') is not similar to 'Jedinstvo'
> in Lithuania in 1991:http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4111&p_d=62825&p_k=2
>
> Best regards,
> EZ
Vienotiba, as a political party, is not anywhere close to anything
comparable to Jedintsvo. Harmony Center claims to represent the
interests of Russian speakers in Latvia, but I'm not sure I could
compare it to Jedinstvo either.
Vienotiba is the party of current PM Dombrovskis and is aligned center
right.
Vidas
> http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> Russian party set to win Latvian election
> Today at 17:08
> RIGA, Latvia — A center-left ethnic Russian party looks poised to top
> the polls in Latvia's general election Saturday, the first time in the
> country's 20 years of independence that a pro-Russia party would win
> the most seats in Parliament.
Didn't happen. Not even close.
> Read more:http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/#ixzz11DO6j5yB
>
> ---------------
>
> What percentage of the sets are they projected to get?
>
> BM
Harmony Center went from 18 seats before to 28 now. The current ruling
minority government went from 47 seats to 63. The Latvian Parliament
has 100 seats total.
anita
>
> Of course they are like Jedinstvo. For those who didn't bother to
> open the link, here's the reference to Jedinstvo (which, for the non-
> Russian speakers, means 'Unity', just like 'Vienotība' – no
> coincidence, that):
How interesting Gintai - that's almost a Hui-like political analysis.
Well, they both use the word that translates to something like Unity,
so they must be the same...
Dmitry
> party? Maybe it sounds better in Latvian.
In English it sounds a bit strange. The original sound is in Russian
"centr soglasija" (most of the party members are Russian-speaking) - I
would have translated it as "centre of agreement", but I'm not a
translator so might be wrong. In Latvian it is "saskan'as centrs".
Dmitry
They support Russian language becoming functional in public
administration as well as in Higher Education, turning non-citizen
part of population into citizens and increased public spending.
Dmitry
> On Oct 2, 10:17 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> > Russian party set to win Latvian election
> > Today at 17:08
> > RIGA, Latvia — A center-left ethnic Russian party looks poised to top
> > the polls in Latvia's general election Saturday, the first time in the
> > country's 20 years of independence that a pro-Russia party would win
> > the most seats in Parliament.
>
> Didn't happen. Not even close.
>
> > Read more:http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/#ixzz11DO6j5yB
>
> > ---------------
>
> > What percentage of the sets are they projected to get?
>
> > BM
>
> Harmony Center went from 18 seats before to 28 now.
I suppose it is a fair representation, there are about 30% of Russian-
speaking population in Latvia.
Dmitry
Hui would have said - they're all ruskies who should have been put on
free busses and sent back to matushka and that would have also
included Peteris who is a russian agent -))
Tadas Blinda
Oh, OK, I got confused by Evaldas saying:
« Hopefully Harmony or Unity ('Vienotība') is not similar to
'Jedinstvo' in Lithuania in 1991:
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4111&p_d=62825&p_k=2 »
from which it appeared that Vienotība was another name for Harmony
Centre. Sack-cloth and ashes for me today.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unity (Latvian: Vienotība) is a Latvian right-wing party alliance
founded on 6 March 2010 by the New Era Party, the Civic Union and the
Society for Other Politics. It was reportedly founded in a bid to form
a counterweight to the left-wing Harmony Centre alliance, which had
been strengthening in polls and elections, while the other right-wing
parties (People's Party, For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK and LPP/LC)
were below the electoral threshold of 5%.
Tadas Blinda
> On 3 Oct, 01:50, anita <kod...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 6:45 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > > Of course they are like Jedinstvo. For those who didn't bother to
> > > open the link, here's the reference to Jedinstvo (which, for the non-
> > > Russian speakers, means 'Unity', just like 'Vienotība' – no
> > > coincidence, that):
>
> > so they must be the same...
>
> Hui would have said - they're all ruskies who should have been put on
> free busses and sent back to matushka and that would have also
> included Peteris who is a russian agent -))
It just goes to show that a nice innocent word ('Unity', 'Vienotība',
'Jedinstvo') has now been contaminated. Rather like the phrase "Right
to Life".
anita
Yah, he probably should have said "are", not "is" - they're two very
different parties. No harm no foul! (And I think that's the first
time I've seen you don sack-cloth... good for you!)
vello
It's much better in Russian, sure. This way it makes some point.
Ostap Bender
> http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> Russian party set to win Latvian election
The situation in Latia is NOTHING like the situation in Ukraine. As
you yourself claim, the Eastern half of Ukraine is Russia, while
almost none of Latvia (with the possible exception of Dvinsk) is
Russia.
J. Anderson
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd81aade-1ae1-46a6...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> From a biological perspective Yanukovich is half Belarusian and half
> Ukrainian, but culturally (which is what matters) he is purely Soviet,
> as is the rest of his region.
'Biological'? Please write 'ancestral' instead. Biologically we're all the
same species. Which, in this case, is proven by the fact that a Belarusian
and a Ukrainian were able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring
(Yanukovich is the father of two children).
Dmitry
True. Names don't always match the essence.
Dmitry
I think even Dvinsk is not comparable to Donetsk -))
The Black Monk
Probably not. And you, unlike the inhabitants of Donetsk, are no Homo
Sovieticus. Unlike the majority of Donetsk inhabitants. Good for
Latvia.
BM
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bd81aade-1ae1-46a6...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I should have written "genetically" although genetics falls under
biology.
regards,
BM
Vladimir Makarenko
I would be very cautious with using a term "genetically": I here agree
with Mr Anderson - all we can trace genetically is with what particular
migration wave our ancestors left Africa. One can id to which group you
belong sending a couple of hundreds of bucks and DNA sample to ancestry.com
Beyond that - it is nurture not nature which makes Russians Russians,
Latvians Latvians, etc. Genetic variance is very small and often very
confusing - easily crossing group boundaries. You can easily find a
member of a particular nation to have more in common genetically with
geographically remote groups than with its own. A good example is so
called "Black Irish" - brunette Irish who has a trace of Spanish genes.
And they are Irish as one can only be.
VM.
The Black Monk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, which is why I wrote that culturally is what matters.
Yanukovich may be genetically half Ukrainian, half Belarussian, but
culturally he is totally homo sovieticus.
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ridncObCczDUi3R...@giganews.com...
> I would be very cautious with using a term "genetically": I here agree
> with Mr Anderson - all we can trace genetically is with what particular
> migration wave our ancestors left Africa. One can id to which group you
> belong sending a couple of hundreds of bucks and DNA sample to
> ancestry.com
I did that in January this year but wasn't very happy with the results. The
closest matches were with people that had a common ancestor with me 450
years ago. All the matches were with people in English-speaking countries.
Why? Because nobody else is using ancestry.com -- it's not global at all.
I'm trying to find traces of my great grandfather, a German who emigrated to
Russia in the 1870's. It would certainly help, if we had something similar
as ancestry.com in Europe -- or in Russia -- but obviously we haven't
reached that stage yet over here.
Dmitry
Some of it may have to do with Larvian borders were formed much more
naturally than Ukrainian???
Vladimir Makarenko
Well John, this is a not good news for I somehow thought they do their
job. But now - listening to you I think I understand the problem they
face - especially that right now I trying to cope with similar problem:
you have a random process and you sample it at random times. (Time is an
illusion - at least on paper you may forget about time and look as if
you have two random processes). Here comes a terrible problem: does the
time series you get as result has any statistical resemblance to the
original process? So far I am beating my head against the wall to no
success except the obvious cases when there is a clear bias in random
sampling (which means then not so random). I can tell you -
mathematically it is a hell. Theoretically I found a solution - one has
to find/stipulate a breaking point when white noise turns to bias/trend.
But when dealing with real time data things turn really ugly.
anyway, sorry but you touched my nerve. Right now I am a bit obsessed
with it - in my case it has nothing to do with genetics btw. It is about
the brain. I know there is a solution I just need to think hard - it
definitely exists.
VM.
Dmitry
Yes, he is a proper "Politburo" character -))
Dmitry
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks to internet, I managed to find that my grandfather studied in
Barnaul (Altai) between 1900 and 1907. It is amaizing what you can
find -))
Ted
<vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>you have a random process and you sample it at random times.
By "random process" do you mean something happening at random times,
or random with respect to some other variable?
> (Time is an
>illusion
There's something special about time. In some respects it acts like
other measurements like length; but there are differences, like only
going in one direction.
>- at least on paper you may forget about time and look as if
>you have two random processes).
Sounds like you are talking about two processes, each random in time?
>Here comes a terrible problem: does the
>time series you get as result has any statistical resemblance to the
>original process?
Try a computer simulation. Generate a set of random numbers with a
uniform distribution, then sample the resulting numbers - say, take
every nth number where n itself is a random number with a uniform
distribution. Then try statistical tests on the result (my guess is
that the result will also have a uniform distribution).
Vladimir Makarenko
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:45:01 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>> you have a random process and you sample it at random times.
>
> By "random process" do you mean something happening at random times,
> or random with respect to some other variable?
OK. We have one process which is random and well defined - so called
Wiener Process. It is in some sense fractal (ideal case) when it doesn't
matter what time scale you take to analyze you get the same stat
portrait. Now You want to digitize - to take measurements of this
process but your instrument is imperfect and takes measurements with
particular time error.
As a result you get on your hands a time series which is somehow
correlated with the original but how can you say if it has the same stat
portrait?
I tried the both - Ito and Skorohod - it just doesn't work - they both
assume that the time you take measurements is infinite and I do not this
luxury - I am squeezed in very short time duration. And my instrument is
far from being perfect. In a despair I wrote to my friend who is a
genius in math - and wasted his time because I formulated the problem
not in exact terms - he came back with Ito's solution (and 18 pages of
proof). Well, shit happens.
>
>> (Time is an
>> illusion
>
> There's something special about time. In some respects it acts like
> other measurements like length; but there are differences, like only
> going in one direction.
I looked very closely at the time - and decided that within limits I can
treat it as any other variable: I just cannot allow to turn negative. We
do have functions like that which only go up - e.g. exponent, why not
time? Again - I looked very closely at formalism they use in this field
- they divide the processes on "homogeneous" and not "homogeneous",
depending on regularity of duration between measurements - if they are
equal or not.And next thing they do I think is erroneous - if they think
the process is inhomogeneous they build up the time series with
interpolation to fill the holes. It is OK if you have a deterministic
function, it is a grave fault if it a random process.
>
>> - at least on paper you may forget about time and look as if
>> you have two random processes).
>
> Sounds like you are talking about two processes, each random in time?
Exactly the case. Here comes the trouble.
>
>> Here comes a terrible problem: does the
>> time series you get as result has any statistical resemblance to the
>> original process?
>
> Try a computer simulation. Generate a set of random numbers with a
> uniform distribution, then sample the resulting numbers - say, take
> every nth number where n itself is a random number with a uniform
> distribution. Then try statistical tests on the result (my guess is
> that the result will also have a uniform distribution).
You are kidding me right? Simulation? Just imagine the range of
parameters I have to run: the range on one is 100 units, the same for
another one, about ten for third one. - You are Welcome to join the
party. Can't wait you come to NYC - Mr Anderson has my phone number.
Will be happy to drink us both under the table.
As Cartman at South Park says - be my Guest. It is at least four-five
dimensional problem. Try your best to detect a region n phase space
where solution is. I will spent rest of my life siming it. With all
Matlab guns.
Now when I said all bad things let me tell why I think the problem is
solvable: Ito/Skorhod models are making assumption I hate - that time is
infinite, on the other hand they make assumption which very ugly - that
the process is not limited in amplitude. I however know the process
amplitude possible range, (brain cannot hit 200 volts or minus 100
volts),well - it is my only hope.
And thank you for putting out your opinion/judgment. I feel so alone
against this problem - so I am ready to discuss it with my cat or Jaksa.
my regards,
VM.
Ted
<vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>I looked very closely at the time - and decided that within limits I can
>treat it as any other variable: I just cannot allow to turn negative.
You are measuring it with an imperfect instrument, that could be ahead
or behind the true time, ie could be positive or negative; so
shouldn't you allow negative time? Negative time measurements,
anyway.
>You are kidding me right? Simulation? Just imagine the range of
>parameters I have to run: the range on one is 100 units, the same for
>another one, about ten for third one.
What about trying a simpler problem. Suppose you are measuring just
one variable with the imperfect instrument. What would be involved in
simulating that?
As for the amount of computation - well, computers these days are very
fast.
J. Anderson
"Ted" <ted....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rpi2b69om3lannctv...@4ax.com...
Well, after reading your exchange of thoughts, I understand that great
grandfathers aren't that important after all... ;-)
J. Anderson
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:ea7a9530-9856-4376...@n40g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, maybe I should try to google with his name in Cyrillic letters.
J. Anderson
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:7Fgso.4340$7N7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
Hey, that actually helped. At least I found one presumptive relative, who in
1900 graduated from the Pskov Religious Seminar. He could be my
grandfather's half-brother. And another one, born 1980, who lives in Penza
and has a YouTube account. I wrote to him and hope he understands English or
German. Thanks for generating this idea!
Vladimir Makarenko
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:02:41 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I looked very closely at the time - and decided that within limits I can
>> treat it as any other variable: I just cannot allow to turn negative.
>
> You are measuring it with an imperfect instrument, that could be ahead
> or behind the true time, ie could be positive or negative; so
> shouldn't you allow negative time? Negative time measurements,
> anyway.
Because I cannot trust a time mark of measurement I decided to go
radical - I threw away the very idea of time and just regard the process
as a set of random points which are numbered but not timed. In other
words I made a full circle - I started with point process formalism and
eventually came back to it.
>
>> You are kidding me right? Simulation? Just imagine the range of
>> parameters I have to run: the range on one is 100 units, the same for
>> another one, about ten for third one.
>
> What about trying a simpler problem. Suppose you are measuring just
> one variable with the imperfect instrument. What would be involved in
> simulating that?
I did this however if you want to close onto reality you must to add
other dimensions. In one dimension everything worked fine except that it
was way away from reality: I was capable to repeat the original signal
but not to get ahead of it. But this is what our brain does - you play
tennis you hit the ball without even looking at where is your hand or
foot and still good player will hit the ball. Basically so called
"physical training" is a way to minimize probable margin of error - when
we walk we do not try to walk "perfect" we allow a stumble here and
there but not too often to risk a fall (and injure) every moment when we
walk.
>
> As for the amount of computation - well, computers these days are very
> fast.
>
They are - but we are not. I am getting thousand of phase space regions
where the action takes place and have to come with intelligent algorithm
how to filter them - to put aside the possible bad apples from oranges.
And here trouble comes.
Take care,
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Here I dare to disagree - rather I think we are not important, all
today's theoretical frontiers in physics on the level of qualitative
ideas were yet formulated by Greeks and maybe even before them. All we
do is just putting/writing out formulas (and exploit computers).
Otherwise horizon is empty of new ideas.
VM.
Ted
<vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>> What about trying a simpler problem. Suppose you are measuring just
>> one variable with the imperfect instrument. What would be involved in
>> simulating that?
>
>I did this however if you want to close onto reality you must to add
>other dimensions. In one dimension everything worked fine except that it
>was way away from reality: I was capable to repeat the original signal
>but not to get ahead of it.
So you first need to make your prediction method work for the simple
one-dimensional case.
How about creating a one-dimensional situation where you already know
what the answer should be, and try simulating that.
Vladimir Makarenko
I did this but as soon I moved to adding the second dimension the model
went broke. Just think: you have N-dimensional space and the way I
started and you suggest: you degenerate the behavior of the system and
project it on a single variable. You are getting very nice results
except they have nothing in common with what is really happening. My
only advantage today is that I think I figured out what is the fastest
(and thankfully the largest) variable. Beyond that - I stuck.
I am sorry I somehow unloaded this crazy problem on you - it is not even
clear if it has a solution at all. But I try.
The good news - from what I heard from people whom I trust as scientists
- they learned how to cause an Alzheimer and therefore they know how to
prevent and stop it.
In the end of day there are some good news.
regards,
VM.
Dmitry
> "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> news:7Fgso.4340$7N7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
You are most welcome -))
Ostap Bender
Your hate for Donetsk is consuming you more than judophobia is
consuming Iranian many politicians. All such phobias are unhealthy
and deserve a visit to a shrink.
Ostap Bender
While BM claims that the Donetsk and the eastern half of Ukraine in
general are "Russia", in reality they are historically Ukraine. The
real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
centuries.
As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:39 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Oct, 05:31, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 4:52 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Oct, 10:17, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 2, 8:17 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> > > > > > Russian party set to win Latvian election
>
> > > > > The situation in Latia is NOTHING like the situation in Ukraine. As
> > > > > you yourself claim, the Eastern half of Ukraine is Russia, while
> > > > > almost none of Latvia (with the possible exception of Dvinsk) is
> > > > > Russia.
>
> > > > I think even Dvinsk is not comparable to Donetsk -))
>
> > > Probably not. And you, unlike the inhabitants of Donetsk, are no Homo
> > > Sovieticus. Unlike the majority of Donetsk inhabitants. Good for
> > > Latvia.
>
> > > BM
>
> > Some of it may have to do with Larvian borders were formed much more
> > naturally than Ukrainian???
>
> While BM claims that the Donetsk and the eastern half of Ukraine in
> general are "Russia",
I always claimed that the eastern 40% of Ukraine was Soviet, not
Russian. In terms of nationality places such as Donetsk are something
like 50% Ukrainian and 50% Russian but culturally they are 100%
Sovok.
> in reality they are historically Ukraine.
Which is why just handing them over to the Sovoks occupying them is
not a palatable option.
> The
> real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
> religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
> have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
> history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
> centuries.
That's what Sovoks and Russian say, although they take different roads
to get to this myth.
The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
- the critical 500 years when they developed into nations - followed
by gradual absorbtion into Russia. The links between Denmark, Norway
and Sweden are more substantial than those beteeen Ukraine and Russia.
I already posted some of this stuff this before, but I suppose in your
hysteria you've forgotten it:
c. 880 - Rus lands loosely unified.
1132, "the last ruler of united Rus," as wikipedia puts it dies.
Different principalities, often at war with each other, emerge.
c. 1240 Mongols take over.
c. 1340 Poles and Lithuanians take over what will become Ukraine,
Mongols stay in what will become Russia for another 150 years.
c. 1650 Kiev and central parts of Ukraine join Russia. However they
also rebel, split of for a decade here or there (under Doroshenko the
lands were under the Ottoman Empire). Russian rule becomes real only
afteer 1709. This is true only of Kiev city and lands east of the
Dnipro River. Everything west of the Dnipro - half of modern Kiev
oblast, Cherkassy, Vynytsia, Zhytomir, remain Polish for another 200
YEARS
c.1770 - areas west of the Dnipro, other than Galicia, Bukovina and
Transcarpathia become Russian.
c. 1940 - the latter areas join the USSR.
1990 - Ukraine and Russia separate.
So, let's summarize by region:
Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
(880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years.
The "Right bank" (central Ukraine west of the Dnipro river) together
with Russia for 360 years, apart 620 years.
Galicia, Bukovyna and Transcarpathia: togethr for 150 years (c.
980-1130, 1940-1990 - only 50 years in the last 1000), apart for 900
years.
Galicia and the half of Ukraine west of the Dnipro River spent more
time together as part of Poland or Lithuania (1340-1770) then they
spent apart as parrt of Austria and Russia/USSR.
Not a single part of Ukraine, historically, spent more time together
with Russia than apart from Russia.
In fact, not counting events from 1,000 years ago, villages just to
the west or south of Kiev spent less time together with Russia than
did Latvia or Estonia.
Russians like to forget this stuff.
> As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
In all the last elections the fascists have gotten no more than 5% of
the vote in Galicia. This may change now, thanks to Yanukovich.
BM
Dmitry
> On Oct 9, 4:39 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Oct, 05:31, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 4:52 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Oct, 10:17, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 2, 8:17 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> > > > > > Russian party set to win Latvian election
>
> > > > > The situation in Latia is NOTHING like the situation in Ukraine. As
> > > > > you yourself claim, the Eastern half of Ukraine is Russia, while
> > > > > almost none of Latvia (with the possible exception of Dvinsk) is
> > > > > Russia.
>
> > > > I think even Dvinsk is not comparable to Donetsk -))
>
> > > Probably not. And you, unlike the inhabitants of Donetsk, are no Homo
> > > Sovieticus. Unlike the majority of Donetsk inhabitants. Good for
> > > Latvia.
>
> > > BM
>
> > Some of it may have to do with Larvian borders were formed much more
> > naturally than Ukrainian???
>
> While BM claims that the Donetsk and the eastern half of Ukraine in
> general are "Russia", in reality they are historically Ukraine.
You can also debate whether Ukraine is historically Poland, Lithuania,
Crimean Khanate or Russia. As far as Donetsk area is concerned - it
was part of Russian empire most of the time.
Ostap Bender
Actually, I was referring to the incident when you lied to me that one
of the perpetrators of the Golodomor "spent most of his formative
years in Russia", but when I pointed out to you that he hadn't left
Ukraine until the age of 20+, you told me that Eastern Ukraine is
"Russia".
> > in reality they are historically Ukraine.
>
> Which is why just handing them over to the Sovoks occupying them is
> not a palatable option.
Your idea that Ukrainian citizens, living in Eastern Ukraine, are
"occupyers" is fascist and your hate for the majority of Ukrainians
who voted for Yanukovych, is Ukrainophobic.
> > The
> > real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
> > religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
> > have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
> > history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
> > centuries.
>
> That's what Sovoks and Russian say, although they take different roads
> to get to this myth.
And Ukrainian nationalists like yourself and Ukrainian Nazis disagree
with this, although you take different roads to get to your myth.
> The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
And yet, I hope you will not deny that until 1945, they considered
themselves part of the same nation.
> - the critical 500 years when they developed into nations
I am happy to see that you have now convinced yourself that Ukraine
was a separate nation and not under Polish rule.
> - followed
> by gradual absorbtion into Russia. The links between Denmark, Norway
> and Sweden are more substantial than those beteeen Ukraine and Russia.
Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
the last 300 years. How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
Which villages? And if not with Russia, then with whom? Were these
villages independent republics? Or were they Turkish? Or under Polish
rule? Or maybe they belonged to the separate Globe of Ukraine?
> Russians like to forget this stuff.
>
> > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
>
> In all the last elections the fascists have gotten no more than 5% of
> the vote in Galicia.
What percentage did they get in Eastern Ukraine?
> This may change now, thanks to Yanukovich.
So, you finally admit that hate for Yanukovich and the fascist/neo-
nazi ideology are highly positively correlated?
The Black Monk
He lived in a Russian colony near the Russian border, when it was all
still part of the Russian Empire. Nice fsailed atempt at demogoguery
by you.
>
> > > in reality they are historically Ukraine.
>
> > Which is why just handing them over to the Sovoks occupying them is
> > not a palatable option.
>
> Your idea that Ukrainian citizens, living in Eastern Ukraine, are
> "occupyers" is fascist
Point out which aspect of fascist ideology this can be categorized
under:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
> and your hate for the majority of Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych, is Ukrainophobic.
Except the majority of Ukrainians didn't vote for him - he got 49% of
the vote. Moreover, even if they did, hating his presidency and
considering his voters to be idiots is no more anti-Ukrainian than
thinking the same of Bush and his supports makes one anti-American.
> > > The
> > > real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
> > > religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
> > > have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
> > > history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
> > > centuries.
>
> > That's what Sovoks and Russian say, although they take different roads
> > to get to this myth.
>
> And Ukrainian nationalists like yourself and Ukrainian Nazis disagree
> with this, although you take different roads to get to your myth.
Do Ukrainian Nazis disagree with this? Any links, please, to what
Ukrainian Nazis think about this?
> > The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> > 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> > Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
>
> How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
> to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
Until 1806. You never heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Moreover they
were all part of the German Confederation until Bismarck's time. I
think your anti-Ukrainian hatred is really having a deletrious effect
on your brain.
> And yet, I hope you will not deny that until 1945, they considered
> themselves part of the same nation.
Which would be logical, them speaking the same language and being part
of the same state for over 1000 years.
> > - the critical 500 years when they developed into nations
>
> I am happy to see that you have now convinced yourself that Ukraine
> was a separate nation and not under Polish rule.
Your logic is slipping again, Ostap.
> > - followed
> > by gradual absorbtion into Russia. The links between Denmark, Norway
> > and Sweden are more substantial than those beteeen Ukraine and Russia.
>
> Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
> the last 300 years.
Nope. Just half it. The other 40% was for 200 years, and the other 10%
for 50 years. And this is all out of 1000 years of history.
> How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
> and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
> when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
> part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816. Sweden and Norway
were united from 1814-1905. Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397
to 1523. There was some combination of 2 of these three countries
being united to each other for 500 years, until the 20th century. I
never claimed that Denmark and Sweden were specficially united in
recent times.
For someone who apparently never heard of the Holy Roman Empire you
shouldn't try to pick apart such details.
Everything west of Kiev. Here was the border. Everything in yellow was
Polish until the1780s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rzeczpospolita.png
> And if not with Russia, then with whom? Were these
> villages independent republics? Or were they Turkish? Or under Polish
> rule? Or maybe they belonged to the separate Globe of Ukraine?
Polish rule, of course. As I said, Galicia and those villages west of
Kiev spent more time together with Poland/Lithuania than separate.
> > Russians like to forget this stuff.
>
> > > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
>
> > In all the last elections the fascists have gotten no more than 5% of
> > the vote in Galicia.
>
> What percentage did they get in Eastern Ukraine?
Eastern Ukrainian were far more likely to vote for the COmmunists and
the neo-soviet Party of egions than Galicians were, to vote for
fascists.
> > This may change now, thanks to Yanukovich.
>
> So, you finally admit that hate for Yanukovich and the fascist/neo-
> nazi ideology are highly positively correlated?
Discimination leads to radicalization amongt otherwise decent people
in Galicia, sure. On the other hand support for Sovok exists in
eastern Ukraine independently of discimination. It's a reflection of
what the people are, over there.
Hope you've learned something today.
BM
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
J. Anderson
news:fd910ae5-b9e5-48f4...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
>> and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
>> when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
>> part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
>
> Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816. Sweden and Norway
> were united from 1814-1905. Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397
> to 1523.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden(-Finland) were indeed united from 1397 through
the so-called Kalmar Union. But what began as a voluntary union soon turned
into Danish occupation, which culminated in the Stockholm Bloodbath in 1520
when the Danish king had around one hundred Swedish nobles and churchmen
beheaded in order to crush opposition against his rule. For centuries
Sweden(-Finland) and Denmark(-Norway) regarded each other as arch enemies
rather than 'the same nation'.
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fd910ae5-b9e5-48f4...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:46 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
> >> and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
> >> when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
> >> part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
>
> > Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816. Sweden and Norway
> > were united from 1814-1905. Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397
> > to 1523.
>
> Denmark, Norway and Sweden(-Finland) were indeed united from 1397 through
> the so-called Kalmar Union. But what began as a voluntary union soon turned
> into Danish occupation, which culminated in the Stockholm Bloodbath in 1520
> when the Danish king had around one hundred Swedish nobles and churchmen
> beheaded in order to crush opposition against his rule. For centuries
> Sweden(-Finland) and Denmark(-Norway) regarded each other as arch enemies
> rather than 'the same nation'.
Thanks for the info. My point was that these countries were united in
various ways longer than were Ukraine and Russia. Basically from the
14th century until 1905 2 of the 3 - over 500 years - were united in
some combination. In contrast, eastern Ukraine and Russia were united
for 300 years, western-central for 200 years and Galicia,
Transcarpathia and Bukovyna for only 50 years.
regards,
BM