Russia and Ukraine modern interests
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > This, obviously, makes the process different but does not make a
> > > diffeence in terms of the people. If half-Indian, half-Spanish
> > > Mexicans shared a physical border with Spaniards, wouldn't they still
> > > be different and distinct people?
> >
> > Sure. In fact geography is most important reason of history.
> > different geography means different invironment, different invironment
> > mean different interests and different interest mean diffrent history
> > and ethnic identity.
>
> You are aware that Ukrainian and Russian geography, and climate, are
> _quite_ different.
I am aware of not only about that... But how about talks on interests?
Let's weight what are you going to gain from west with what from
union with Russia. Providing of course its stabile democratic system
and fast economical development. Otherwise there is no even a point to
talk about this union. My version is:
From Russia: full respect and understanding as well as equal partnership
with perspectives of playing one of leading role in world affairs.
unlimited access to natural resources of bigest country in the world
at cheapest possible prices. The possibility to domesticaly develope
all sorts of high technologies and basic sciences including independent
space exploration. priority export of all products to russia and other
central asia countries (providing of caurse they will join the union).
security guarantees agaist any traubles in europe like possible
conflicts ("NATO humatitarian catastrophy" or old fashion conflicts
germany-poland, poland-litva, hungary-romania etc.) and against possible
muslim expansion (krym tatars for instance). The price: in fact
it is free with one important exception of high possibility of
russification in very long terms. But if you feel, as it seems you
do feel, that ukranian culture and language is competitive or
even stonger than russian ones, tyhe membership is free for now at least.
From west: perspectives of third (see remark below) class member of EU
with no perpective for playing any independent role ever. world prices for
all resources and in the case of its deficite in world markets quick
and total cut off from the supply. limited access to commercially
available on the west technologies only. brain drain of top ukranian
scientists to west and russia and decrease of educational level. No
basic science and space exploration programs. only very limited access
for agriculture products for european and US markets. security guaratees
only against russia only. The price: almost certain and very quick
americanization in terms of culture, language and religion. very high
political and economical costs demanded by the west even for the status
of third class member.
Remark: US is first class member. UK, France, Germany and Japan are
the second class members. All the rest are the third class.
what do you say on that?
Michael
fatso
>
>>>Pietukhov, how many new Bykovnias you have in mind for the Ukes?
>>>
How many wars, how many Holodomors do you plan to engineer to get rid of
them? For do not give us the russkies bullshit, you have treated the
ukes as subservient race since Peter the Great. You did not care in
Russia when the poor uke had to eat his own childeren to survive! So you
offer unlimited access to russian resources at the rock bottom prices?
can you really be that generous having just staved off the bankrupcy of
russian financial system?
Let' s be honest, mate: you want ukrainian food, its bountiful fields
tended by a slave labour. Sorry, you cannot steal the soil and take it
back to Russia- climate too bad. And remember, food is a potent weapon.
It does require fertiliser, energy but that may be purchased from the
Azeries, Iranians and some such neighbours keen on uke bounty. Ukraine
could feed half of the developing world and it knows its strength.
As God is my witness, I would gladly see the ukes into Mongolia myself.
Alas, its is not to be. Forget the polish-uke conflict, Polands army is
a joke. EU would not allow it anyway. Ukraine has nothing to fear from
the united Europe, it may concentrate ALL its military resources at the
flash points with Russia instead. Future of Ukraine is in Europe. We,
the Poles, would welcome them wholeheartedly there, provided they atone
for the recent crimes. Given the choice, Gospodin Pietukhov, what would
the Uke prefer? One way ticket to Siberia or a long weekend in Berlin,
easily reachable in the rich farmers merc or a cessna?
fatso
>>>
>>>
--
Nie pozwol aby cham gownem prychal miast je sam polykac!
Hr.Mendewesz
---------------------------------------------------------
We are all in the gutter but some of us can see the stars
Oscar Wilde
---------------------------
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat
its' mistakes.
The relations between Russia an Ukraine have a long
history, little brother.
--
Rostyk
TML
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com...
> bolsho...@hotmail.com (Bolshoy_Murza) wrote in message
news:<49ad8e07.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > This, obviously, makes the process different but does not make a
> > > > diffeence in terms of the people. If half-Indian, half-Spanish
> > > > Mexicans shared a physical border with Spaniards, wouldn't they
still
> > > > be different and distinct people?
> > >
> > > Sure. In fact geography is most important reason of history.
> > > different geography means different invironment, different invironment
> > > mean different interests and different interest mean diffrent history
> > > and ethnic identity.
> >
> > You are aware that Ukrainian and Russian geography, and climate, are
> > _quite_ different.
>
> I am aware of not only about that... But how about talks on interests?
> Let's weight what are you going to gain from west with what from
> union with Russia.
Why should there be a union with anyone?
> Providing of course its stabile democratic system
> and fast economical development. Otherwise there is no even a point to
> talk about this union. My version is:
>
> From Russia: full respect and understanding as well as equal partnership
Right. Even now a vast majority of Russians don't consider Ukraine as an
equal and understand a union between the two as one in which Russia takes
the leading role and Ukraine is being assimilated.
> with perspectives of playing one of leading role in world affairs.
With a slim possibility of Russia playing one of the leading roles and
Ukraine, being essentially a colony, would also get recognition as a part
Russia.
> unlimited access to natural resources of bigest country in the world
> at cheapest possible prices. The possibility to domesticaly develope
> all sorts of high technologies and basic sciences including independent
> space exploration. priority export of all products to russia and other
> central asia countries (providing of caurse they will join the union).
I'm sure Russian producers will strongly object.
> security guarantees agaist any traubles in europe like possible
> conflicts ("NATO humatitarian catastrophy" or old fashion conflicts
> germany-poland, poland-litva, hungary-romania etc.)
There's much less stability in Russia itself than in NATO. Not to mention
that the "old fashion conflicts" you mentioned are a thing of the past.
> and against possible
> muslim expansion (krym tatars for instance).
Now that's ironic, because Muslims migrants come to Ukraine primarily from
Russia, where 20% of the population is Muslim.
> The price: in fact
> it is free with one important exception of high possibility of
> russification in very long terms. But if you feel, as it seems you
> do feel, that ukranian culture and language is competitive or
> even stonger than russian ones, tyhe membership is free for now at least.
How can a culture and language of a smaller country, in addition being
supressed for centuries, be competitive with a language and culture of a
nation 3 times larger?
>
> From west: perspectives of third (see remark below) class member of EU
> with no perpective for playing any independent role ever.
The fact that there are 50 million people in the biggest country entirely in
Europe automatically make it a major player, provided sufficient economic
and political well-being.
> world prices for
> all resources and in the case of its deficite in world markets quick
> and total cut off from the supply.
Competitive businesses (and countries) won't be put off by world prices. And
in case of deficite, the price of everything goes up, no matter if it's from
Russia or elsewhere.
> limited access to commercially
> available on the west technologies only. brain drain of top ukranian
> scientists to west and russia and decrease of educational level.
Right now with Kuchma and his "pro-Russian" course we're losing more people
than ever.
> No
> basic science and space exploration programs.
Not true.
> only very limited access
> for agriculture products for european and US markets.
Bigger one than now. Russia also sells agricultural products and the price
is roughly the same, so Ukraine has no advantage on the Russian market.
> security guaratees
> only against russia only.
Against anyone but the immediate allies.
> The price: almost certain and very quick
> americanization in terms of culture, language and religion.
Hell, an americanized culture and language is better than no culture and
language and foreign ones instead.
> very high
> political and economical costs demanded by the west even for the status
> of third class member.
Let's compare two countries, one of which has chosen to ally itself with
NATO and the other - with Russia. The countries are Czech Republic and
Belarus.
Should I even begin?
kirill
>
> >
> >
> >>>Pietukhov, how many new Bykovnias you have in mind for the Ukes?
> >>>
> How many wars, how many Holodomors do you plan to engineer to get rid of
> them? For do not give us the russkies bullshit, you have treated the
> ukes as subservient race since Peter the Great.
Polak revising history. It was you Poles that treated Ukrainians as
a subservient race. Your occupation of parts of Ukraine were very
similar to the barbaric occupation by the Ottomans of the Balkans.
Your favourite past time was to impale Ukrainians on poles much like
the Spanish impaled New World aboriginals. You fiends must have been
using the same manual written by the Vatican inquisitors.
> You did not care in
> Russia when the poor uke had to eat his own childeren to survive!
Those "Ukrainians" that whinge about this the most are the half-assimilated
Polaks from the western part that never experienced the Soviet famines.
> So you
> offer unlimited access to russian resources at the rock bottom prices?
> can you really be that generous having just staved off the bankrupcy of
> russian financial system?
Ignorant drivel. Take a look at Argentina, the darling of the neo-cons
and monetarists. It is sinking into a deeper and deeper hole as its
currency loses value. Now compare that to the financial collapse of
1998 in Russia and the collapse of the rubel exchange rate. Clearly
no similarity whatsoever. The Russian financial crisis was the result
of comprador Yeltsin's policy of propping up the rubel with the GKO
pyrmaid so that western imports would destroy Russian industry. Once
the pyramid and the imports burst, there was a "miraculous" recovery
of the Russian economy. So much for your inane "bankruptcy" theory.
> Let' s be honest, mate: you want ukrainian food,
No, retard, Russia grows its own. The net grain harvest this year
is over 87 million tons.
> its bountiful fields
> tended by a slave labour.
Slaver wannabe Polak "worrying" about Ukrainians.
> Sorry, you cannot steal the soil and take it
> back to Russia- climate too bad.
Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
> And remember, food is a potent weapon.
> It does require fertiliser, energy but that may be purchased from the
> Azeries, Iranians and some such neighbours keen on uke bounty. Ukraine
> could feed half of the developing world and it knows its strength.
Russia wants to export 12 million tons of grain but EU hypocrites are
imposing quotas. Free trade is only meant for Russia to expose its
industry to death by dumping. The EU and the USA are safe behind their
protectionism.
> As God is my witness, I would gladly see the ukes into Mongolia myself.
You keep saying it over and over. Why don't you get over your obsession
with Ukrainians and Russians. Us untermensch clearly aren't worthy of you Nazi
bootlicks.
> Alas, its is not to be. Forget the polish-uke conflict, Polands army is
> a joke. EU would not allow it anyway.
So instead of choosing independence you chose another Warsaw Pact marriage.
Fools.
> Ukraine has nothing to fear from
> the united Europe, it may concentrate ALL its military resources at the
> flash points with Russia instead.
The only flashpoints are in western Ukraine between the half-Polish part
and the Ukrainian part. Worry about your relatives coming to stay over,
twit.
> Future of Ukraine is in Europe. We,
> the Poles, would welcome them wholeheartedly there, provided they atone
> for the recent crimes.
It is you who needs Ukraine's food.
> Given the choice, Gospodin Pietukhov, what would
> the Uke prefer? One way ticket to Siberia or a long weekend in Berlin,
> easily reachable in the rich farmers merc or a cessna?
Rich farmers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
fatso
be welcome in Europe. Ever.
And here lies the crux of the matter: admit to Europe Turkey or Ukraine,
in some given point in time?
I believe, we cannot admit both of them. I am not going to answer your
lies, halftruths and distorions of a crazed rezun but I tell you this:
no, we do not want ukrainian food, we have mountains, yes mountains of
the stuff in Europe. Poland will increase this headache further as it is
the significant net producer on its own.
As to the Ukraine and its movement of populace across Europe, just wait
and see. You have not long to wait, until next summer. The iron curtain
is about to descend upon the uke western borders.That should concentrate
you minds, rezuns. As to myself, personally: I live and work in London,
my wife is a scientist working for Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. She is
reluctant to come over here permanently b/o research grant, family
commitments etc but we see each other frequently and will be spending
Xmas in London together. Did you know, Kirill, that there are some 4-5
flights a day between those two capitals of Europe, and quite full in
the dead season now? Wife started muttering recently(we speak on the
computers all day along as in adjoining rooms) about the "bus pass" for
frequent travel as I can evidently afford it, so much for your sneereing
at my notion of ukes taking a break in Berlin.
And now, ukes, to the concept of CONDITIO SINE QUA NON. That means,
conditions by which you must abide or elese, fuck off to Mongolia and
its Russian mates. Here they are:
* Internal peace and democratic stable governement
* Capitalism based upon representation of the people, not upon the
racketeers and Vory v Zakonie
* Permenent peace with all your neighbours(that would mean coming to
terms with Poland, also)
* A clearly demonstrated will to stay european. Try changing to latin
alphabet for a start, chase away russian orthodox priests like some mad
dogs, back to Kremlin. Cooperate with Europe militarily in joint
policing exercises elswewhere.
So you see, you have your work cut out for the next 50 years. By then,
Kirill, you will be a pile of shit. Insignificant, long-forgotten
appendage to History, something in fact like Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
fatso
Michael Petukhov
> "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> news:a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > bolsho...@hotmail.com (Bolshoy_Murza) wrote in message
> news:<49ad8e07.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
> news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > This, obviously, makes the process different but does not make a
> > > > > diffeence in terms of the people. If half-Indian, half-Spanish
> > > > > Mexicans shared a physical border with Spaniards, wouldn't they
> still
> > > > > be different and distinct people?
> > > >
> > > > Sure. In fact geography is most important reason of history.
> > > > different geography means different invironment, different invironment
> > > > mean different interests and different interest mean diffrent history
> > > > and ethnic identity.
> > >
> > > You are aware that Ukrainian and Russian geography, and climate, are
> > > _quite_ different.
> >
> > I am aware of not only about that... But how about talks on interests?
> > Let's weight what are you going to gain from west with what from
> > union with Russia.
>
> Why should there be a union with anyone?
many reasons in fact. one of them is recent history showed that
Ukraine neurtrality is not simply possible in the modern europe.
>
> > Providing of course its stabile democratic system
> > and fast economical development. Otherwise there is no even a point to
> > talk about this union. My version is:
> >
> > From Russia: full respect and understanding as well as equal partnership
>
> Right. Even now a vast majority of Russians don't consider Ukraine as an
> equal and understand a union between the two as one in which Russia takes
> the leading role and Ukraine is being assimilated.
Speak for yourseld please.
As for assimilation it is natural process.
and all nations will be assimilated on day.
>
> > with perspectives of playing one of leading role in world affairs.
>
> With a slim possibility of Russia playing one of the leading roles and
> Ukraine, being essentially a colony, would also get recognition as a part
> Russia.
This is what you hope. In reallity however even in its
current bad shape Russia plays a role of top second
class world power on equals with China, India, Germany,
France and UK.
>
> > unlimited access to natural resources of bigest country in the world
> > at cheapest possible prices. The possibility to domesticaly develope
> > all sorts of high technologies and basic sciences including independent
> > space exploration. priority export of all products to russia and other
> > central asia countries (providing of caurse they will join the union).
>
> I'm sure Russian producers will strongly object.
Depending on the type of union. In the case of real
untification into a single country with one government,
one parlament and one economy it will be very profitable
for everyone in Russia and Ukraine.
>
> > security guarantees agaist any traubles in europe like possible
> > conflicts ("NATO humatitarian catastrophy" or old fashion conflicts
> > germany-poland, poland-litva, hungary-romania etc.)
>
> There's much less stability in Russia itself than in NATO.
True for now. But the thing is nobody still can
predict future.
> Not mention
> that the "old fashion conflicts" you mentioned are a thing of the past.
We will see.
>
> > and against possible
> > muslim expansion (krym tatars for instance).
>
> Now that's ironic, because Muslims migrants come to Ukraine primarily from
> Russia, where 20% of the population is Muslim.
Sure. So what? Can Ukraine in its current shape withstand
real muslim attack like that in Chechenia without Russian
army help. I do not think so.
>
> > The price: in fact
> > it is free with one important exception of high possibility of
> > russification in very long terms. But if you feel, as it seems you
> > do feel, that ukranian culture and language is competitive or
> > even stonger than russian ones, tyhe membership is free for now at least.
>
> How can a culture and language of a smaller country, in addition being
> supressed for centuries, be competitive with a language and culture of a
> nation 3 times larger?
nevertheless sometimes happend. here all depends on the realative
culture power. I said it is the price. But assimilation will happend
anyway despite of opposite direction they might decide to go.
>
> >
> > From west: perspectives of third (see remark below) class member of EU
> > with no perpective for playing any independent role ever.
>
> The fact that there are 50 million people in the biggest country entirely in
> Europe automatically make it a major player, provided sufficient economic
> and political well-being.
There is no automatics in the world real politics. They as everybody
else must fight and win they place in that world. All remaining
high teck fields (aviation, ship building, jet engines, missles,
radars etc.) in Ukraine are all based on cooperation with russia.
Nobody wait for them (ukraninians) in Europe or US while russians
wait for ukranians and for very serious reasons.
>
> > world prices for
> > all resources and in the case of its deficite in world markets quick
> > and total cut off from the supply.
>
> Competitive businesses (and countries) won't be put off by world prices. And
> in case of deficite, the price of everything goes up, no matter if it's from
> Russia or elsewhere.
If it is from russia it depends is there union or not.
>
> > limited access to commercially
> > available on the west technologies only. brain drain of top ukranian
> > scientists to west and russia and decrease of educational level.
>
> Right now with Kuchma and his "pro-Russian" course we're losing more people
> than ever.
the thing is it not a real pro-russian course rather
it is a sort of compromise middle course which is not
good for both russia and the west.
>
> > No
> > basic science and space exploration programs.
>
> Not true.
Words... empty words.
>
> > only very limited access
> > for agriculture products for european and US markets.
>
> Bigger one than now. Russia also sells agricultural products and the price
> is roughly the same, so Ukraine has no advantage on the Russian market.
>
no union no advantages.
> > security guaratees
> > only against russia only.
>
> Against anyone but the immediate allies.
Would NATO help to suppress krym tatars in the case they
decide to go Chechen way? I do not think so. Also
in any conflict with Poland, Romania or Hungary west
will not support Ukraine.
>
> > The price: almost certain and very quick
> > americanization in terms of culture, language and religion.
>
> Hell, an americanized culture and language is better than no culture and
> language and foreign ones instead.
As I said you are not a Ukranian patriot, rather you are US patriot.
>
> > very high
> > political and economical costs demanded by the west even for the status
> > of third class member.
>
> Let's compare two countries, one of which has chosen to ally itself with
> NATO and the other - with Russia. The countries are Czech Republic and
> Belarus.
> Should I even begin?
No we are talking about Ukraine long term interests.
Please do not change the subject.
Michael
TML
Recent history showed that Russia is incapable of a democratic society. And
you're still hoping for one, am I wrong?
>
> >
> > > Providing of course its stabile democratic system
> > > and fast economical development. Otherwise there is no even a point to
> > > talk about this union. My version is:
> > >
> > > From Russia: full respect and understanding as well as equal
partnership
> >
> > Right. Even now a vast majority of Russians don't consider Ukraine as an
> > equal and understand a union between the two as one in which Russia
takes
> > the leading role and Ukraine is being assimilated.
>
> Speak for yourseld please.
>
> As for assimilation it is natural process.
Perhaps you're right... Oh well, all the more reason for Ukraine to reject a
union with Russia.
> and all nations will be assimilated on day.
Why do those French still try to protect their language by establishing
fines for anyone who officially misuses French language?
>
> >
> > > with perspectives of playing one of leading role in world affairs.
> >
> > With a slim possibility of Russia playing one of the leading roles and
> > Ukraine, being essentially a colony, would also get recognition as a
part
> > Russia.
>
> This is what you hope.
I won't hide it. I am convinced that the more power and recognition Russia
gets, the more bad things happen to its neighbours.
> In reallity however even in its
> current bad shape Russia plays a role of top second
> class world power on equals with China, India, Germany,
> France and UK.
The second part of the sentence you're responding to is the essence though.
>
> >
> > > unlimited access to natural resources of bigest country in the world
> > > at cheapest possible prices. The possibility to domesticaly develope
> > > all sorts of high technologies and basic sciences including
independent
> > > space exploration. priority export of all products to russia and other
> > > central asia countries (providing of caurse they will join the union).
> >
> > I'm sure Russian producers will strongly object.
>
> Depending on the type of union. In the case of real
> untification into a single country with one government,
> one parlament and one economy it will be very profitable
> for everyone in Russia and Ukraine.
So it's all or nothing, eh?
>
> >
> > > security guarantees agaist any traubles in europe like possible
> > > conflicts ("NATO humatitarian catastrophy" or old fashion conflicts
> > > germany-poland, poland-litva, hungary-romania etc.)
> >
> > There's much less stability in Russia itself than in NATO.
>
> True for now. But the thing is nobody still can
> predict future.
Perhaps not accurately, but one can make an educated guess.
>
> > Not mention
> > that the "old fashion conflicts" you mentioned are a thing of the past.
>
> We will see.
>
> >
> > > and against possible
> > > muslim expansion (krym tatars for instance).
> >
> > Now that's ironic, because Muslims migrants come to Ukraine primarily
from
> > Russia, where 20% of the population is Muslim.
>
> Sure. So what? Can Ukraine in its current shape withstand
> real muslim attack like that in Chechenia without Russian
> army help. I do not think so.
Ukraine in its current shape isn't threatened by any "real muslim attack"
because it does not suppress and terrorise any Muslim nations currently
residing on its territory. In fact, Ukraine is one of the few nations in the
former USSR without any ethnic conflicts on its territory, violent or
otherwise. If, however, illegal migration becomes a big issue, there's only
one border to close to ensure the problem fades away.
>
> >
> > > The price: in fact
> > > it is free with one important exception of high possibility of
> > > russification in very long terms. But if you feel, as it seems you
> > > do feel, that ukranian culture and language is competitive or
> > > even stonger than russian ones, tyhe membership is free for now at
least.
> >
> > How can a culture and language of a smaller country, in addition being
> > supressed for centuries, be competitive with a language and culture of a
> > nation 3 times larger?
>
> nevertheless sometimes happend.
An example to illustrate this assertion would help.
> here all depends on the realative
> culture power.
You seem to fail to understand how this "culture power" originates.
> I said it is the price. But assimilation will happend
> anyway despite of opposite direction they might decide to go.
>
> >
> > >
> > > From west: perspectives of third (see remark below) class member of EU
> > > with no perpective for playing any independent role ever.
> >
> > The fact that there are 50 million people in the biggest country
entirely in
> > Europe automatically make it a major player, provided sufficient
economic
> > and political well-being.
>
> There is no automatics in the world real politics.
Sure there are. China, with 1/5th of the world population, is an automatic
major player, for example.
> They as everybody
> else must fight and win they place in that world. All remaining
> high teck fields (aviation, ship building, jet engines, missles,
> radars etc.) in Ukraine are all based on cooperation with russia.
Weapon programs of the two countries compete with one another on the world
weapons market. Take tanks, for example.
> Nobody wait for them (ukraninians) in Europe or US while russians
> wait for ukranians and for very serious reasons.
No other country of comparable value would even consider joining Russia?
>
> >
> > > world prices for
> > > all resources and in the case of its deficite in world markets quick
> > > and total cut off from the supply.
> >
> > Competitive businesses (and countries) won't be put off by world prices.
And
> > in case of deficite, the price of everything goes up, no matter if it's
from
> > Russia or elsewhere.
>
> If it is from russia it depends is there union or not.
Well, a slave gets everything "for free", provided he does everything he is
told. But there's a saying: "Better to die a wolf than to live a dog".
>
> >
> > > limited access to commercially
> > > available on the west technologies only. brain drain of top ukranian
> > > scientists to west and russia and decrease of educational level.
> >
> > Right now with Kuchma and his "pro-Russian" course we're losing more
people
> > than ever.
>
> the thing is it not a real pro-russian course rather
> it is a sort of compromise middle course which is not
> good for both russia and the west.
Compromise middle course? The only person to openly support Kuchma during
the crisis days when he was implicated for murder was Putin. Putin is
Kuchma's "greatest ally", Kuchma acts like a poodle to him.
>
> >
> > > No
> > > basic science and space exploration programs.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> Words... empty words.
Well yours are assumptions... empty assumptions.
>
> >
> > > only very limited access
> > > for agriculture products for european and US markets.
> >
> > Bigger one than now. Russia also sells agricultural products and the
price
> > is roughly the same, so Ukraine has no advantage on the Russian market.
> >
>
> no union no advantages.
You seem to misunderstand the point. Ukraine will also have "onlly very
limited access for agriculture products " to the Russian market as well.
>
> > > security guaratees
> > > only against russia only.
> >
> > Against anyone but the immediate allies.
>
> Would NATO help to suppress krym tatars in the case they
> decide to go Chechen way?
Well, look at Turkey. Does anyone care it's exterminating Kurds?
Besides, why would Tatars decide to go the Chechen way? Their families
aren't being slaughtered, they have no grounds for independence as Crimea is
not even close to having Tatar ethnic majority.
> I do not think so. Also
> in any conflict with Poland, Romania or Hungary west
> will not support Ukraine.
Why would Ukraine have a conflict with Poland, Romania or Hungary? The only
conflict with any of these countries that comes to mind is the Zmiyiny
Island dispute. Romania gave it up because no NATO applicant or member may
have unsettled territorial claims.
>
> >
> > > The price: almost certain and very quick
> > > americanization in terms of culture, language and religion.
> >
> > Hell, an americanized culture and language is better than no culture and
> > language and foreign ones instead.
>
> As I said you are not a Ukranian patriot, rather you are US patriot.
So the existence of Ukrainian culture and language is not essential for a
Ukrainian patriot? I'm sorry, our defintions of a patriot vary greatly.
>
> >
> > > very high
> > > political and economical costs demanded by the west even for the
status
> > > of third class member.
> >
> > Let's compare two countries, one of which has chosen to ally itself with
> > NATO and the other - with Russia. The countries are Czech Republic and
> > Belarus.
> > Should I even begin?
>
> No we are talking about Ukraine long term interests.
> Please do not change the subject.
And I'm showing examples of countries allying themselves with either parties
and looking at the result. And then at your forecasts for Ukraine. And then
realizing you have no clue what you're talking about.
TML
"fatso" <fatso...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3DEC3231...@ntlworld.com...
Up to here you actually made sense, with your "conditions" I mean.
Why would anyone want to adopt an alphabet obviously not suited for a Slavic
language? We've seen Polish, it's not like we want our language to look
something like that.
fatso
> > * A clearly demonstrated will to stay european. Try changing to latin
> > alphabet for a start,
>
> Up to here you actually made sense, with your "conditions" I mean.
>
> Why would anyone want to adopt an alphabet obviously not suited for a
Slavic
> language? We've seen Polish, it's not like we want our language to look
> something like that.
Change to latin alphabet would NOT constitute Conditio sine qua non.
After all, Greece does not use it. Bulgaria, which is about to start its run
to EU shortly, having been invited to NATO recently, does not use it.
Serbia cannot stay out of Europe forever, its alphabet is a Cyrillic.
Ukraine is a large country, change-over migh be difficult but, I believe,
it would allow Ukes to tear themselves away from Russia's cultural grip.
So it would be desirable but not stricly a necessary precondition.
I neglected to mention the final but most obvious Conditio sine qua non:
* acceptance of all the natural and written laws of EU, in its totality and
without any discussions and preconditions. That would mean a sea-change
in uke mentaliy. No more death penalties, no more cruel and unusual
punishments,
no legalised thievery, corruption under the thumb-screw of incorruptible
state
officials and so on. Please note that the european law does change all the
time
as Europe coalesces slowly into a uniform federal state of free, independent
nations. So the longer Ukraine does delay, the quicker it will have to run
in
order to board the departing train!
fatso
Bolshoy_Murza
you probably will not like my answer...
petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> I am aware of not only about that... But how about talks on interests?
> Let's weight what are you going to gain from west with what from
> union with Russia. Providing of course its stabile democratic system
> and fast economical development. Otherwise there is no even a point to
> talk about this union. My version is:
>
> From Russia: full respect and understanding as well as equal partnership
> with perspectives of playing one of leading role in world affairs.
> unlimited access to natural resources of bigest country in the world
> at cheapest possible prices. The possibility to domesticaly develope
> all sorts of high technologies and basic sciences including independent
> space exploration. priority export of all products to russia and other
> central asia countries (providing of caurse they will join the union).
> security guarantees agaist any traubles in europe like possible
> conflicts ("NATO humatitarian catastrophy" or old fashion conflicts
> germany-poland, poland-litva, hungary-romania etc.) and against possible
> muslim expansion (krym tatars for instance). The price: in fact
> it is free with one important exception of high possibility of
> russification in very long terms. But if you feel, as it seems you
> do feel, that ukranian culture and language is competitive or
> even stonger than russian ones, tyhe membership is free for now at least.
Would it be fair to assume that in this union Ukraine would have a
cultural position similar to that of Quebec in Canada? I.e., full
Ukrainization within the Ukrainian territory, and bilingual throughout
much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
> From west: perspectives of third (see remark below) class member of EU
> with no perpective for playing any independent role ever. world prices for
> all resources and in the case of its deficite in world markets quick
> and total cut off from the supply. limited access to commercially
> available on the west technologies only. brain drain of top ukranian
> scientists to west and russia and decrease of educational level. No
> basic science and space exploration programs. only very limited access
> for agriculture products for european and US markets. security guaratees
> only against russia only. The price: almost certain and very quick
> americanization in terms of culture, language and religion. very high
> political and economical costs demanded by the west even for the status
> of third class member.
>
> Remark: US is first class member. UK, France, Germany and Japan are
> the second class members. All the rest are the third class.
>
> what do you say on that?
Given the condition outlined by me above, and other conditions I will
describe, the option you propose may make sense...in 10 or 20 years.
Ukraine is in an enviable position, in that Russia will need Ukraine
in 10 or in 20 years as much as it needs it now. So there is no hurry
for Ukraine to join the Russian embrace; this, for Ukraine should be a
last resort (as I will explain).
The present condition of USA being the first class power, and the UK,
France, Germany, etc. being 2nd class powers is neither preordained
nor certain. The emerging EU superstate will surpass the USA in
population and industrial capacity. What it lacks is will; Western
Europeans are like cripples, weak and with a degenerate, hedonistic
culture. Their death instinct is quite strong, and it is directed not
at others like 50 years ago but at themselves: they are a
disappearing, dying race. This is where the question comes in.
Dynamic and living Slavic nations - principally, Poles, Croats, and
Slovaks (Czechs don't count; they're about as dead as their German
owners) are or soon will be in Europe. Alone, they will simply be
dragged down with the sinking ship, and amount to nothing, lost in
that retirement home for faded greatness. But with Ukraine's 50
million...
Ukraine, in tandem with Poland, would have a population comparable to
Germany's, and with far more natural resources, land and...potential.
Germany is dying at a far greater rate than Poland or western Ukraine.
In 20 years a vital Slavic axis could easily take the steering wheel
of the EU from the useless hands of the Germans, French, or other
former nations. It can only be natural; just as the Germanic nations
(Britain and Germany) eclipsed the worn out French and Spanish so the
Slavs will replace the ghosts of the Germans and Anglo-Saxons...IF
they hold on to their own cultures and resist the assimilation
threatening from the west.
The next 10 or 20 years will be quite interesting. Poland currently
humiliates itself vis a vis Germany because it wants EU membership.
From what I hear, from politically connected Polish friends, this is a
temporary situation and will be repaid upon the Germans when the time
is right. The Poels have not lost their pride and self-respect,
unlike the Czechs. And Poland has its eye on Ukraine: some of the
people (especially on this newsgroup) might still hold stupid grudges
from the past but the politicians know that without a strong and
allied Ukraine Poland is nothing. This is why Kwasniewski even risked
the wrath of the Germans and the French when he stood up to Russia
over that pipeline deal. A Polish-Ukrainian alliance would surely be
the strongest actor within the the European system.
Taking this a step further...in the long run, who will dominate any
Polish-Ukrainian relationship? At first, of course, it would be the
more highly developed Poles. But in the long run, Ukraine has the
edge in terms of land, resources, and population. And it also has
access to the oil fields of the Caucuses - the logical path of
Ukrainian expansion as Lypynsky predicted 80 years ago. Russia has
discredited itself there - Ukraine with its political/economic
relations (squandered, so far, by that incompetant Kuchma!) to Georgia
and Azerbaijan has not. And the risks of assimilation of Ukraine to
Poland are far lower than Ukraine to Russia.
Also, it must be remembered that Ukraine, unlike Russia is a European
nation, as was Rus'. I am not a chauvinist who claims that this makes
Ukraine better, or that something is wrong with Eurasia; on the
contrary I find Russia fascinating and beautiful, the mixture of
European self-awareness and Asian deep mysticism. Russians I have
known demonstrate a generosity and kindness that makes them the most
Christian people in the world, even if they are atheists. Etc. etc.
But they are also different. The Russian historian, and Eurasianist,
Vernadsky has some wonderful observations in his comparison of Daniel,
King of Halych - and truest heir of Rus' - and Alexander Nevsky.
"Daniel, as we know, counted onsupport from the West. Alexander did
not trust the West. It must be emphasized, in this connection, that
there was a marked difference in the nature of the Western powers with
which the princes had to deal. In spite of Daniel's conflicts with
Poland and Hungary the rulers of both countries were merely his rivals
(and at times his friends) rather than his enemies. *Socially and
psychologically Slavic Poland and half-slavic Hungary belonged to the
same Central European milieau as Galicia and Volynia."
"There was also a basic difference in the attitude of Alexander and
Daniel toward their respective church affiliations. For Daniel, in
the Central European cultural milieu, the Roman Catholic Church was
the church of neighbors with whom he was on an equal political and
social footing. Intermarriages between West Russian (sic) princely
houses and those of the neighboring Central European nations were
frequent [relations and intermarriages were also quite frequent
between the Kyivan Rus' princes and other European - i.e. Yaroslav
Mudry the "father-in-law" of Europe, Kyiv as a place of refuge for
some English pretender to the throne, etc. - B.M.]
Flash forward to Mazepa. I will use this example because in another
post you or someone else referred to him as "traitor"; also his case
illuastrates just one part of what Ukrainian-Russian "cooperation" has
meant in the past. I will quote O. Subtelny, froma work published by
Harvard:
Orest Subtelny:
" During the Tsar's war against Sweden, unprecedented demands were
made of the Cossacks. Rather fight Ottomans or Tatars, close to home,
they were sent off against modern Swedish armies in Livonia, central
Poland and Lithuania. Oftent hey were placed under Russian command
and used as mere cannon fodder. Casualty rates of 50% -70% were
reported among returning units. And the same time, in Ukraine,
grievence after grievence was reported to the Hetman about the
behavior of Muscovite troops and officials. Finally, in the Swedes'
Polish ally Stanislaw Leszczynski threatened to invade Ukraine and
Mazepa turned to Peter I for help the tsar, who was gathering his own
forces for an expected Swedish invasion, replied: "I cannot even spare
10 men; defend yourself as best you can." This was the final straw;
when Peter broke his commitment to defend Ukraine from the hated Poles
– a guarantee that constituted the very basis of the 1654 Pereyaslav
treaty – Mazepa felt under no more obligation to remain loyal to him.
Mazepa's line of argument is striking in how often certain phases and
ideas are repeated and stressed: rights and privileges; overlordship
freely chosen and open to recall; and protection, always the issue of
protection. For anyone with an acquaintance with medieval political
theory, these concepts strike a familiar note. They are components of
the contractual principle, European feudalism's most common regulator
of the political relations between sovereigns and regional elites.
The contractual obligation was an act of mutual obligation. The
vassal promised his lord obedience, service, and loyalty in return for
the latter's protection and respect for the vassal's privileges and
the traditions of his land. If the vassal had good reason to believe
that his lord was breaking his obligations, he had the right – the
famous ius resistendi – to rise against him to protect his interests.
Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of
disloyalty. The German Schwabenspiegel, one of the primary sources
for customary law in east central Europe, provided a concise summary
of the principle: "We should serve our sovereigns because they protect
us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more
service". Mazepa's position could not have been stated more
succinctly.
Note, again, the European emphasis on rights and obligations. A
vassal was no slave; his commitment was an expression of individualism
- the hallmark of European culture. To a Russian with an Asian
political understanding, this was a completely alien concept. Mazepa
could only be understood as a "traitor". A Turk or Mongol would view
Mazepa the same way. Understand, Michael, how painful
misunderstanding can be when two different cultures, or superthos' (to
borrow a term if not conclusion from Gumilev) come together.
In summary, Ukraine's path to Europe is the natural one and has the
prospects of reaping huge dividends. But let's see what happens in
the next 10 years. It is likely that Poland may well be absorbed into
the EU and die. Germany may indeed succeed in keeping the Poles in
check (or rather, "in Czech"), weak and a colony.
I would not want Ukraine to join SUCH an EU. Indeed, if forced to
choose between a dying or dead Europe led by a sinking Germany, or a
reviving, younger Russia with a hisotry in front of rather than behind
it, then the idea of a union with Russia, on the terms you propose and
the additions I have proposed, could be discussed more seriously. To
imitate a 19th century Galician Russophile, it would be better to
drown in a Russian sea than in a stinking American or German swamp.
But again, until then Ukraine can and should wait.
respectfully,
Bolshoy Murza
> Michael
TML
>
> > > * A clearly demonstrated will to stay european. Try changing to latin
> > > alphabet for a start,
> >
> > Up to here you actually made sense, with your "conditions" I mean.
> >
> > Why would anyone want to adopt an alphabet obviously not suited for a
> Slavic
> > language? We've seen Polish, it's not like we want our language to look
> > something like that.
>
> Change to latin alphabet would NOT constitute Conditio sine qua non.
> After all, Greece does not use it. Bulgaria, which is about to start its
run
> to EU shortly, having been invited to NATO recently, does not use it.
> Serbia cannot stay out of Europe forever, its alphabet is a Cyrillic.
> Ukraine is a large country, change-over migh be difficult but, I believe,
> it would allow Ukes to tear themselves away from Russia's cultural grip.
I just cannot see how a simple change of alphabet will change anything,
other than the convenience of Ukrainian written in an alphabet which ideally
suits it.
> So it would be desirable but not stricly a necessary precondition.
>
> I neglected to mention the final but most obvious Conditio sine qua non:
>
> * acceptance of all the natural and written laws of EU, in its totality
and
> without any discussions and preconditions. That would mean a sea-change
> in uke mentaliy. No more death penalties,
There are none since 1999 (I think, maybe the year is wrong).
fatso
"TML" > try and bear in mind that Turkey in order to europeanise itself,
more- in order to save itself under Attaturk in the 1920-ties, has changed
from
arabic alphabet. Ukraine, in my opinion, would be in direct competition to
european table with Turkey. There would be one place only at our table for
a country of that magnitude of problems and that size. Europe could not
simply
stomach two boorish newcomers in the foreseable future.
Don't you think it would be prudent not to give Turks that advantage?
fatso
Bolshoy_Murza
Turks are Muslims, they breed like crazy, and they are more hated than
even eastern Europeans in Western Europe: EU membership would mean
unlimited access to Germany by Turkish migrants, a demographic wave
that the Germans surely don't want to see. Plus, their culture is
quite different: western Ukraine is clearly a central European place,
and even Eastern Ukraine is as European as Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania,
or Finland. Also, as recently as 10 years ago Turkey was involved in
a massive Asiatic-style Kurd slaughter. Turkey also won't acknowledge
that it killed over a million Christian Armenians - the first
holocaust of the 20th century, never mind its centuries-old role as
the menace of eastern Europe, a slave bazaar for captured Christians
protected by an army of jannisarries - kids kidnapped from their
European parents and brainwashed into Muslim soldiers. And, of
course, an Islamic party just won Turkey's most recent election. But
don't worry, if it gets out of ine too much the military will, as it
has done throughout the last few decades, overthrow that elected
government. It might even slaughter a few more thousand Kurds while
it's busy.
Other than all of those factors, Turkey should have the edge over
Ukraine with respect to EU membership.
Bolshoy Murza
> fatso
TML
>
> "TML" > try and bear in mind that Turkey in order to europeanise itself,
> more- in order to save itself under Attaturk in the 1920-ties, has changed
> from
> arabic alphabet.
I am not aware as to how suited Arabic alphabet was for Turkish.
> Ukraine, in my opinion, would be in direct competition to
> european table with Turkey. There would be one place only at our table
for
> a country of that magnitude of problems and that size. Europe could not
> simply
> stomach two boorish newcomers in the foreseable future.
> Don't you think it would be prudent not to give Turks that advantage?
Because they write in Latin script? :)
Michael Petukhov
> you probably will not like my answer...
No I like it. And first of all it is an intersting point of view.
> Would it be fair to assume that in this union Ukraine would have a
> cultural position similar to that of Quebec in Canada?
I am not aware of all details. But generaly yes, why not.
> I.e., full
> Ukrainization within the Ukrainian territory,
Is that like in Quebec of Canada? I do not think so.
If so, No I am sorry we do not trade our brothers,
including Ukranians.
> and bilingual throughout
> much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
in that proposed united state.
I also have to say that your views on the Ukranian
future is something new for me! really new and unusual!
By the way is that your personal invention or a sort
of common views shared by a significant
number of others? Just curiousity.
What I can say? dispite I agree with many
things you have said and fully respect your
hopes fro better future for Ukraine to say
the true I do not believe all this is possible.
Reasons: too complex scenarium, too many unknown
"ifs" in it and most importantly all these requre
so perfect working system of Ukranian leadership
and truely united and determined ukranian
people and plus to all above clear lack of material
resources.
Does Ukraine have (or ever had) any of that
qualities now or in 10-20 years distant future.
Nobody can predict future but as you know Ukraine
never had experince to build that kind of systems.
I would love if Russians are much better in terms of
organization, but still in our long tragic history we have
experince to occupy Paris and Berlin as well as
half of Europe and Asia which certainly requred quite
an outstanding performance of its state system
and real desire of russian (and BTW ukranian) people.
As you understand building such a system is not
a trivial problem.
As for the waiting 10-20 years. Well, certainly Ukraine
can wait as long as it wants. We are not in a hurry
as well, since we have to do so many things inside
our own country and first of all to build new state
system which, unlike soviet one is stable and stable
and yet another time stabe. It seems must be democratic
because it is the only known to be stable enough and
certainly very effective in pursuing its goals etc.
In best case it will takes years and years, so we are not
in hurry.
Ukraine can wait but it also has to take into account
that providing Russia going up (the conditional assumption
required for that all these talks) the ticket price for
Ukraine (and others) for that possible union likely will
increase as well. Although the final price outcome will
unlikely to change. The stronger culture will win, which
is fair, isn't it?
But in any case I wish Ukraine big success in all that.
Michael
AV
> Hell, an americanized culture and language is better than [...] foreign ones instead.
:)
AV
Great post in fact. Mad dog, you say ? Yeah, you're real mad dog and
it's nice everyone can see it from your own post.
fatso
As babai has pointed out, Europe is at the demographically low ebb now.
Suffice to say that Italy with its proverbial Mamas surrounded by a crowd
of Bambini will die out in 30 yrs time, unless the North Africans implant
their
seed, that is. German womens ferociously high fertility is negative as
well, I believe.
Gt Britain has a healthy population growth, and thriving economy to boot.
It is said that every year the 1/4 million of immigrants do settle here,
size of
the city of Cambridge. I have met a one fertile young ukrainian pair of
members
of intelligentsia in London. Otherwise, alas, it is all Pakis, West Indians
and some such
cockroaches.
Turkey does carry a multitude of problems but it does make an effort.
Infests Germany with its populace, runs drug dealing cartels in London.
In short, it is present already. Which cannot be said of Ukraine at all.
I say, if you want to make an impression then tear yourselves away
from Russia, prove to decision makers that you are your own men.
Nothing better but to start with a change of an alphabet, vigorous
ukrainisation of russified East Ukraine, sorting out of Fifth Column
of russkies Orthodox Priests! Then, and only then you will be with
some hope of pipping Turkey at the entry post to Europe.
fatso
TML
"AV" <A...@nospam.ru> wrote in message news:asm1fb$47d$1...@zware.space.ru...
Wow, you can snip words out of context. Any other skills?
AV
> "fatso" <fatso...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:pEeH9.6318$Lk4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
>>>>* A clearly demonstrated will to stay european. Try changing to latin
>>>>alphabet for a start,
>>>
>>>Up to here you actually made sense, with your "conditions" I mean.
>>>
>>>Why would anyone want to adopt an alphabet obviously not suited for a
>>
>>Slavic
>>
>>>language? We've seen Polish, it's not like we want our language to look
>>>something like that.
>>
>>Change to latin alphabet would NOT constitute Conditio sine qua non.
>>After all, Greece does not use it. Bulgaria, which is about to start its
>
> run
>
>>to EU shortly, having been invited to NATO recently, does not use it.
>>Serbia cannot stay out of Europe forever, its alphabet is a Cyrillic.
>>Ukraine is a large country, change-over migh be difficult but, I believe,
>>it would allow Ukes to tear themselves away from Russia's cultural grip.
>
>
> I just cannot see how a simple change of alphabet will change anything,
> other than the convenience of Ukrainian written in an alphabet which ideally
> suits it.
It won't. But wait, the idea is not to just change their alphabet, but
also religion, build enough MacDonalds' all over the country, join NATO,
develop strong and stable russophobic attitides and here they are - true
Europeans.
TML
"AV" <A...@nospam.ru> wrote in message news:asm40r$4sj$1...@zware.space.ru...
That's fatso's idea. No one is changing the religion or the alphabet in
Greece, and MacDonalds is despised throughout the West as the lowest
possible form of fast food. Eventually it will stop being a novelty in
Eastern Europe, and similar attitude will follow.
xlmcn
> Gentlemen, of course I would see in Europe Ukraine rather then Turkey.
>
> As babai has pointed out, Europe is at the demographically low ebb now.
> Suffice to say that Italy with its proverbial Mamas surrounded by a crowd
> of Bambini will die out in 30 yrs time,
Dammit, how have you calculated this? To achieve such a result they would
have to stop having any bambini right now. Is anything like this happenig
over there?
Pan Piotr Glownia
Official statement is: Avoid next war.
Innofficial statement is: Money, money, poor poorer in the Colony,
wealthy richer in the Mother Country.
>How can a culture and language of a smaller country, in addition being
>supressed for centuries, be competitive with a language and culture of a
>nation 3 times larger?
If it grows up and show some teeth, but it never happen as Cossacks
are considered now-a-days an aristocracy (hahaha!) and yes Kozacy in
comparison with Ukrainians today are aristocracy!
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>fatso wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Pietukhov, how many new Bykovnias you have in mind for the Ukes?
>> >>>
>> How many wars, how many Holodomors do you plan to engineer to get rid of
>> them? For do not give us the russkies bullshit, you have treated the
>> ukes as subservient race since Peter the Great.
>
>Polak revising history. It was you Poles that treated Ukrainians as
>a subservient race.
???
You're lying. Rusin Polish nobility subservient to Lech Polish
nobility??? Never heard of. I heard something with Ukrainian Litvin Nobility
pulling legs off Hetman Chmielnicky and other good POLISH people.
Ukrainian revising history. It was you Litvin Ukrainians that treated
Polish as subservient race. Ukrainians screw Poland. Ukrainians screw
entire Slavonic Race.
I don't care how you Ukrainians treat/-ed/ other Ukrainians but
Cossacks revolt came in time to save Poland and who screw it up?
Ukrainians again! Ukrainians with Ukrainian Litvins together screw Poland
over and over again.
>Your occupation of parts of Ukraine were very
>similar to the barbaric occupation by the Ottomans of the Balkans.
Hm... Litvins are Poles now? Why do you think they are called
Litvins for? Joke?
>Your favourite past time was to impale Ukrainians on poles much like
>the Spanish impaled New World aboriginals. You fiends must have been
>using the same manual written by the Vatican inquisitors.
Eye for eye is a crude method, but serves justice well. Now for the
barbaric acts of UPA one would also see some Ukrainians getting missing
hands, legs, eyes and so on. The only excuse not to returning the favor to
you Ukrainians by us Polish is because we are not the same Slavs as we
were 200 years ago. Germanization took its bloody share. But as soon
as we stand back on our Slavonic feet we will be again good neighbours
returning good for good dids and returning the inquisition for Ukrainian
love to Slavonics.
>> You did not care in
>> Russia when the poor uke had to eat his own childeren to survive!
>
>Those "Ukrainians" that whinge about this the most are the half-assimilated
>Polaks from the western part that never experienced the Soviet famines.
Because they ARE Polish and ARE NOT Ukrainians and they WILL NEVER
BE ASSIMILATED by Ukrainians and "zupa z trupa" is not "czerwony barszcz
z uszkami" whatever the Kievians, Ukrainians, UPA AND OTHER PESKY IRANIANS
try to convince anyone in Western Ukraina.
>> its bountiful fields
>> tended by a slave labour.
>
>Slaver wannabe Polak "worrying" about Ukrainians.
Isnt there difference between Kozak and Ukrainian? I mean there was in
times of Khmielnicky. The funny thing it was Kozak country ruled by Kozak
rules until Litvins "came by visit". Now you Ukrainians are pissed on us
Polish for maintaining Kozak rule? Are you suggest we Polish are bad as we
treated you Ukrainians not as Polish but as Ukrainians? Well, you Ukrainians
ARE NOT Polish and better get used to it. When you wannabe Polish will be
Polish like Red-Rusins you'll get treatment like Polish.
>> As God is my witness, I would gladly see the ukes into Mongolia myself.
>
>You keep saying it over and over. Why don't you get over your obsession
>with Ukrainians and Russians. Us untermensch clearly aren't worthy of you Nazi
>bootlicks.
Are somebody suggesting Fatso is AN UPA NAZI BOOTLICK ? hahaha!
>> Future of Ukraine is in Europe. We,
>> the Poles, would welcome them wholeheartedly there, provided they atone
>> for the recent crimes.
>
>It is you who needs Ukraine's food.
Yeah, like radiation poisoning would be something actually looked for
in Poland.
>> Given the choice, Gospodin Pietukhov, what would
>> the Uke prefer? One way ticket to Siberia or a long weekend in Berlin,
>> easily reachable in the rich farmers merc or a cessna?
>
>Rich farmers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Peasantry and farmers-"the land lords = HOSPODARYNY" are two
different things. One is poor. Second is substantially rich.
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>
>Up to here you actually made sense, with your "conditions" I mean.
>Why would anyone want to adopt an alphabet obviously not suited for a Slavic
>language? We've seen Polish, it's not like we want our language to look
>something like that.
So you look upon Ukrainian language instead of speaking it. Now
I understand why you don't speak Ukrainian language, but some
Russian-Ukrainian mixture. At least Ukrainian when looked upon do
not sound too Polish to you. hehehe
Piotr
TML
"Pan Piotr Glownia" <Odrodzona-Polska.usu...@swipnet.se>
wrote in message news:LW1I9.1554$Y04....@nntpserver.swip.net...
I've no clue what you're trying to say. Not that it matters, anyway.
Bolshoy Murza
> > An intelligent and thoughtful post from you. I will respond, though
> > you probably will not like my answer...
>
> No I like it. And first of all it is an intersting point of view.
Thank you.
>
> > Would it be fair to assume that in this union Ukraine would have a
> > cultural position similar to that of Quebec in Canada?
>
> I am not aware of all details. But generaly yes, why not.
>
> > I.e., full
> > Ukrainization within the Ukrainian territory,
>
> Is that like in Quebec of Canada? I do not think so.
> If so, No I am sorry we do not trade our brothers,
> including Ukranians.
In Quebec French and non-English (i.e., Russian immigrants) people
must send their kids to French schools. English can choose. There was
a dramatic case a few years ago when an American woman was forced to
send her child to a Frenchschool because her husband was French. Of
course people have the option of private school in whatever langauge
they choose. All federal government is, of course, bilingual with
equal status for both languages.
In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
> > and bilingual throughout
> > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
>
> It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
> goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
> and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
> in that proposed united state.
>
> I also have to say that your views on the Ukranian
> future is something new for me! really new and unusual!
> By the way is that your personal invention or a sort
> of common views shared by a significant
> number of others? Just curiousity.
I don't know many Ukrainians other than family. I know that my family
were atypical immigrants (most Ukes are villagers from western
Ukraine); two grandparents were educated nobles who were "above"
ethnic hatred of Poles or Russians although they lost as much or more
than anyone else did (executed siblings, less importantly all
considerable property gone), another was from eastern Ukraine (who
came to Galicia with the Soviet takeover and then left when the
germans left) and only one was a Galician villager.
My ideas are basically the result of historical knowledge (history is
a hobby)and applying what I've read, especially by Spengler, K.
Leontiev (the Russian predecessor of Nietzsche), Berdyaev in the
current political/historical/cultural situation.
> What I can say? dispite I agree with many
> things you have said and fully respect your
> hopes fro better future for Ukraine to say
> the true I do not believe all this is possible.
>
> Reasons: too complex scenarium, too many unknown
> "ifs"
That is true. However, the first step is quite clear and quite basic
although it involves two parts: will Poland become crushed by German
pressure and reduced to a mere colony a la Czech republic, and will
Poland maintain and expand close ties to Ukraine. These questions are
related of course. And the outcome, I think, will be pretty clear
within 10 years.
> in it and most importantly all these requre
> so perfect working system of Ukranian leadership
> and truely united and determined ukranian
> people and plus to all above clear lack of material
> resources.
Yes. With Kuchma or fellow criminals in power Ukraine has no future.
> Does Ukraine have (or ever had) any of that
> qualities now or in 10-20 years distant future.
> Nobody can predict future but as you know Ukraine
> never had experince to build that kind of systems.
> I would love if Russians are much better in terms of
> organization, but still in our long tragic history we have
> experince to occupy Paris and Berlin as well as
> half of Europe and Asia which certainly requred quite
> an outstanding performance of its state system
> and real desire of russian (and BTW ukranian) people.
> As you understand building such a system is not
> a trivial problem.
>
> As for the waiting 10-20 years. Well, certainly Ukraine
> can wait as long as it wants. We are not in a hurry
> as well, since we have to do so many things inside
> our own country and first of all to build new state
> system which, unlike soviet one is stable and stable
> and yet another time stabe. It seems must be democratic
Not necessarily. Although Russia has a noble though small democratic
tradition (I think Yavlinsky typifies this) in genral democracy leads
to corruption, demogoguery, and other ills. What Russia needs more
than democracy is honest, patriotic statesmanship. I don't know if,
or how, this is possible.
I'll turn to the arch-conservative Spengler on this, who accurately
diagnosed so-called democracy in the Weimar Republic; his prophetic
words apply to much of eastern Europe and even, to a shockingly great
extent, in the USA. This makes sense to anyone familiar with Russian
"democrats" such as Yeltsin's gang of thieves, or Kuchma and his
cornies:
"Most sinister of all is the idea of a nation governed 'by
itself'...the notion of popular representation is from the first the
leading principle of every such movement. Persons who designate
themselves 'representatives' of the people come along and recommend
themselves as such. They have no intention whatever of 'serving the
people'; they intend to make the people serve them in their more or
less sordid aims, of which the gratification of vanity is the least
harmful..."
"This was the chaos which moved Metternich to oppose democracy
irrespective of its tendency...since then parties have been formed in
all coutnries; that is, side by side with individual idealists there
arose groups of business politicians of doubtful origin and more than
doubtful ethics: journalists, advocates, financiers, literarcy hacks,
party agents. They governed by representing their own interests. The
press, originally the *organ* of public opinion, had long since begun
to serve the man who subsidized it; elections, once the expression of
that opinion, brought in as victorious the party that with the biggest
money behind it..."
I think it renmains to be seen whether Putin belongs to the catagory
of statesman or is merely another demogogue-democrat, seducing the
population with his Judo moves and sweet words about drowing Chechens
in toilets.
> because it is the only known to be stable enough and
> certainly very effective in pursuing its goals etc.
> In best case it will takes years and years, so we are not
> in hurry.
>
> Ukraine can wait but it also has to take into account
> that providing Russia going up (the conditional assumption
> required for that all these talks) the ticket price for
> Ukraine (and others) for that possible union likely will
> increase as well.
I don't think the ticket price will go up, because Russia will need
Ukraine as much, if not more so, in 10 years than it does now. Russia
will need Ukraine just as much then as now if it wants to be a world
superpower; plus, in 10 years China will be much much stronger...
regards,
Bolshoy Murza
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > cultural position similar to that of Quebec in Canada?
> >
> > I am not aware of all details. But generaly yes, why not.
> >
> > > I.e., full
> > > Ukrainization within the Ukrainian territory,
> >
> > Is that like in Quebec of Canada? I do not think so.
> > If so, No I am sorry we do not trade our brothers,
> > including Ukranians.
>
> In Quebec French and non-English (i.e., Russian immigrants) people
> must send their kids to French schools. English can choose. There was
> a dramatic case a few years ago when an American woman was forced to
> send her child to a Frenchschool because her husband was French. Of
> course people have the option of private school in whatever langauge
> they choose. All federal government is, of course, bilingual with
> equal status for both languages.
>
> In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
> Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
>
This sounds like some russian nationalists (as you know in
russian the word nationalist has 100% bad meaning) suggest
that jews should not have more often presentation than it
population %%.
> > > and bilingual throughout
> > > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
I think the only possible basis is equal status for both languages
and 100% freedom for the people to select school type.
> >
> > It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
> > goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
> > and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
> > in that proposed united state.
> >
>
>
> Yes. With Kuchma or fellow criminals in power Ukraine has no future.
>
Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
puppet, not even very smart one. The rest are even worse.
Ukranine political elite is sick of provincialism. Unlike
russian political class it has zero emperial content.
Even in modern Moscow they look like villagers trying to
steal table silver. recently Lukashenko declared to join that
very sad show.
> > Does Ukraine have (or ever had) any of that
> > qualities now or in 10-20 years distant future.
> > Nobody can predict future but as you know Ukraine
> > never had experince to build that kind of systems.
> > I would love if Russians are much better in terms of
> > organization, but still in our long tragic history we have
> > experince to occupy Paris and Berlin as well as
> > half of Europe and Asia which certainly requred quite
> > an outstanding performance of its state system
> > and real desire of russian (and BTW ukranian) people.
> > As you understand building such a system is not
> > a trivial problem.
> >
> > As for the waiting 10-20 years. Well, certainly Ukraine
> > can wait as long as it wants. We are not in a hurry
> > as well, since we have to do so many things inside
> > our own country and first of all to build new state
> > system which, unlike soviet one is stable and stable
> > and yet another time stabe. It seems must be democratic
>
> Not necessarily. Although Russia has a noble though small democratic
> tradition (I think Yavlinsky typifies this)
Yavlinsky is trickster who has 3-4% of support in electorat and
0% support of military and security.
> in genral democracy leads
> to corruption, demogoguery, and other ills. What Russia needs more
> than democracy is honest, patriotic statesmanship. I don't know if,
> or how, this is possible.
In fact nobody knows. Perhaps constitutional monarhy would
be better but we would have to install totaly new dinasty.
I would vote for Vladimir I but for majority it is still
a kind of unthinkable. Also Putin himself has no propensity
to that...
However unexpectedly during last three years democracy in
Russia started to show much better performance than it was
in Yelcin times. The trend is quite visisble but it is still
not completely clear how stable it is. So who knows...
>
>
> I think it renmains to be seen whether Putin belongs to the catagory
> of statesman or is merely another demogogue-democrat, seducing the
> population with his Judo moves and sweet words about drowing Chechens
> in toilets.
he is stateman. that's clear. but wheather he has enough state content
is not comletely clear for me. fortunately we have some new
guys who can compete with him at the national level. Watch Glaziev.
his star will likely to rise, and pretty soon.
>
> > because it is the only known to be stable enough and
> > certainly very effective in pursuing its goals etc.
> > In best case it will takes years and years, so we are not
> > in hurry.
> >
> > Ukraine can wait but it also has to take into account
> > that providing Russia going up (the conditional assumption
> > required for that all these talks) the ticket price for
> > Ukraine (and others) for that possible union likely will
> > increase as well.
>
> I don't think the ticket price will go up, because Russia will need
> Ukraine as much, if not more so, in 10 years than it does now.
Agree the thing is it seems will be always true.
> Russia
> will need Ukraine just as much then as now if it wants to be a world
> superpower; plus, in 10 years China will be much much stronger...
As for China. I am much less positive about china future than
about its present times. The problem is huge discrepancy between
the material basis of its economical grow and political system it has.
it has the same burocratic communist system as USSR had for instance.
One day they would would have to resolve that. Another thing is that
at present only 7 mil of chineese are involved in the economy which
show such an outstanding performance during last 10 years. by the way all
are foreign investments. The rest are poor uneducated willagers
who have pretty the same life as it was in Mao times. So you can imagine
type of their behaivior if politcal stability is lost.
Michael
Trident
A question for the Czech Ambassador to Ukraine Mr. Karel Shtindl:
"What are your strongest impressions of your visit to Ukraine?"
Despite the similarity between the constitutions of Ukraine and
Russia, Ukrainian society differs fundamentally from Russia's:
Ukrainians are more active, while Russians are waiting for a
"tsar-father" to decide everything for them. I am impressed by the
beauty of Kyiv and the Dnipro River. Large rivers generally have a
magical effect on me. As a believer, naturally I bow down before the
spiritual temples of Kyiv.
To read the full text, click on
www.day.kiev.ua/2002/216/podrob/pod2.htm
Trident
Bolshoy Murza
> >
> > must send their kids to French schools. English can choose. There was
> > a dramatic case a few years ago when an American woman was forced to
> > send her child to a Frenchschool because her husband was French. Of
> > course people have the option of private school in whatever langauge
> > they choose. All federal government is, of course, bilingual with
> > equal status for both languages.
> >
> > In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
> > Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
> >
>
> This sounds like some russian nationalists (as you know in
> russian the word nationalist has 100% bad meaning) suggest
> that jews should not have more often presentation than it
> population %%.
There is a fundamental difference between the two. There is no reason
to equate education and discrimination. I was "forced" to attend an
English-language school in the USA; I was not discriminated against.
Obviously there should be no quotas on % of ethnic Russians in any
fields.
> > > > and bilingual throughout
> > > > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
>
> I think the only possible basis is equal status for both languages
> and 100% freedom for the people to select school type.
That doesn't exist in any nation, nor in nations-within-nations (like
in Quebec). I see no reason for it to exist in Ukraine, even within a
hypothetical Ukrainian-Russian state. Why would you want such a
"special" case for Ukraine?
>
> > > It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
> > > goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
> > > and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
> > > in that proposed united state.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes. With Kuchma or fellow criminals in power Ukraine has no future.
> >
> Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> puppet, not even very smart one.
Why is he a US puppet? Because his wife is from the US and once
worked for the government? I guess I must be a US puppet too - I'm
from the US and my dad's involved with the Republican party (and don't
think he isn't embarrassed by chimpanzee Bush)...
> The rest are even worse.
> Ukranine political elite is sick of provincialism. Unlike
> russian political class it has zero emperial content.
> Even in modern Moscow they look like villagers trying to
> steal table silver.
True with respect to Kuchma, but in general this represents a lack of
awareness. I.e., "villagers" trying to steal "their" Crimea or
"their" Kyiv.
> recently Lukashenko declared to join that very sad show.
>
> > > Does Ukraine have (or ever had) any of that
> > > qualities now or in 10-20 years distant future.
> > > Nobody can predict future but as you know Ukraine
> > > never had experince to build that kind of systems.
> > > I would love if Russians are much better in terms of
> > > organization, but still in our long tragic history we have
> > > experince to occupy Paris and Berlin as well as
> > > half of Europe and Asia which certainly requred quite
> > > an outstanding performance of its state system
> > > and real desire of russian (and BTW ukranian) people.
> > > As you understand building such a system is not
> > > a trivial problem.
> > >
> > > As for the waiting 10-20 years. Well, certainly Ukraine
> > > can wait as long as it wants. We are not in a hurry
> > > as well, since we have to do so many things inside
> > > our own country and first of all to build new state
> > > system which, unlike soviet one is stable and stable
> > > and yet another time stabe. It seems must be democratic
> >
> > Not necessarily. Although Russia has a noble though small democratic
> > tradition (I think Yavlinsky typifies this)
>
> Yavlinsky is trickster who has 3-4% of support in electorat and
> 0% support of military and security.
Why trickster? He's probably the most honest and respectable
politiican. Rembmer how he publicly humiliated the thief and
so-called democrat Chubais and other Yeltsin-era thieves? And he did
get 17% of the Moscow vote...
> > in genral democracy leads
> > to corruption, demogoguery, and other ills. What Russia needs more
> > than democracy is honest, patriotic statesmanship. I don't know if,
> > or how, this is possible.
>
> In fact nobody knows. Perhaps constitutional monarhy would
> be better but we would have to install totaly new dinasty.
> I would vote for Vladimir I but for majority it is still
> a kind of unthinkable. Also Putin himself has no propensity
> to that...
Putin in the shoes of the czars? As sad as it is ridiculous...
But I understand your feelings. After all, after a decade of a
literal drunk who allowed all sorts of crims ruling Russia, even a
two-bit KGB man sounds decent.
> However unexpectedly during last three years democracy in
> Russia started to show much better performance than it was
> in Yelcin times. The trend is quite visisble but it is still
> not completely clear how stable it is. So who knows...
>
> > I think it renmains to be seen whether Putin belongs to the catagory
> > of statesman or is merely another demogogue-democrat, seducing the
> > population with his Judo moves and sweet words about drowing Chechens
> > in toilets.
>
> he is stateman. that's clear. but wheather he has enough state content
> is not comletely clear for me.
Putin has only stopped the most ridiculous examples of thievery. His
best qualification is that he is, er, conscious. But he still has not
annexed Byelorus, he has let the US go all over central Asia, etc.
etc. So I am not yet convinced.
But will it be lost? Chinese are not Russians.
regards,
bolshoy Murza
>
> Michael
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > In Quebec French and non-English (i.e., Russian immigrants) people
> > > must send their kids to French schools. English can choose. There was
> > > a dramatic case a few years ago when an American woman was forced to
> > > send her child to a Frenchschool because her husband was French. Of
> > > course people have the option of private school in whatever langauge
> > > they choose. All federal government is, of course, bilingual with
> > > equal status for both languages.
> > >
> > > In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
> > > Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like some russian nationalists (as you know in
> > russian the word nationalist has 100% bad meaning) suggest
> > that jews should not have more often presentation than it
> > population %%.
>
> There is a fundamental difference between the two. There is no reason
> to equate education and discrimination.
Closing russian schools attended by mostly russian students
and opening instead Ukranian schools in that places...
if it is not a discrimination what it is?
> I was "forced" to attend an
> English-language school in the USA; I was not discriminated against.
> Obviously there should be no quotas on % of ethnic Russians in any
> fields.
Russians in Ukraine are not foreigners. As everybody else they
have rights to study in their native language.
>
> > > > > and bilingual throughout
> > > > > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
> >
> > I think the only possible basis is equal status for both languages
> > and 100% freedom for the people to select school type.
>
> That doesn't exist in any nation, nor in nations-within-nations (like
> in Quebec).
I do not care if it does not exist elsethere. It does exist in
russia that's enough for me. What do you think is the language
in which chechen student study in Chechenya schools? yes it is
chechen language. And all textbooks are printed in russia in
chechenyan language and sent to the schools for free.
> I see no reason for it to exist in Ukraine, even within a
> hypothetical Ukrainian-Russian state. Why would you want such a
> "special" case for Ukraine?
It is not a special case. It is normal case. This union, if
it is going to happend ever can be based only on clear understanding of
all parties involved that the goal is to merge these two or more
nations into new united and bigger one. Otherwise it has no sense.
Any "forced russifications" as well as "forced ukraniazation"
must be forbiden as well as special preservation of any minority
cultures involved. In the future there ther should be no separate
Ukraine and separate Russia as well. We do not need new USSR
with possibility to separate again in a case of serious
troubles. So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
>
> >
> > > > It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
> > > > goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
> > > > and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
> > > > in that proposed united state.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. With Kuchma or fellow criminals in power Ukraine has no future.
> > >
> > Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> > I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> > deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> > middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> > puppet, not even very smart one.
>
> Why is he a US puppet?
No idea why. Ask him. Perhaps money as ususal are involeved.
> Because his wife is from the US and once
> worked for the government?
Well if he would be a privat man nobody would care who
is his wife was working for. Are you seriousely expect that
russian government would be able to discuss with such
guy a serious and sensitive matters?
> I guess I must be a US puppet too - I'm
> from the US and my dad's involved with the Republican party (and don't
> think he isn't embarrassed by chimpanzee Bush)...
Well. certainly you understand that in the case of such union is
formed and you returned to Ukraine it will not be a positive
moment of your biography at least in some cases. For instance if you would
pretent to become not a privat person but a part of new russian-ukranian
state, security or military elites. In a normal case scenarium and
without a special reason, for instance such as long an very productive
work for Ukranian or Russian intel agencies in US, you should expect
no work in sensitive areas of national security and military.
It is sad reality but it is true. Even I myself who never change
my russian citizenship but spend some 6 years living abroad would
have these problems. And it is absolutely right.
>
> > The rest are even worse.
> > Ukranine political elite is sick of provincialism. Unlike
> > russian political class it has zero emperial content.
> > Even in modern Moscow they look like villagers trying to
> > steal table silver.
>
> True with respect to Kuchma,
Not only.
> but in general this represents a lack of
> awareness. I.e., "villagers" trying to steal "their" Crimea or
> "their" Kyiv.
I was not about that. But story as you said of stealing Crimea
did not add positive moments into Russia-Ukraine relations and
if I can say this extra respect from ordinary russian to ordinary
ukranian. certainly we are not going to take it back by any kind
of force simply because Crimea is not enough for us. we want all
Ukraine is back.
not for me and not for political and military elite in Russia.
I remember his comletely opposite views expessed 1999-2000
on CNN and russian TV on chechen war. This guy has many faces.
> Rembmer how he publicly humiliated the thief and
> so-called democrat Chubais and other Yeltsin-era thieves?
He is not any better.
> And he did get 17% of the Moscow vote...
In Moscow it may happend. But at the national
level he is close to zero, fortunately.
>
> > > in genral democracy leads
> > > to corruption, demogoguery, and other ills. What Russia needs more
> > > than democracy is honest, patriotic statesmanship. I don't know if,
> > > or how, this is possible.
> >
> > In fact nobody knows. Perhaps constitutional monarhy would
> > be better but we would have to install totaly new dinasty.
> > I would vote for Vladimir I but for majority it is still
> > a kind of unthinkable. Also Putin himself has no propensity
> > to that...
>
> Putin in the shoes of the czars? As sad as it is ridiculous...
Why? I personaly regard him as one of the best country leader
we ever had.
> But I understand your feelings. After all, after a decade of a
> literal drunk who allowed all sorts of crims ruling Russia, even a
> two-bit KGB man sounds decent.
In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
>
> > However unexpectedly during last three years democracy in
> > Russia started to show much better performance than it was
> > in Yelcin times. The trend is quite visisble but it is still
> > not completely clear how stable it is. So who knows...
> >
> > > I think it renmains to be seen whether Putin belongs to the catagory
> > > of statesman or is merely another demogogue-democrat, seducing the
> > > population with his Judo moves and sweet words about drowing Chechens
> > > in toilets.
> >
> > he is stateman. that's clear. but wheather he has enough state content
> > is not comletely clear for me.
>
> Putin has only stopped the most ridiculous examples of thievery. His
> best qualification is that he is, er, conscious. But he still has not
> annexed Byelorus, he has let the US go all over central Asia, etc.
> etc. So I am not yet convinced.
Well all this is quite questionable. Moreover did you ever
heard that diplomacy (and politics) is the art of possible?
who knows...
>Chinese are not Russians.
Exactly. We passed through the very difficult tranformation
of 90s with a relatively small blood and quite quickly. All
due to high level of public education. Would
it be possible for chinese when time come? I would like
to hope so.
Michael
Hetman
In Canada I had to learn French and English, does this mean that I have been
discriminated against? No, I was born in this country and learned this
language for free, if I wanted to learn Ukrainian then my parents paid for
it and I attended it on weekends - end of story. In my opinion, there
should be no Russian schools in Ukraine for the general population - if you
want to learn Russian then pay for it or go back to Russia.
> Russians in Ukraine are not foreigners. As everybody else they
> have rights to study in their native language.
>
This is still a difficult concept for many Russians and Russified Ukies to
understand. Of course they have the right to study in any language they
want as long as it's Ukrainian. :)
> >
> > > > > > and bilingual throughout
> > > > > > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real
partnership)?
> > >
> > > I think the only possible basis is equal status for both languages
> > > and 100% freedom for the people to select school type.
And what of the Ukrainians that live in Russia? Do they have a right to
learn in Ukrainian? Ha - they would get laughed at by the Muscoly.
> >
> > That doesn't exist in any nation, nor in nations-within-nations (like
> > in Quebec).
>
> I do not care if it does not exist elsethere. It does exist in
> russia that's enough for me. What do you think is the language
> in which chechen student study in Chechenya schools? yes it is
> chechen language. And all textbooks are printed in russia in
> chechenyan language and sent to the schools for free.
>
> > I see no reason for it to exist in Ukraine, even within a
> > hypothetical Ukrainian-Russian state. Why would you want such a
> > "special" case for Ukraine?
>
> It is not a special case. It is normal case. This union, if
> it is going to happend ever can be based only on clear understanding of
> all parties involved that the goal is to merge these two or more
> nations into new united and bigger one. Otherwise it has no sense.
> Any "forced russifications" as well as "forced ukraniazation"
> must be forbiden as well as special preservation of any minority
> cultures involved. In the future there ther should be no separate
> Ukraine and separate Russia as well. We do not need new USSR
> with possibility to separate again in a case of serious
> troubles. So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
>
Keep dreaming Muscovite.
> >
> > >
> > > > > It's certainly OK for me. As long as my opinion
> > > > > goes the bottom line is equal status for russian
> > > > > and ukranian (and belorussian) language and culture
> > > > > in that proposed united state.
Hundreds of years of Muscovite occupation in Ukraine and now they want equal
rights for Ukrainians? Are you serious?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. With Kuchma or fellow criminals in power Ukraine has no
future.
> > > >
> > > Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> > > I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> > > deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> > > middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> > > puppet, not even very smart one.
> >
If you still don't see the fact that Yuschenko is the only man capable of
saving this country then you should look at his track record. I do know
that many Russian sympathizers don't like Yush because he is western minded.
This man is capable of fixing this mess.
> > Why is he a US puppet?
>
They call him a US puppet because he is western minded and is a Ukrainian
patriot.
> No idea why. Ask him. Perhaps money as ususal are involeved.
>
> > Because his wife is from the US and once
> > worked for the government?
>
> Well if he would be a privat man nobody would care who
> is his wife was working for. Are you seriousely expect that
> russian government would be able to discuss with such
> guy a serious and sensitive matters?
>
Last time I checked the Russians were invited to the NATO summit and not
Ukraine. Looks like nothing would make the Russians happier to be closer to
the west/US.
Trident
>
> Russians in Ukraine are not foreigners. As everybody else they
> have rights to study in their native language.
Wait a second here. Russians in Ukraine ARE foreigners - contrary to
your perverted beliefs. Russians who are citizens of Ukraine probably
fall into different categories of allegiance, but the evidence shows
that a majority want nothing to do with a reunion with Russia.
As for the delicate issue of refusing to speak Ukrainian - this is
another matter. Sure Russians in Ukraine who are citizens of that
country have the right to study in their native language - but there
is no absolute right that this education in Russian be provided for
for by the public purse. If they want to set up private schools and
pay for education in Russian then by all means: go to it.
> > I see no reason for it to exist in Ukraine, even within a
> > hypothetical Ukrainian-Russian state. Why would you want such a
> > "special" case for Ukraine?
>
> It is not a special case. It is normal case. This union, if
> it is going to happend ever can be based only on clear understanding of
> all parties involved that the goal is to merge these two or more
> nations into new united and bigger one.
Russia is already the biggest nation on the face of the earth. Why do
you feel it needs to be bigger?
> Otherwise it has no sense.
It has no sense anyway. Ukrainians have little to gain, and
everything to loose.
> Any "forced russifications" as well as "forced ukraniazation"
> must be forbiden as well as special preservation of any minority
> cultures involved. In the future there ther should be no separate
> Ukraine and separate Russia as well. We do not need new USSR
> with possibility to separate again in a case of serious
> troubles. So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
Stick your one country idea up your ass. The cultural floodgates are
too wide open as it is. Ukrainian culture is drowning in a sea of
apathy and cheap Russian junk culture is filling the void. We need to
stem the on-slaught in some way shape or form or our culture will be
confined to the dust-bin of history - and to have that happen would be
an affront to the millions of proud Ukrainians who died in wave after
wave of Russian and communist assaults.
> > > >
> > > Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> > > I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> > > deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> > > middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> > > puppet, not even very smart one.
> >
> > Why is he a US puppet?
>
> No idea why. Ask him. Perhaps money as ususal are involeved.
Yushchenko is not a US puppet - contrary to efforts by "special" and
foreign interests to label him as such. He is a Ukraine First
politician. He is the only one who in actions and in words
consistently upholds Ukrainian interests. Despite a massive effort to
discredit him, the "self-serving" politicians and elites cannot bring
down his popularity - why: because he stands for something and he does
not compromise his principles.
>
> > Because his wife is from the US and once
> > worked for the government?
>
> Well if he would be a privat man nobody would care who
> is his wife was working for. Are you seriousely expect that
> russian government would be able to discuss with such
> guy a serious and sensitive matters?
Kuchma's wife is a 100% Russophile: refuses to learn to speak or use
Ukrainian - yet you will not discuss such matters with him? Could it
be that after the Belarus disaster, there is no appetite for union
with Russia and will never be?
>
> I was not about that. But story as you said of stealing Crimea
> did not add positive moments into Russia-Ukraine relations and
> if I can say this extra respect from ordinary russian to ordinary
> ukranian. certainly we are not going to take it back by any kind
> of force simply because Crimea is not enough for us. we want all
> Ukraine is back.
Why - still some unfinished rape and pillaging to do?
First of all, public poll after public poll in Ukraine confirms, not
to mention the last set of parliamentary elections, that Union with
Russia is a non-starter for the Ukrainian population. They do not see
it as the answer to present day problems. Incompetent, corrupt and
unaccountable government are the problem. Moreover, I seriously doubt
Ukraine is Russia's key to future happyness. In fact, I think it
would only bring widespread misery to both parties because there are
an awful lot of not so friendly Ukrainians that would cause Russia
problems - no matter how sugar sweet you make this union sound and
feel. Perhaps it is time for Russians like yourself to find an
identity and a life without Ukraine?? Maybe rather than deluding
yourself with all these false idicators of similarity, you need to
spend time considering the differences between us. Let go. Come to
terms with the fact that the marriage ended and the divorce is
permanent.
Trident
captain !
"Trident" <wyn...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:8b72a662.02121...@posting.google.com...
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
news:<a39cf3c3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
lol
captain !
"Hetman" <het...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:SusJ9.3060$lL6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
. So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> > and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> > decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
> >
>
> Keep dreaming Muscovite.
>
he's right. that is a little naive of you micheal.
>
> If you still don't see the fact that Yuschenko is the only man capable of
> saving this country then you should look at his track record. I do know
> that many Russian sympathizers don't like Yush because he is western
minded.
> This man is capable of fixing this mess.
>
you should never put your faith in only one man. you will dissappointed
Bolshoy Murza
my compatriots (although I understand them).
petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
> > > > Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This sounds like some russian nationalists (as you know in
> > > russian the word nationalist has 100% bad meaning) suggest
> > > that jews should not have more often presentation than it
> > > population %%.
> >
> > There is a fundamental difference between the two. There is no reason
> > to equate education and discrimination.
>
> Closing russian schools attended by mostly russian students
> and opening instead Ukranian schools in that places...
> if it is not a discrimination what it is?
As the example of Quebec indicates, ethnic Russians would be allowed
to attend Russian schools; only ethnic Ukrainians would switch to
Ukrainian schools. In Quebec, for example, ethnic French have no
choice but must send their children to French schools (unless, of
course, they choose to pay for a private school).
The only people being "discriminated" against would be Ukrainians.
But, from what I have heard, even many Russians - at least in Kyiv -
WANT to send their their kids to Ukrainians schools. Funding and lack
of books prevents more of them from replacing Russian ones.
> > I was "forced" to attend an
> > English-language school in the USA; I was not discriminated against.
> > Obviously there should be no quotas on % of ethnic Russians in any
> > fields.
>
> Russians in Ukraine are not foreigners. As everybody else they
> have rights to study in their native language.
Only in the hypothetical union we are discussing would they not be
considered foreigners, and thus would be guarenteed the right to their
schools that I have described. Currently, they ARE either foreigners
themselves or the descendents of foreigners. I was born in the US;
nevertheless my Ukrainan language is "foreign" here, and the US
government is under no obligation to spend its taxes on my foreign
language schools etc.
> > > > > > and bilingual throughout
> > > > > > much of the Russian-Ukrainian superstate (i.e. a real partnership)?
> > >
> > > I think the only possible basis is equal status for both languages
> > > and 100% freedom for the people to select school type.
> >
> > That doesn't exist in any nation, nor in nations-within-nations (like
> > in Quebec).
>
> I do not care if it does not exist elsethere. It does exist in
> russia that's enough for me. What do you think is the language
> in which chechen student study in Chechenya schools? yes it is
> chechen language. And all textbooks are printed in russia in
> chechenyan language and sent to the schools for free.
Chechnya is a seperate republic in the Russian Federation.
Interestingly, in Moscow one comes across "embassies" of these various
republics.
> > I see no reason for it to exist in Ukraine, even within a
> > hypothetical Ukrainian-Russian state. Why would you want such a
> > "special" case for Ukraine?
>
> It is not a special case. It is normal case. This union, if
> it is going to happend ever can be based only on clear understanding of
> all parties involved that the goal is to merge these two or more
> nations into new united and bigger one. Otherwise it has no sense.
> Any "forced russifications" as well as "forced ukraniazation"
> must be forbiden as well as special preservation of any minority
> cultures involved. In the future there ther should be no separate
> Ukraine and separate Russia as well.
The problem is that when one nation is 3 times the population and size
of another one it does indeed become a de facto annexation of the
smaller one. For this reason even within the USA states have seperate
legislative assemblies and laws, and are artificially "equalized" in
the Senate.
> We do not need new USSR with possibility to separate again in a case of > serious troubles.
If (some of) the republics did not feel the need to seperate they
would not have done so.
> So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
Unfortunately, if that is the union you propose than Ukrainians will
never agree to it. Crimeans maybe, but even the people of Donetsk
have a strong attitude of regionalism.
I think that it does speak to the fundamental cultural (or
civilizational) difference between the two half-brother nations.
Politically speaking, russia has always been about rigid
centralization, "vse vmesti" to borrow the name of the Putin-Jugend
movement in Russia. This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically), in Cossack Ukraine (the
democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
of Rus' traditions), etc.
I'll repost what I had written earlier about Mazepa becaue it really
highlight this basic misunderstanding, which is typical of what
happens when different civilizations interact:
I will use this example because in another
post you or someone else referred to him as "traitor"; also his case
illuastrates just one part of what Ukrainian-Russian "cooperation" has
meant in the past. I will quote O. Subtelny, from a work published by
Harvard:
Orest Subtelny:
" During the Tsar's war against Sweden, unprecedented demands were
made of the Cossacks. Rather fight Ottomans or Tatars, close to home,
they were sent off against modern Swedish armies in Livonia, central
Poland and Lithuania. Often they were placed under Russian command
and used as mere cannon fodder. Casualty rates of 50% -70% were
reported among returning units. And the same time, in Ukraine,
grievence after grievence was reported to the Hetman about the
behavior of Muscovite troops and officials. Finally, in the Swedes'
Polish ally Stanislaw Leszczynski threatened to invade Ukraine and
Mazepa turned to Peter I for help the tsar, who was gathering his own
forces for an expected Swedish invasion, replied: "I cannot even spare
10 men; defend yourself as best you can." This was the final straw;
when Peter broke his commitment to defend Ukraine from the hated Poles
- a guarantee that constituted the very basis of the 1654 Pereyaslav
treaty - Mazepa felt under no more obligation to remain loyal to him.
Mazepa's line of argument is striking in how often certain phases and
ideas are repeated and stressed: rights and privileges; overlordship
freely chosen and open to recall; and protection, always the issue of
protection. For anyone with an acquaintance with medieval political
theory, these concepts strike a familiar note. They are components of
the contractual principle, European feudalism's most common regulator
of the political relations between sovereigns and regional elites.
The contractual obligation was an act of mutual obligation. The
vassal promised his lord obedience, service, and loyalty in return for
the latter's protection and respect for the vassal's privileges and
the traditions of his land. If the vassal had good reason to believe
that his lord was breaking his obligations, he had the right - the
famous ius resistendi - to rise against him to protect his interests.
Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of
disloyalty. The German Schwabenspiegel, one of the primary sources
for customary law in east central Europe, provided a concise summary
of the principle: "We should serve our sovereigns because they protect
us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more
service". Mazepa's position could not have been stated more
succinctly.
Note, again, the European emphasis on rights and obligations. A
vassal was no slave; his commitment was an expression of individualism
- the hallmark of European culture. To a Russian with an Asian
political understanding, this was a completely alien concept. Mazepa
could only be understood as a "traitor". A Turk or Mongol would view
Mazepa the same way. Understand, Michael, how painful
misunderstanding can be when two different cultures, or superthos' (to
borrow a term if not conclusion from Gumilev) come together.
I suppose then, that PEter the Great should never have become czar
because of all that time in the West. His sister whom he imprisoned
(Tarakanova? The one whose painting is in the Trtyakov gallery?)
should have ruled Russia.
Or even better, Catherine II, who wasn't even Russian.
> > > The rest are even worse.
> > > Ukranine political elite is sick of provincialism. Unlike
> > > russian political class it has zero emperial content.
> > > Even in modern Moscow they look like villagers trying to
> > > steal table silver.
> >
> > True with respect to Kuchma,
>
> Not only.
>
> > but in general this represents a lack of
> > awareness. I.e., "villagers" trying to steal "their" Crimea or
> > "their" Kyiv.
>
> I was not about that. But story as you said of stealing Crimea
> did not add positive moments into Russia-Ukraine relations and
> if I can say this extra respect from ordinary russian to ordinary
> ukranian. certainly we are not going to take it back by any kind
> of force simply because Crimea is not enough for us. we want all
> Ukraine is back.
Well, with the conditions you place it will never happen. Trust me,
or wait and see.
> > > Yavlinsky is trickster who has 3-4% of support in electorat and
> > > 0% support of military and security.
> >
> > Why trickster? He's probably the most honest and respectable
> > politiican.
>
> not for me and not for political and military elite in Russia.
Yavlinsky is a true democrat, that is why political and military elite
do not like him. He opposes corruption and publicly humiliates the
corrupt; another reason the political and military elite do not like
him.
BTW for the same reasons pro-corruption American policy makers don't
like Yavlinsky either; they prefer to deal with sell-outs like
Chubais.
> I remember his comletely opposite views expessed 1999-2000
> on CNN and russian TV on chechen war. This guy has many faces.
I don't recall CNN. He was against the Chechen war. I do recall his
anti-NATO stand on Yugoslavia.
> > Rembmer how he publicly humiliated the thief and
> > so-called democrat Chubais and other Yeltsin-era thieves?
>
> He is not any better.
How much has he stolen, according to you?
> > And he did get 17% of the Moscow vote...
>
> In Moscow it may happend. But at the national level he is close to zero, > fortunately.
Yes. He doesn't claim that he will drown Chechens in their toilets,
or have foreign journalists circumcised : )
Sure vote-getters in provincial Russia.
> > > In fact nobody knows. Perhaps constitutional monarhy would
> > > be better but we would have to install totaly new dinasty.
> > > I would vote for Vladimir I but for majority it is still
> > > a kind of unthinkable. Also Putin himself has no propensity
> > > to that...
> >
> > Putin in the shoes of the czars? As sad as it is ridiculous...
>
> Why? I personaly regard him as one of the best country leader
> we ever had.
It remains entirely possible, and indeed is probable, the Putin is
merely getting Russia better organized so that it will be easier and
less messy for the foreigners to plunder it - er, I mean "invest" in
it.
> > But I understand your feelings. After all, after a decade of a
> > literal drunk who allowed all sorts of crims ruling Russia, even a
> > two-bit KGB man sounds decent.
>
> In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
>
True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
what a democrat he is.
respectfully,
Bolshoy Murza
Michael Petukhov
> "Hetman" <het...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:SusJ9.3060$lL6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> . So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> > > and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> > > decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
> > >
> >
> > Keep dreaming Muscovite.
> >
>
> he's right. that is a little naive of you micheal.
yes I know.
>
>
> >
> > If you still don't see the fact that Yuschenko is the only man capable of
> > saving this country then you should look at his track record. I do know
> > that many Russian sympathizers don't like Yush because he is western
> minded.
> > This man is capable of fixing this mess.
> >
>
> you should never put your faith in only one man. you will dissappointed
He is not one man. 1/3 or 1/6 of one man is closer to reality
estimate.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> I would like to firstly apologise for the hostility you've gotten from
> my compatriots (although I understand them).
No need. If God wants to purnish anyone it takes out their mind.
>
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > > In Ukraine this would mean a reduction from today's approximately 35%
> > > > > Russian schools to about 22% Russian schools.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like some russian nationalists (as you know in
> > > > russian the word nationalist has 100% bad meaning) suggest
> > > > that jews should not have more often presentation than it
> > > > population %%.
> > >
> > > There is a fundamental difference between the two. There is no reason
> > > to equate education and discrimination.
> >
> > Closing russian schools attended by mostly russian students
> > and opening instead Ukranian schools in that places...
> > if it is not a discrimination what it is?
>
> As the example of Quebec indicates, ethnic Russians would be allowed
> to attend Russian schools; only ethnic Ukrainians would switch to
> Ukrainian schools. In Quebec, for example, ethnic French have no
> choice but must send their children to French schools (unless, of
> course, they choose to pay for a private school).
I see. So you suggest to restrict freedom of Ukranians only.
That's nice of you. How about mixture blood?
>
> The only people being "discriminated" against would be Ukrainians.
> But, from what I have heard, even many Russians - at least in Kyiv -
> WANT to send their their kids to Ukrainians schools. Funding and lack
> of books prevents more of them from replacing Russian ones.
>
> > > I was "forced" to attend an
> > > English-language school in the USA; I was not discriminated against.
> > > Obviously there should be no quotas on % of ethnic Russians in any
> > > fields.
> >
> > Russians in Ukraine are not foreigners. As everybody else they
> > have rights to study in their native language.
>
> Only in the hypothetical union we are discussing would they not be
> considered foreigners, and thus would be guarenteed the right to their
> schools that I have described. Currently, they ARE either foreigners
> themselves or the descendents of foreigners. I was born in the US;
> nevertheless my Ukrainan language is "foreign" here, and the US
> government is under no obligation to spend its taxes on my foreign
> language schools etc.
As I have opportunity to told you I do not care about US and others.
We are talking about possibility of Ukraine-Russia union which is
based on mutual most vital long term interests.
Sure. But i told you it's a price. And also it will happend
anyway in quite short time even if Ukraine will go to west.
Noone can stop it. But choise of the direction seems possible.
> For this reason even within the USA states have seperate
> legislative assemblies and laws, and are artificially "equalized" in
> the Senate.
Yes I know. Stupid practice, isn't it?
>
> > We do not need new USSR with possibility to separate again in a case of > serious troubles.
>
> If (some of) the republics did not feel the need to seperate they
> would not have done so.
Peoples of all republics voted to keep USSR in a referendum in march, 91.
Only top functioners of local CK of CP were those who "feel the need to
seperate". They are still in power in all over FSu states with
exception of Russia and Armenia.
>
> > So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> > and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> > decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
>
> Unfortunately, if that is the union you propose than Ukrainians will
> never agree to it. Crimeans maybe, but even the people of Donetsk
> have a strong attitude of regionalism.
well we will see. But we do not need anything else.
>
> I think that it does speak to the fundamental cultural (or
> civilizational) difference between the two half-brother nations.
> Politically speaking, russia has always been about rigid
> centralization, "vse vmesti" to borrow the name of the Putin-Jugend
> movement in Russia.
Sure because it main road of ethnogenesis and as such of
main road of human civilization.
> This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
> concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
> Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
> the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically),
You must be joking.
> in Cossack Ukraine (the
> democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
> of Rus' traditions), etc.
Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
And you know that very well.
You told that already and I got it from the first time.
Is not good example. He went there as valid czar.
He would never be czar if he went there before the
crowning.
>
> Or even better, Catherine II, who wasn't even Russian.
She was german only by blood, in her heart she was true
russian or better to say became true russian after the marriage.
What's why she became catherine the great in people's memory.
I tell you in an opposite case she would be quickly removed
from power in Russia.
>
> > > > The rest are even worse.
> > > > Ukranine political elite is sick of provincialism. Unlike
> > > > russian political class it has zero emperial content.
> > > > Even in modern Moscow they look like villagers trying to
> > > > steal table silver.
> > >
> > > True with respect to Kuchma,
> >
> > Not only.
> >
> > > but in general this represents a lack of
> > > awareness. I.e., "villagers" trying to steal "their" Crimea or
> > > "their" Kyiv.
> >
> > I was not about that. But story as you said of stealing Crimea
> > did not add positive moments into Russia-Ukraine relations and
> > if I can say this extra respect from ordinary russian to ordinary
> > ukranian. certainly we are not going to take it back by any kind
> > of force simply because Crimea is not enough for us. we want all
> > Ukraine is back.
>
> Well, with the conditions you place it will never happen. Trust me,
> or wait and see.
what can I do else?
>
> > > > Yavlinsky is trickster who has 3-4% of support in electorat and
> > > > 0% support of military and security.
> > >
> > > Why trickster? He's probably the most honest and respectable
> > > politiican.
> >
> > not for me and not for political and military elite in Russia.
>
> Yavlinsky is a true democrat, that is why political and military elite
> do not like him. He opposes corruption and publicly humiliates the
> corrupt; another reason the political and military elite do not like
> him.
gross oversiplification...
>
> BTW for the same reasons pro-corruption American policy makers don't
> like Yavlinsky either; they prefer to deal with sell-outs like
> Chubais.
They are worth each other.
>
> > I remember his comletely opposite views expessed 1999-2000
> > on CNN and russian TV on chechen war. This guy has many faces.
>
> I don't recall CNN. He was against the Chechen war.
Only on CNN. In russian TV he was prowar in end of 1999 - beginning of 2000.
>I do recall his
> anti-NATO stand on Yugoslavia.
I do recall his proNATO stand on Yugoslavia as well.
this guy is very slippery.
>
> > > Rembmer how he publicly humiliated the thief and
> > > so-called democrat Chubais and other Yeltsin-era thieves?
> >
> > He is not any better.
>
> How much has he stolen, according to you?
No idea. Chubais is also officially did not
stole anything. As far as I understand Yavlinsky
profession is not simple stoling rather it is selling
his country...
>
> > > And he did get 17% of the Moscow vote...
> >
> > In Moscow it may happend. But at the national level he is close to zero, > fortunately.
>
> Yes. He doesn't claim that he will drown Chechens in their toilets,
> or have foreign journalists circumcised : )
As far as I know it is the only his advantage.
>
> Sure vote-getters in provincial Russia.
No. Rather it is provincial Russia instincts for life which
still play the role.
>
> > > > In fact nobody knows. Perhaps constitutional monarhy would
> > > > be better but we would have to install totaly new dinasty.
> > > > I would vote for Vladimir I but for majority it is still
> > > > a kind of unthinkable. Also Putin himself has no propensity
> > > > to that...
> > >
> > > Putin in the shoes of the czars? As sad as it is ridiculous...
> >
> > Why? I personaly regard him as one of the best country leader
> > we ever had.
>
> It remains entirely possible, and indeed is probable, the Putin is
> merely getting Russia better organized so that it will be easier and
> less messy for the foreigners to plunder it - er, I mean "invest" in
> it.
I do not buy this (investors). Sorry.
>
> > > But I understand your feelings. After all, after a decade of a
> > > literal drunk who allowed all sorts of crims ruling Russia, even a
> > > two-bit KGB man sounds decent.
> >
> > In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
> >
>
> True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
> Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
> Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
> official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
> by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
> what a democrat he is.
I would not recommend anyone to base any judgements on
that kind of 'stories'.
I remember another one which I saw personaly in russian TV.
Shortly after his president's ellections he attended meeting
of KGB veterans due to some KGB anniversary. He started his
speach from report in formal manner to the audience saying
"let me report here that group of KGB agents tasked to
win the power in our country executed the order..."
How do you like this kind of sense of humor? Although
russians say in each joke there is only part of this
joke.
Michael
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> The only people being "discriminated" against would be Ukrainians.
> But, from what I have heard, even many Russians - at least in Kyiv -
> WANT to send their their kids to Ukrainians schools. Funding and lack
> of books prevents more of them from replacing Russian ones.
Bolshy, please explain that last sentence.
Since the funding is from the Ukrainian government for either the
Ukrainian or Russian schools, it simply needs to be switched.
Actually just the language used in some of the schools needs to
be switched. Textbooks can be a problem. But school textbooks
don't last very long anyway. So buy fewer Russian language copies
and more Ukrainian copies. I think it's just some administrators,
decision makers, from the old guard dragging their feet with
delaying tactics.
--
Rostyk
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> Peoples of all republics voted to keep USSR in a referendum in march, 91.
I see :) and so because all the people loved being in the empire so much,
Russia has felt it necessary to support the will of the people in Ichkeria.
Also all those people in the Baltic states are just clamoring to rejoin the
empire. The claim of their rulers that they wish to join NATO is a fake
and a sham. And of course the same in Ukraine ...
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> >
> > Or even better, Catherine II, who wasn't even Russian.
>
> She was german only by blood, in her heart she was true
> russian or better to say became true russian after the marriage.
> What's why she became catherine the great in people's memory.
> I tell you in an opposite case she would be quickly removed
> from power in Russia.
>
Just like Stalin, she had the true Russian character.
Is this the infamous queen with a prodigious libido
and many lovers? lover of horses? and destroyer
of the Sich?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> > I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> > deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> > middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> > puppet, not even very smart one.
> >
> Why is he a US puppet?
Wrong wording Bolshy :-|
Are you admiting that he is a puppet, and asking for the
reason?
The question should rather be worded.
In what ways do you consider Yushchenko to be a puppet
of the US? On what basis are you making this accusation?
Petukhov?
Michael Petukhov
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> > Peoples of all republics voted to keep USSR in a referendum in march, 91.
>
> I see :) and so because all the people loved being in the empire so much,
> Russia has felt it necessary to support the will of the people in Ichkeria.
Ichkeria? what's this? Also:
http://www.interfax.ru/one_news_en.html?lang=EN&tz=0&tz_format=MSK&id_news=5610416
> Also all those people in the Baltic states are just clamoring to rejoin the
> empire.
As far as rememeber Baltics voted to preserve USSR in this referendum.
> The claim of their rulers that they wish to join NATO is a fake
> and a sham.
Did russians (30-40% of its population) of baltic countires voted
for those rulers?
>And of course the same in Ukraine ...
correct
Michael
Michael Petukhov
So what?
>lover of horses?
Just like lady Diana.
> and destroyer of the Sich?
yes she is.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
My instincts never did any mistakes of that matters. And yours too.
it is the basic instinct.
Michael
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Ah, I see. No evidence of any dancing to US pulling on any strings.
Just your instincts, fortified by his apparent pro Ukrainian action.
Your base instincts. Eh?
--
Rostyk
Bolshoy Murza
> >Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> > > Sure and as well as with Yushenko type men. To say the true
> > > I do not see any person in Ukranian politics which would
> > > deserve any respect. Kuchma is a criminal trying to play
> > > middle course between Russia and West. Yushenko is US
> > > puppet, not even very smart one.
> > >
> > Why is he a US puppet?
>
> Wrong wording Bolshy :-|
> Are you admiting that he is a puppet, and asking for the
> reason?
> The question should rather be worded.
You're right. Wrong wording. I was asking Mr. Petukhov why he felt
that Yushchenko was a puppet - which of his policies were puppet-like.
I do not consider Yushchenko a puppet.
Bolshoy Murza
Bolshoy Murza
...cut...
> > > It is not a special case. It is normal case. This union, if
> > > it is going to happend ever can be based only on clear understanding of
> > > all parties involved that the goal is to merge these two or more
> > > nations into new united and bigger one. Otherwise it has no sense.
> > > Any "forced russifications" as well as "forced ukraniazation"
> > > must be forbiden as well as special preservation of any minority
> > > cultures involved. In the future there ther should be no separate
> > > Ukraine and separate Russia as well.
> >
> > The problem is that when one nation is 3 times the population and size
> > of another one it does indeed become a de facto annexation of the
> > smaller one.
>
> Sure. But i told you it's a price. And also it will happend
> anyway in quite short time even if Ukraine will go to west.
> Noone can stop it.
Why do you beleive this?
> But choise of the direction seems possible.
> > For this reason even within the USA states have seperate
> > legislative assemblies and laws, and are artificially "equalized" in
> > the Senate.
>
> Yes I know. Stupid practice, isn't it?
Not at all. Most states from European cultures have similar systems
(Germany, Spain with Cataluna and Basque country, UK with Scotland and
Wales, Canada with provinces, Australia, etc.) It allows for greater
freedoms for people within a nation. I would cetainly want laws in my
state to be different than those that a Mississipian would like.
Your love of the all-powerful central authority (an attitude Russia
inherited from the Mongols) is different from the European view, and
thus different from the attitude of Ukrainians who are a European
people. It shows that Ukraine's "Europeanness" is not merely
geographical as you stated. But more on that later.
> > If (some of) the republics did not feel the need to seperate they
> > would not have done so.
>
> Peoples of all republics voted to keep USSR in a referendum in march, 91.
> Only top functioners of local CK of CP were those who "feel the need to
> seperate". They are still in power in all over FSu states with
> exception of Russia and Armenia.
As you yourself stated in another post, in that referendum people from
Baltics also voted to remain in the USSR. So that referendum doesn't
mean much, unless you really believe that most of the population of
the Baltics wanted to remain in the USSR.
> > > So the goal is one nation, one president, one parlament
> > > and finally one country. The language, culture, schools etc will be
> > > decided by free will of people in their everyday life.
> >
> > Unfortunately, if that is the union you propose than Ukrainians will
> > never agree to it. Crimeans maybe, but even the people of Donetsk
> > have a strong attitude of regionalism.
>
> well we will see. But we do not need anything else.
Yes. we will see, indeed...
> > I think that it does speak to the fundamental cultural (or
> > civilizational) difference between the two half-brother nations.
> > Politically speaking, russia has always been about rigid
> > centralization, "vse vmesti" to borrow the name of the Putin-Jugend
> > movement in Russia.
>
> Sure because it main road of ethnogenesis and as such of
> main road of human civilization.
> > This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
> > concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
> > Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
> > the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically),
>
> You must be joking.
Why do you think so? Were you aware that the first and only elected
ruler in old Rus' lands was in Galicia, where the nobles after
murdering the prince in 1341 voted for a replacement (Dmytro Dedko,
who incidentally defeated the invading Poles)? Also remember the very
*European* Ruska Pravda legal code, which not only banned the death
penalty but also recognized the worth of each individual, even the
lowest peasant, when it assigned monetary penalties to crimes against
people. Even if a noble or kniaz killed a peasant, according to this
code, he would be obligated to repay the family (of course, nobles
were worth more in this system). Perhaps you can compare this
European individual-based system of Rus to the Eurasian one of
Muscovy?
> > in Cossack Ukraine (the
> > democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
> > of Rus' traditions), etc.
>
> Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
> And you know that very well.
A comment as insulting as it is untrue! Cossacks were literate
Europeans, far more civilized and less barbaric than their northern
half-brothers. But don't take my word for it. This is what European
travelors had to say when comparing Russians and Cossacks in the
17th-18th centuries:
A French diplomat, Jean Baluse, whose memoirs are in the
National Library in Paris, on Mazepa:
"At his court he has two German doctors, with whom he converses in
their tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are several in
the castle, he speaks in the Italian language. I spoke with the
master of Ukraine in the Latin language, inasmuch he assured me
that he was not very fluent in French...I do not know if this
statement of his concealed a special motive, for I myself saw
French and Dutch newspapers in his study."
The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
"Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
Austrian diplomat J.G. Korb, 1700-1701, on Russians:
"The people are rude of letters, and wanting in that virtuous
discipline by which the mind is cultivated...John Barclay, in
his Mirror of Souls, describes at length how this race, born for
slavery, becomes ferocious at the least trace of liberty...Humility
more solidly crouching the very Turks do not entertain not for
their Ottoman sceptre. They esteem other races as well by their
own character."
"Devoid of honest education, they esteem deceit to be the height of
wisdom. They have no shame of lying, no blush for a detected
fraud"
About Kozaks Korb writes:
"this stout race excels the Muscovites, both in the art of war and in
bravery of soul"
Danish envoy in Moscow Jul Just, 1709-1712:
"Although at the present time the Russians in their conduct are
trying to emulate in monkey fashion the other nations, and though
they don French attire and in their external appearance they appear
more civilized, inwardly, however, there sits a cholop"
"The tsar's entourage behaved without conscience and shame; they
shouted, whistled, belched, spat, berated each other, and even
shamelessly spat in the faces of decent people"
[sounds like a gathering of New Russians in one of Moscow's more
expensive restaurants]
Just described how all of the teachers at the Moscow gymnasium were
either Ukrainians or Byelorussians ("Orthodox from Poland").
Cultural level of the Russian leaders (contrast this with the
descriptions of Mazepa above):
"Prince Menshikov, a figure second to the tsar, could neither read nor
write. Chancellor Golovkin knew no language but Russian; not a single
one of the tsar's dignitaries could speak Latin, with the exception of
Musin-Pushkin, who was fluent in that language. Even Tsar Peter,
whose 'enlightenment' was widely known, spoke only one Western
European language, namely Dutch, and even here the tsar had
difficulty in making himself understood."
Just contrasts this with Ukraine:
"The inhabitants of the Chernihiv province, as well as the entire
population of kozak Ukraine, are known for their politeness and
cleanliness, dressing neatly and keeping their homes immaculately
clean."
"Korolevets is a big town...the streets are beautiful, such as I
never saw in Russia; the buildings are stately, strong and clean
and are along the streets as in Denmark..."
The envoy visited many Ukrainian dignitaries, all of whom he found
to be extremely learned and educated. The ordinary monks in the
Pecherska Lavra spoke fluently with him in Latin. He was greatly
surprised to see the Ukrainian peasants in many villages going to
church with prayer books, indicating that they were literate.
In Podolia, in Nemyriv, "the meanest building was much cleaner than
the most sumptuous palace in Moscow".
An English author, Joseph Marshall, compared Ukrainian villages to
those of England or Flanders. "The race of the Ukraine are civilized
people and the best husbandmen in the Russian empire."
As you can see, the brutal Moscow tsars were more similar to Chechen
gangsters than were cossacks. As if more proof was needed, you can
think about the following other facts:
- immediately after those whom you compared to Chechens entered the
Russian Empire, they constituted 70% of the upper levels of the
Russian Church hierarchy; Stefan Yavorskyi, for example, was the first
president of the Holy Synod
- the Kyiv Academy during cossack rule was the intellectual center of
Orthodoxy (which can be found in Vernadsky)
- Ukrainians such as Hryhor Poletyka were instrumental in building the
Russian language; Russian grammarians and lexogrophers such as
Trediakovski and Lomonosov were largely building on the works of 17th
century Ukrainians such as Meletiy Smotrytskyi and Lavrentii Zyzanyi
- Ukrainian influence on Russian music, such as Dmytro Bortnianskyi,
the "Russian" Mozart
etc.
But I would like to add that in the case of the Russians described
previously, barbarity should not be seen as an insult. Russia was a
young nation (still is), having developed only a fw centuries before.
It was and will be a shame if it becomes civilized, not through its
own unique development, but by the forcing of civilized European
culture on it. Just think how human progress would have been retarded
if the German barbarians of the 4th century had adopted the decadent
yet civilized ways of their advanced southern neighbors instead of
rudely going their own way. There would have been no Kant, no
Beethoven, no Mozart, etc. etc.
However, note how these visitors often compared Ukrainians to other
Europeans, found a natural affinity to their own kind.
Why the history lesson? Because it provides a key to understanding
the present and the future. It provides a context for Ukraine's
relationship to Russia.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you got it properly. The example
above, in combination with the descriptions I've added in this post,
describe the fundamental cultural differences between European Ukraine
and Eurasian Russia. These differences should be understood and
respected in relations will be positive.
...cut...
> > > In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
> > >
> >
> > True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
> > Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
> > Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
> > official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
> > by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
> > what a democrat he is.
>
> I would not recommend anyone to base any judgements on
> that kind of 'stories'.
Well, I trust that the guy who made the phone call told me the truth
about the phone call he made, and what he was told.
> I remember another one which I saw personaly in russian TV.
> Shortly after his president's ellections he attended meeting
> of KGB veterans due to some KGB anniversary. He started his
> speach from report in formal manner to the audience saying
> "let me report here that group of KGB agents tasked to
> win the power in our country executed the order..."
>
> How do you like this kind of sense of humor? Although
> russians say in each joke there is only part of this
> joke.
That is very true.
respectfully,
Bolshoy Murza
> Michael
Trident
education in Ukrainian literature and history beyond grade 5 knows all
these things to be true.
Trident
Michael Petukhov
>
> ...cut...
>
> >
> > anyway in quite short time even if Ukraine will go to west.
> > Noone can stop it.
>
> Why do you beleive this?
Because stronger culture always assimilate weaker ones.
> > Yes I know. Stupid practice, isn't it?
>
> Not at all. Most states from European cultures have similar systems
> (Germany, Spain with Cataluna and Basque country, UK with Scotland and
> Wales, Canada with provinces, Australia, etc.) It allows for greater
> freedoms for people within a nation. I would cetainly want laws in my
> state to be different than those that a Mississipian would like.
As you like. As for me I do not like that kind of unjust systems
Why all those minorities would not compete at the equal basis?
>
> Your love of the all-powerful central authority (an attitude Russia
> inherited from the Mongols) is different from the European view,
All this time depenent. france is even now very centralized, germany
recently was. So european veiews have notning to do with that.
> and
> thus different from the attitude of Ukrainians who are a European
> people.
who except for Ukranians themselfs would agree with "the attitude
of Ukrainians who are a European people"?
> It shows that Ukraine's "Europeanness" is not merely
> geographical as you stated. But more on that later.
To become europens Ukranians would have to give up
all its culture and history, which simply not possible.
Therefore nobody even think about it. Robbery of
Ukranian remaining human and material resources are
the only active western projects which were going on
so far.
>
> > > If (some of) the republics did not feel the need to seperate they
> > > would not have done so.
> >
> > Peoples of all republics voted to keep USSR in a referendum in march, 91.
> > Only top functioners of local CK of CP were those who "feel the need to
> > seperate". They are still in power in all over FSu states with
> > exception of Russia and Armenia.
>
> As you yourself stated in another post, in that referendum people from
> Baltics also voted to remain in the USSR. So that referendum doesn't
> mean much, unless you really believe that most of the population of
> the Baltics wanted to remain in the USSR.
Of caurse it does certainly if all people including 30-40% of
russians are allowed to vote.
>
> > > This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
> > > concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
> > > Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
> > > the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically),
> >
> > You must be joking.
>
> Why do you think so? Were you aware that the first and only elected
> ruler in old Rus' lands was in Galicia
Is not true. It was done many times including before and after.
Aleaxander Nevsky was elected prince many times in Novgorod and
elsethere.
>, where the nobles after
> murdering the prince in 1341 voted for a replacement (Dmytro Dedko,
> who incidentally defeated the invading Poles)?
So what? Michael Romanov was also elected. Long before that
Novgorod veche was pretty 'democratic' according to standard of
that times. By the way Novgorod was always within Russia, not
Ukraine. So can I based on that facts declared russia to be
first (after Greeks) democracy in the world? certainly not.
> Also remember the very
> *European* Ruska Pravda legal code, which not only banned the death
> penalty but also recognized the worth of each individual, even the
> lowest peasant, when it assigned monetary penalties to crimes against
> people. Even if a noble or kniaz killed a peasant, according to this
> code, he would be obligated to repay the family (of course, nobles
> were worth more in this system). Perhaps you can compare this
> European individual-based system of Rus to the Eurasian one of
> Muscovy?
As you read Gumilev you should understand times of ups and downs
of diffrent nations are not the same. What is the point to compare
someone's ups with someone's else downs? can we compare galicia
at time it was organizing SS division with Russia's modern times?
>
> > > in Cossack Ukraine (the
> > > democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
> > > of Rus' traditions), etc.
> >
> > Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
> > And you know that very well.
>
> A comment as insulting
Why?
> as it is untrue!
it is a different story. Although there were no police to
registrate Cossacks crimes at that times...
>Cossacks were literate
> Europeans, far more civilized and less barbaric than their northern
> half-brothers. But don't take my word for it.
I do not.
> This is what European
> travelors had to say when comparing Russians and Cossacks in the
> 17th-18th centuries:
>
> A French diplomat, Jean Baluse, whose memoirs are in the
> National Library in Paris, on Mazepa:
>
> "At his court he has two German doctors, with whom he converses in
> their tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are several in
> the castle, he speaks in the Italian language. I spoke with the
> master of Ukraine in the Latin language, inasmuch he assured me
> that he was not very fluent in French...I do not know if this
> statement of his concealed a special motive, for I myself saw
> French and Dutch newspapers in his study."
What does his ability to speak French can prove?
>
> The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
>
> "Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
> Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
the same
>
> Austrian diplomat J.G. Korb, 1700-1701, on Russians:
>
> "The people are rude of letters, and wanting in that virtuous
> discipline by which the mind is cultivated...John Barclay, in
> his Mirror of Souls, describes at length how this race, born for
> slavery, becomes ferocious at the least trace of liberty...Humility
> more solidly crouching the very Turks do not entertain not for
> their Ottoman sceptre. They esteem other races as well by their
> own character."
again
>
> "Devoid of honest education, they esteem deceit to be the height of
> wisdom. They have no shame of lying, no blush for a detected
> fraud"
Stupid comment. Some people "have no shame of lying" some do have.
what does it prove?
>
> About Kozaks Korb writes:
>
> "this stout race excels the Muscovites, both in the art of war and in
> bravery of soul"
I did not say they were bad solders. Chechens are good solders
as well.
>
> Danish envoy in Moscow Jul Just, 1709-1712:
>
> "Although at the present time the Russians in their conduct are
> trying to emulate in monkey fashion the other nations, and though
> they don French attire and in their external appearance they appear
> more civilized, inwardly, however, there sits a cholop"
Do you consider "to emulate in monkey fashion the other nations"
as adequate and objective description of Peter I reforms?
>
> "The tsar's entourage behaved without conscience and shame; they
> shouted, whistled, belched, spat, berated each other, and even
> shamelessly spat in the faces of decent people"
>
> [sounds like a gathering of New Russians in one of Moscow's more
> expensive restaurants]
>
> Just described how all of the teachers at the Moscow gymnasium were
> either Ukrainians or Byelorussians ("Orthodox from Poland").
>
> Cultural level of the Russian leaders (contrast this with the
> descriptions of Mazepa above):
Or maybe those observers were just russian enemies? Coild it be?
Let see what Brittanica has to say about Mazepa, Ivan Stepanovich:
"Hetman (leader) of the Cossacks in the Russian Ukraine who turned
against the Russians and joined the Swedes during the Great Northern
War (1700-21)..."
so according to Brittanica this treason was his main 'historical'
achivement.
"...Having served as a page at the court of the Polish king John
Casimir, Mazepa was educated in western Europe but returned to his
native land and in 1663 entered the service of Pyotr Doroshenko, the
Cossack hetman of Ukraine west of the Dnieper River.
During the 1660s and 1670s Mazepa's transfer of loyalty between rival
hetmans contributed to the complex and prolonged warfare (that
continued into the 1680s) among the Turks, Russians, Poles, and
various Cossack factions for control of the Ukraine.
Mazepa subsequently succeeded the established hetman of the Ukraine
(1687) and fought against the Crimean Tatars (1689). When Peter I the
Great took power, Mazepa managed to win Peter's favour and retain his
position in the Ukraine."
He "managed to win Peter's favour". Let's remember that.
"Peter, however, alienated Mazepa and the Cossacks, ordering them to
perform uncustomary duties and allowing the Russian army to mistreat
the Ukraine's civilian population."
So the same cossacks who organized as military communities (see
below).
"Consequently, when the Great Northern War began (1700), Mazepa
entered into secret negotiations with Charles XII of Sweden. When
Charles led his forces into the Ukraine seeking supplies and
reinforcements, Mazepa and 5,000 of his Cossacks joined the Swedes
instead of going to the aid of the Russians (October 1708). Mazepa,
however, was able neither to inspire the Ukrainian population to
revolt against the Russians nor to supply the Swedes with enough
Cossacks to prevent the Russians from inflicting a major defeat upon
them at Poltava (June 1709). After that battle, Mazepa escaped with
Charles into Turkish-controlled Moldavia, where he died."
Typical fate for any traitor. Note also it is not russian propaganda
it is what Britanica has to say about him and his role in Ukraine and
Russia history.
Cossacks:
"Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
communities."
military and not religious or educational community.
"In the 16th century there were six major Cossack hosts: the Don, the
Greben (in Caucasia), the Yaik (on the middle Ural River), the Volga,
the Dnieper, and the Zaporozhian (mainly west of the Dnieper)..."
So originally there were tatars but late became "peasants who had fled
from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy" which according to
that time law were criminals. ordinary killers of all kinds are known
to escape to Cossacks as well.
An other intersting point is that serfdom was not only
tradition of Moscovy but as well as in Poland and Lithuania.
Logically. close neighbours normaly have similar customs.
Going further:
"Polish kings in the early 16th century began to organize the
Zaporozhian Cossacks into military colonies to protect Poland's
borders. Throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th,
these Cossacks retained their political autonomy, briefly forming a
semi-independent state under Bohdan Khmelnytsky (c. 1649). But,
threatened by Polish domination, the Zaporozhian Cossacks signed a
treaty with Russia in 1654..."
so voluntary
"...,under which their autonomy was to be respected. The Russians
likewise used the Cossacks first as defenders of the Russian frontier
and later as advance guards for the territorial extension of the
Russian Empire. Internally, the Cossacks regained a greater degree of
their cherished liberties under the Russians than they had known under
the Poles..."
???!!! while we heard from your sources that Cossaks were suffering
from russians only but in fact the matter was that russian gave more
freedom than Poles did. Nice! BTW this was very typical for russians
when they expanded.
"...The Russian throne reserved the right to approve Cossacks'
negotiations with the Poles and the Turks, the peoples with whom
Russian relations were the most sensitive. Otherwise the chief ruler,
or hetman (ataman), of the Cossack army had a free hand in foreign
policy. Thus, in exchange for some military obligations, the Cossacks
had restored some of their autonomy--in the short term. Over the
years, however, Russia increasingly came to dominate the Cossacks."
So many tried but russians as usualy won the struggle for Ukraine.
As for the criminals among them. there were lot even in the written
history.
"Under the Russian umbrella, the Cossacks expanded eastward from their
home in the Don and were early colonizers of Siberia. By the end of
the 19th century the number of Cossack groups had expanded to 11,
including the Don, Kuban, Terek, Orenburg, and Ussuri Cossacks.
When their privileges were threatened, the Cossacks revolted, their
most famous rebel leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries being Stenka
Razin, Kondraty Bulavin, and Yemelyan Pugachov..."
do you know a kind of people Mr. Stenka Razin, Mr. Kondraty Bulavin,
and Mr. Yemelyan Pugachov were? Pretty similar to Mr. Basaev, Mr.
Baraev and
Mr. Zakaev.
"As a result, they gradually lost their autonomous status..."
Undertsandably.
>
> But I would like to add that in the case of the Russians described
> previously, barbarity should not be seen as an insult. Russia was a
> young nation (still is), having developed only a fw centuries before.
> It was and will be a shame if it becomes civilized, not through its
> own unique development, but by the forcing of civilized European
> culture on it. Just think how human progress would have been retarded
> if the German barbarians of the 4th century had adopted the decadent
> yet civilized ways of their advanced southern neighbors instead of
> rudely going their own way. There would have been no Kant, no
> Beethoven, no Mozart, etc. etc.
>
> However, note how these visitors often compared Ukrainians to other
> Europeans, found a natural affinity to their own kind.
Why do you believe that europeans who wrote insulting things about
its bitter enemy the Russia? Maybe they were just affraid and hated
russians who just recently destroyed Sweedes, the top military power
of Europe at that times. Sweeden never recovered after that defeat.
Maybe they wanted open second front agaist russians in Ukraine.
If not this what was their goal of traveling between Moscow and
Ukarine? Do not be naive. All those travelers and observes were
government spies at that times.
>
> Why the history lesson? Because it provides a key to understanding
> the present and the future. It provides a context for Ukraine's
> relationship to Russia.
Sure. However true historical picture will serve that goal only.
Not the politically motivated crap as you just cited.
>
> >
> > You told that already and I got it from the first time.
>
> With all due respect, I'm not sure you got it properly. The example
> above, in combination with the descriptions I've added in this post,
> describe the fundamental cultural differences between European Ukraine
> and Eurasian Russia. These differences should be understood and
> respected in relations will be positive.
Well I understand we have fundamental cultural differences with
germans or french with whome we just sometimes met in battle field.
but tell me how it can be that people living together for 1000 years
(most of the time in a single state), mixing each other all the time
can have so "fundamental cultural differences" that one is european
and another is noneuropen nation. Tell me also what is measure of
europeaness?
>
> ...cut...
>
> > > > In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
> > > >
> > >
> > > True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
> > > Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
> > > Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
> > > official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
> > > by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
> > > what a democrat he is.
> >
> > I would not recommend anyone to base any judgements on
> > that kind of 'stories'.
>
> Well, I trust that the guy who made the phone call told me the truth
> about the phone call he made, and what he was told.
You seems to be too trusting. is that a part of your europeaness?
take care.
till next time
Michael
Bolshoy Murza
> > >
> > > anyway in quite short time even if Ukraine will go to west.
> > > Noone can stop it.
> >
> > Why do you beleive this?
>
> Because stronger culture always assimilate weaker ones.
You seem to be overemphasizing the military/repressive aspect of
"culture".
> > > Yes I know. Stupid practice, isn't it?
> >
> > Not at all. Most states from European cultures have similar systems
> > (Germany, Spain with Cataluna and Basque country, UK with Scotland and
> > Wales, Canada with provinces, Australia, etc.) It allows for greater
> > freedoms for people within a nation. I would cetainly want laws in my
> > state to be different than those that a Mississipian would like.
>
> As you like. As for me I do not like that kind of unjust systems
> Why all those minorities would not compete at the equal basis?
It is a fundamental element of Western (including Ukrainian)
understanding that the minority should be protected from the majority.
A federal system with local self-government ensures this. For
example, compare California with 30 million people and Alaska with
600,000. What you call an "equal basis" would mean that, practically
speaking, the small population of Alaska would be _inconsequential_.
It would have no voice. Now, to someone with a despotically inclined
political worldview this would not matter. But that's not a Western
attitude.
In the case of Russia and Ukraine, your so-called equality would mean
that if 60% of Russians supported a law that was against the interests
of Ukraine (say, to eliminate subsidies to Ukrainian farmers but not
to Russian ones - only a hypothetical example!) and 80% of Ukrainians
would oppose this law, it would still go through.
> > Your love of the all-powerful central authority (an attitude Russia
> > inherited from the Mongols) is different from the European view,
>
> All this time depenent. france is even now very centralized, germany
> recently was. So european veiews have notning to do with that.
Corsica has autonomy within France. You seem to be not very aware of
Germany's history. With the brief exception of the Hitler
dictatorship it was always a federal state (actually, Germany was
composed of different states until the Franco-Prussian War).
> > and thus different from the attitude of Ukrainians who are a European
> > people.
>
> who except for Ukranians themselfs would agree with "the attitude
> of Ukrainians who are a European people"?
Europeans being ignorant of Ukraine does not mean that Ukraine is not
part of Europe culturally. A tribesman in Africa probably has not
even heard of Ukraine; that does not mean that Ukraine does not exist.
Perhaps you should travel to Lviv or Kyiv and then state that these
are not European cities (I remember some friends from Moscow,
Russians, returned after a trip to Kyiv and were very much surprised
and amazed and how un-Russian, and European, the place was)? Ukraine
is not Lugansk.
> > It shows that Ukraine's "Europeanness" is not merely
> > geographical as you stated. But more on that later.
>
> To become europens Ukranians would have to give up
> all its culture and history, which simply not possible.
They already are Europeans. If they were to become Russians than,
indeed, they would give that up.
> Therefore nobody even think about it. Robbery of
> Ukranian remaining human and material resources are
> the only active western projects which were going on
> so far.
You are mixing the fact of European-ness with the EU. I agree that
Ukraine should be suspicious with respect to the EU. However, perhaps
you've heard, but recently the EU accepted almost all of Poland's
demands, including $1 billion in farmer subsidies. So movement is
occurring in the right direction...
> >
> > As you yourself stated in another post, in that referendum people from
> > Baltics also voted to remain in the USSR. So that referendum doesn't
> > mean much, unless you really believe that most of the population of
> > the Baltics wanted to remain in the USSR.
>
> Of caurse it does certainly if all people including 30-40% of
> russians are allowed to vote.
Lithaunia has a smaller Russian population.
> > > > This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
> > > > concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
> > > > Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
> > > > the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically),
> > >
> > > You must be joking.
> >
> > Why do you think so? Were you aware that the first and only elected
> > ruler in old Rus' lands was in Galicia
>
> Is not true. It was done many times including before and after.
> Aleaxander Nevsky was elected prince many times in Novgorod and
> elsethere.
You are right. I should have said, non-Rurikovich.
>
> >, where the nobles after
> > murdering the prince in 1341 voted for a replacement (Dmytro Dedko,
> > who incidentally defeated the invading Poles)?
>
> So what? Michael Romanov was also elected.
He was related to the Rurikovychy through a maternal line.
> Long before that
> Novgorod veche was pretty 'democratic' according to standard of
> that times. By the way Novgorod was always within Russia,
Novgorod was indeed European and an integral part of Rus. Muscovy, a
misture of Slavs, Finns and Mongols, was already a different nation
than that of Novgorod.
BTW Moscow's Ivan the Terrible destroyed Novgorod. He had the city
subdued, and then, over several weeks, executed nearly every person in
the town. He and his deranged son would sometimes, for their
amusement, watch while Novogorod's men and women were fried to death
on giant skillets, or placed in vats of burning oil (see Norman
Davies' History of Europe). Actions worthy of a khan demonstrating
his authority, but antithetical to the West.
So modern Russia can make little claim on Novogorod.
> not Ukraine. So can I based on that facts declared russia to be
> first (after Greeks) democracy in the world? certainly not.
>
> > Also remember the very
> > *European* Ruska Pravda legal code, which not only banned the death
> > penalty but also recognized the worth of each individual, even the
> > lowest peasant, when it assigned monetary penalties to crimes against
> > people. Even if a noble or kniaz killed a peasant, according to this
> > code, he would be obligated to repay the family (of course, nobles
> > were worth more in this system). Perhaps you can compare this
> > European individual-based system of Rus to the Eurasian one of
> > Muscovy?
>
> As you read Gumilev you should understand times of ups and downs
> of diffrent nations are not the same. What is the point to compare
> someone's ups with someone's else downs?
It's good that, above, you seem to agree that Rus and Russia are
different nations. The fact is that the pro-individual worldview
described above existed in Ukraine not only in the times of Rus bbut
in the times of the cossacks and throughout history. This wass why
our peasants were always rebelling against conditions that in Russia
were considered normal. This was why Ukraine was composed not of
collectivistic mirs but of individual small farms, and why it was so
much harder to the Soviets to establish their control in ukraine
versus Russia. When two different civilizations are involved there
can be enormous conflicts.
> can we compare galicia at time it was organizing SS division with Russia's > modern times?
Well, despite numerous investigations there was never any evidence of
Galician SS wrongdoings, war crimes, etc - not even from the Russian
side (sorry, propoganda pamphlets written decades after the war don't
count). The Russian army in Chechnya on the other hand...
> > > > in Cossack Ukraine (the
> > > > democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
> > > > of Rus' traditions), etc.
> > >
> > > Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
> > > And you know that very well.
> >
> > A comment as insulting
>
> Why?
Cossacks were literate, cultured, democratic people. Compare to
Chechen gangsters.
> > as it is untrue!
>
> it is a different story. Although there were no police to
> registrate Cossacks crimes at that times...
>
> >Cossacks were literate
> > Europeans, far more civilized and less barbaric than their northern
> > half-brothers. But don't take my word for it.
>
> I do not.
>
> > This is what European
> > travelors had to say when comparing Russians and Cossacks in the
> > 17th-18th centuries:
> >
> > A French diplomat, Jean Baluse, whose memoirs are in the
> > National Library in Paris, on Mazepa:
> >
> > "At his court he has two German doctors, with whom he converses in
> > their tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are several in
> > the castle, he speaks in the Italian language. I spoke with the
> > master of Ukraine in the Latin language, inasmuch he assured me
> > that he was not very fluent in French...I do not know if this
> > statement of his concealed a special motive, for I myself saw
> > French and Dutch newspapers in his study."
>
> What does his ability to speak French can prove?
That he is well educated. Furthermore, by speaking French, Latin etc.
he is more cultured and worldy. Already major differences between
cossacks and "Chechen gangters".
> > The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
> >
> > "Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
> > Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
>
> the same
It shows that Ukraine was a very educated place, unlike Muscovy at
that time, and unlike Chechnya (you compared cossacks to Chechen
gangsters)
To a certain extent, yes. There was a high degree of artificiality in
it. Significantly, in his attempts to "Europeanize" Russian society,
Peter I relied mostly on Ukrainians from Cossack lands. As the
Eurasianist Vernadsky stated, Russia needed Kiev to enter Europe. And
he wasn't speaking in geographic terms.
> > "The tsar's entourage behaved without conscience and shame; they
> > shouted, whistled, belched, spat, berated each other, and even
> > shamelessly spat in the faces of decent people"
> >
> > [sounds like a gathering of New Russians in one of Moscow's more
> > expensive restaurants]
> >
> > Just described how all of the teachers at the Moscow gymnasium were
> > either Ukrainians or Byelorussians ("Orthodox from Poland").
> >
> > Cultural level of the Russian leaders (contrast this with the
> > descriptions of Mazepa above):
>
> Or maybe those observers were just russian enemies? Coild it be?
Actually, not. The Danish envoy was formulating an alliance with the
Russians against the Swedes. He was Russia's ally. So your claims
that his comparison of Russians and Ukrainians were nonobjective based
upon being Russia's enemy is not true.
Nothing above contradicts anything that I have written thus far.
However your continued misperception of the word "traitor" shows that
you have not understood what I posed before about Mazepa:
The contractual obligation was an act of mutual obligation. The
vassal promised his lord obedience, service, and loyalty in return for
the latter's protection and respect for the vassal's privileges and
the traditions of his land. If the vassal had good reason to believe
that his lord was breaking his obligations, he had the right - the
famous ius resistendi - to rise against him to protect his interests.
Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of
disloyalty. The German Schwabenspiegel, one of the primary sources
for customary law in east central Europe, provided a concise summary
of the principle: "We should serve our sovereigns because they protect
us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more
service". Mazepa's position could not have been stated more
succinctly.
As I have said before, to Ukrainians and other Europeans, Mazepa's
acts were justified. Indeed, it was Peter who betrayed Mazepa by not
fulfilling his part of the obligation. Because to Ukrainians and
Europeans, every man has innate rights and no one is a slave. Rulers
are responsible to the ruled.
Of course, the land of khans and tsars - a different ethnos - this is
not the case. Think about that, please.
I could draw a parallel with Khmelnitsky who "betrayed" Poland. For
some reason, other than a Polish nationalist fringe, most Poles do not
see Khmel. as a traitor, although he did to Poland pretty much what
Mazepa tried to do to to Russia. But Poles, like Ukrainians, are
Europeans and can easily understand each other this way...
I would add, here, that the comprison goes both ways. Some Ukrainians
tend to view Russians as monsters, as people who hate Ukrainians and
so on. This is completely incorrect. Russians never treated
Ukrainians worse than they treated their own people, if their own
people tried to rebel. The great misunderstanding here is that
Russians, operating with a Eurasian political understanding which
demands strict obedience to the ruler and a centralized state based
upon obeisance (inherited from the khans), see Ukrainians operating
with European assumptions of duty of the ruler to the ruled and basic
individual rights as "traitors". Ukrainians, on the other hand, see
Russians as being hostile to Ukrainians when indeed most Russians are
quite fond of Ukrainians but cannot accept lack of obedience (an
uncharatable word would be, slavery) to the the "tsar-father".
> Cossacks:
>
> "Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
> member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
> and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
> received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
----------------------------------------------
Article confuses Ukrainian and Russian cossacks. Situations were
quite different.
> services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
> semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
> term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
> had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
> and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
> communities."
>
> military and not religious or educational community.
Rurikovychy were originally just merchant-warriers. So?
> "In the 16th century there were six major Cossack hosts: the Don, the
> Greben (in Caucasia), the Yaik (on the middle Ural River), the Volga,
> the Dnieper, and the Zaporozhian (mainly west of the Dnieper)..."
> So originally there were tatars but late became "peasants who had fled
> from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy" which according to
> that time law were criminals. ordinary killers of all kinds are known
> to escape to Cossacks as well.
The founder of the Zaporozhian sitch was a prince, "Baida"
Vyshyvetsky. His great-great grandson would sit on the Polish throne.
Maybe Russian cossacks had a different background.
> An other intersting point is that serfdom was not only
> tradition of Moscovy but as well as in Poland and Lithuania.
But not Ukraine.
> Logically. close neighbours normaly have similar customs.
>
> Going further:
>
> "Polish kings in the early 16th century began to organize the
> Zaporozhian Cossacks into military colonies to protect Poland's
> borders.
Ah. But here there is a contradiction. In the same source, it was
said:
Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
communities."
So, therefore, with different histories and ethnicities Russian and
Ukrainian cossacks should not be placed in the same categories. After
all, both America and Argentina had cowboys with similar lifestyles,
yet radically different cultures.
> Throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th,
> these Cossacks retained their political autonomy, briefly forming a
> semi-independent state under Bohdan Khmelnytsky (c. 1649). But,
> threatened by Polish domination, the Zaporozhian Cossacks signed a
> treaty with Russia in 1654..."
>
> so voluntary
Yes. And so?
> "...,under which their autonomy was to be respected. The Russians
> likewise used the Cossacks first as defenders of the Russian frontier
> and later as advance guards for the territorial extension of the
> Russian Empire. Internally, the Cossacks regained a greater degree of
> their cherished liberties under the Russians than they had known under
> the Poles..."
>
> ???!!! while we heard from your sources that Cossaks were suffering
> from russians only
Where did I or my sources say that?
> but in fact the matter was that russian gave more freedom than Poles did.
No. Ukrainians got that freedom themselves, and kept it (initially)
under the Russians.
> Nice! BTW this was very typical for russians when they expanded.
Yes. Only later was reality revealed. For example, a similar
situation after the Revolution. In the 1920's eastern Ukraine
experienced a cultural Renaissance. But, quietly, Russia established
political control. Once this was complete, you know what happened in
the 1930's. Another eason Ukrainians should be suspicious of Russian
unity, and think about such a thing only as a last resort, if union
with Europe is unfeasible.
> "...The Russian throne reserved the right to approve Cossacks'
> negotiations with the Poles and the Turks, the peoples with whom
> Russian relations were the most sensitive. Otherwise the chief ruler,
> or hetman (ataman), of the Cossack army had a free hand in foreign
> policy. Thus, in exchange for some military obligations, the Cossacks
> had restored some of their autonomy--in the short term. Over the
> years, however, Russia increasingly came to dominate the Cossacks."
>
> So many tried but russians as usualy won the struggle for Ukraine.
>
> As for the criminals among them. there were lot even in the written
> history.
>
> "Under the Russian umbrella, the Cossacks expanded eastward from their
> home in the Don and were early colonizers of Siberia. By the end of
> the 19th century the number of Cossack groups had expanded to 11,
> including the Don, Kuban, Terek, Orenburg, and Ussuri Cossacks.
>
> When their privileges were threatened, the Cossacks revolted, their
> most famous rebel leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries being Stenka
> Razin, Kondraty Bulavin, and Yemelyan Pugachov..."
>
> do you know a kind of people Mr. Stenka Razin, Mr. Kondraty Bulavin,
> and Mr. Yemelyan Pugachov were? Pretty similar to Mr. Basaev, Mr.
> Baraev and Mr. Zakaev.
I know that none of them were Ukrainian. We were discussing
Ukrainians (including Ukrainian Cossacks) versus Russians. I suspect
Stenka Razin couldn't converse in Latin, German or Greek as a
Ukrainian Hetman could : )
> "As a result, they gradually lost their autonomous status..."
>
> Undertsandably.
>
> >
> > But I would like to add that in the case of the Russians described
> > previously, barbarity should not be seen as an insult. Russia was a
> > young nation (still is), having developed only a fw centuries before.
> > It was and will be a shame if it becomes civilized, not through its
> > own unique development, but by the forcing of civilized European
> > culture on it. Just think how human progress would have been retarded
> > if the German barbarians of the 4th century had adopted the decadent
> > yet civilized ways of their advanced southern neighbors instead of
> > rudely going their own way. There would have been no Kant, no
> > Beethoven, no Mozart, etc. etc.
> >
> > However, note how these visitors often compared Ukrainians to other
> > Europeans, found a natural affinity to their own kind.
>
> Why do you believe that europeans who wrote insulting things about
> its bitter enemy the Russia? Maybe they were just affraid and hated
> russians who just recently destroyed Sweedes, the top military power
> of Europe at that times.
As I stated, many of those diplomats were grateful for Russia for
destroying Sweden (in particular the Danes), and were in Russia
cementing alliances with Russia. Their insults were nothing more than
a reflection of what they perceived in the Russian Empire: barbaric
Russians and fellow-European, educated Ukrainians (including Ukrainian
Cossacks). It sadly normal for people to view those different from
themsleves in insulting ways. The fact that they did so with Russians
and not Ukrainians also shows how Ukraine was European and Russia was
not.
> Sweeden never recovered after that defeat.
> Maybe they wanted open second front agaist russians in Ukraine.
> If not this what was their goal of traveling between Moscow and
> Ukarine? Do not be naive. All those travelers and observes were
> government spies at that times.
Yes. Denmark, or England, were getting ready to dominate eastern
Europe : ))))
Those observations were nothing more than traveler's notes, describing
the places they've seen. But they do reveal much.
> > Why the history lesson? Because it provides a key to understanding
> > the present and the future. It provides a context for Ukraine's
> > relationship to Russia.
>
> Sure. However true historical picture will serve that goal only.
> Not the politically motivated crap as you just cited.
>
> Well I understand we have fundamental cultural differences with
> germans or french with whome we just sometimes met in battle field.
> but tell me how it can be that people living together for 1000 years
> (most of the time in a single state),
Let's add it up. Russia did not exist as an ethnos until the mixture
of Slavs, Finns and Asians starting, at earliest in 1150 or so. By
that time, Rus was already a decentralized state - actually several
states such as Galicia, Vladimir-Suzdal, Chernigov, Novgorod, etc.
After 1240 they were completely seperate. Galicia was independent
from 1240 until 1349, then was ruled by the Poles and Austrians. Kiev
was ruled after from the 14th century by Lithuania and then Poland.
Russia did not really absorb Ukraine until after Poltava, and even
that was only ontheastern half. It did not rule the right Bank
(Cherkassy, Vynnytsia, Zhitomir) until 1780's.
To summarize, in the last 1000 years Russians and Ukrainians lived
together in the same state:
About 300 years for eastern Ukraine (c.1700-1990)
About 200 years for central Ukraine (c.1780-1990)
About 55 years for Galicia and Zakarpatia (1944-1990)
Hmmm. Spain ruled Mexico for about 300 years.
And, of course, Ukrainians and Europeans (Poles, Lithuanians,
Austrians) lived together in the same state:
250 years for eastern Ukraine (c. 1400-c.1650)
380 years for central Ukraine (c.1400-c.1780)
600 years for Galicia (c. 1350 - c. 1950)
So, two out of three of Ukraine's regions were linked to Europe more
than to Russia, and in the latter case the difference was only 50
years.
> mixing each other all the time can have so "fundamental cultural differences" > that one is european and another is noneuropen nation. Tell me also what is > measure of europeaness?
Mexicans and Spaniards lived together for along time also. As did
Jamicans and British, British and Indians, etc. Britian ruled India
for the same amunt of time that Russia ruled central Ukraine.
Although there was much influence (railroads, democratic system,
English lingua franca in India) nobody can argue that they are not
different civilizations.
> >
> > ...cut...
> >
> > > > > In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
> > > > Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
> > > > Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
> > > > official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
> > > > by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
> > > > what a democrat he is.
> > >
> > > I would not recommend anyone to base any judgements on
> > > that kind of 'stories'.
> >
> > Well, I trust that the guy who made the phone call told me the truth
> > about the phone call he made, and what he was told.
>
> You seems to be too trusting. is that a part of your europeaness?
Well, I have heard a lot of Russian politics from the inside. My wife
has fond childhood memories of the dacha on the Central Committee of
the Communist Party (they made the best shashliks one could hope for);
I have heard many stories about Gorby, and Yanayev, Brezhnev who
personally only cared about racing cars, etc. etc. So, given that
what that guy heard about the elections matches what others have told
me, I trust it.
> take care.
you too,
regards,
Bolshoy Murza
(I'll be celebrating this weekend so I probably won't get back with
you till Monday)
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > >
> > > > Sure. But i told you it's a price. And also it will happend
> > > > anyway in quite short time even if Ukraine will go to west.
> > > > Noone can stop it.
> > >
> > > Why do you beleive this?
> >
> > Because stronger culture always assimilate weaker ones.
>
> You seem to be overemphasizing the military/repressive aspect of
> "culture".
I am not about its military aspects. In human history there were
tons of cases when victourious invadors were quickly assimilated
by people who lost the was bu who had stronger culture. for
instance mongols in china or hoons in europe.
>
> > > > Yes I know. Stupid practice, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Not at all. Most states from European cultures have similar systems
> > > (Germany, Spain with Cataluna and Basque country, UK with Scotland and
> > > Wales, Canada with provinces, Australia, etc.) It allows for greater
> > > freedoms for people within a nation. I would cetainly want laws in my
> > > state to be different than those that a Mississipian would like.
> >
> > As you like. As for me I do not like that kind of unjust systems
> > Why all those minorities would not compete at the equal basis?
>
> It is a fundamental element of Western (including Ukrainian)
> understanding that the minority should be protected from the majority.
> A federal system with local self-government ensures this. For
> example, compare California with 30 million people and Alaska with
> 600,000. What you call an "equal basis" would mean that, practically
> speaking, the small population of Alaska would be _inconsequential_.
> It would have no voice. Now, to someone with a despotically inclined
> political worldview this would not matter. But that's not a Western
> attitude.
>
> In the case of Russia and Ukraine, your so-called equality would mean
> that if 60% of Russians supported a law that was against the interests
> of Ukraine (say, to eliminate subsidies to Ukrainian farmers but not
> to Russian ones - only a hypothetical example!) and 80% of Ukrainians
> would oppose this law, it would still go through.
it is about rights of minority which should have voice heard.
but decisions are made by majority. It is in best majority
interests to respect minority rights in order to pereserve
stability of the system and also in order merge can continue
without any interruption.
>
> > > Your love of the all-powerful central authority (an attitude Russia
> > > inherited from the Mongols) is different from the European view,
> >
> > All this time depenent. france is even now very centralized, germany
> > recently was. So european veiews have notning to do with that.
>
> Corsica has autonomy within France. You seem to be not very aware of
> Germany's history. With the brief exception of the Hitler
> dictatorship it was always a federal state (actually, Germany was
> composed of different states until the Franco-Prussian War).
And what? I have juts showed that there were no such thing as
decentralization european tradition. IOn diffrent times and
diffrent countries there were different views on that matters.
That's all I said. I agree russians have cenralization tradition.
Ukranians do not have any established tradition on that matters
since in fact they (ukranians not ruses) never had stabile
state before 1992. it remains to see will they be able to establish
their own state tradions or not.
>
> > > and thus different from the attitude of Ukrainians who are a European
> > > people.
> >
> > who except for Ukranians themselfs would agree with "the attitude
> > of Ukrainians who are a European people"?
>
> Europeans being ignorant of Ukraine does not mean that Ukraine is not
> part of Europe culturally. A tribesman in Africa probably has not
> even heard of Ukraine; that does not mean that Ukraine does not exist.
No doubt it does exist. But to be part of something means having
common history, interests and culture. Therefore it is not
simply possible to change "sides" so quickly even with all best
hopes.
>
> Perhaps you should travel to Lviv or Kyiv and then state that these
> are not European cities (I remember some friends from Moscow,
> Russians, returned after a trip to Kyiv and were very much surprised
> and amazed and how un-Russian, and European, the place was)? Ukraine
> is not Lugansk.
Many say nowdays that Moscow are St.Petersburg are very european cities...
>
> > > It shows that Ukraine's "Europeanness" is not merely
> > > geographical as you stated. But more on that later.
> >
> > To become europens Ukranians would have to give up
> > all its culture and history, which simply not possible.
>
> They already are Europeans.
In reality the meaning of that statement that Ukranians have nothing
to give up since they have no culture, no history no religion. I
disagree with that kind of views.
> If they were to become Russians than,
> indeed, they would give that up.
In my view there is one important difference between
ukranians and russians. Later do have understanding
of their own ineterest and no illusions that someones
are gonna help them to protect it. I do not know
when Ukranians will became adult capabale to define
and protect their own interests.
>
> > Therefore nobody even think about it. Robbery of
> > Ukranian remaining human and material resources are
> > the only active western projects which were going on
> > so far.
>
> You are mixing the fact of European-ness with the EU. I agree that
> Ukraine should be suspicious with respect to the EU. However, perhaps
> you've heard, but recently the EU accepted almost all of Poland's
> demands, including $1 billion in farmer subsidies. So movement is
> occurring in the right direction...
I never had any doubts on that minor matters. However Ukraine
is not Poland and 1 bil $ is not a replacement for equal
long term partnership based on vital interests. We can
easily pay 1-2 bil $ if ukraine agree to join our union
with belorus. In fact we do it already using gaz and oil
cheap prices.
>
> > >
> > > As you yourself stated in another post, in that referendum people from
> > > Baltics also voted to remain in the USSR. So that referendum doesn't
> > > mean much, unless you really believe that most of the population of
> > > the Baltics wanted to remain in the USSR.
> >
> > Of caurse it does certainly if all people including 30-40% of
> > russians are allowed to vote.
>
> Lithaunia has a smaller Russian population.
and is a most friendly to russia among all those baltic counties.
strange isn't it?
>
> > > > > This is antithetical to Ukrainian (and European)
> > > > > concepts of particular, a tradition Ukraine has has in the times of
> > > > > Rus (remember the Moscow princes were the Asian despots; in Ukraine
> > > > > the nobles ruled more-or-less-democratically),
> > > >
> > > > You must be joking.
> > >
> > > Why do you think so? Were you aware that the first and only elected
> > > ruler in old Rus' lands was in Galicia
> >
> > Is not true. It was done many times including before and after.
> > Aleaxander Nevsky was elected prince many times in Novgorod and
> > elsethere.
>
> You are right. I should have said, non-Rurikovich.
> >
> > >, where the nobles after
> > > murdering the prince in 1341 voted for a replacement (Dmytro Dedko,
> > > who incidentally defeated the invading Poles)?
> >
> > So what? Michael Romanov was also elected.
>
> He was related to the Rurikovychy through a maternal line.
The thing is that level of "democtacy" in russia, galicia,
lithuania and poland at that time was not significantly
different. That's was your point. It is clearly wishful
thinking.
>
> > Long before that
> > Novgorod veche was pretty 'democratic' according to standard of
> > that times. By the way Novgorod was always within Russia,
>
> Novgorod was indeed European and an integral part of Rus. Muscovy, a
> misture of Slavs, Finns and Mongols, was already a different nation
> than that of Novgorod.
>
> BTW Moscow's Ivan the Terrible destroyed Novgorod. He had the city
> subdued, and then, over several weeks, executed nearly every person in
> the town. He and his deranged son would sometimes, for their
> amusement, watch while Novogorod's men and women were fried to death
> on giant skillets, or placed in vats of burning oil (see Norman
> Davies' History of Europe). Actions worthy of a khan demonstrating
> his authority, but antithetical to the West.
No need I know all this from russian sources.
>
> So modern Russia can make little claim on Novogorod.
incredible statement. who do you think can claim Novgorod?
teftons I guess.
>
> > not Ukraine. So can I based on that facts declared russia to be
> > first (after Greeks) democracy in the world? certainly not.
> >
> > > Also remember the very
> > > *European* Ruska Pravda legal code, which not only banned the death
> > > penalty but also recognized the worth of each individual, even the
> > > lowest peasant, when it assigned monetary penalties to crimes against
> > > people. Even if a noble or kniaz killed a peasant, according to this
> > > code, he would be obligated to repay the family (of course, nobles
> > > were worth more in this system). Perhaps you can compare this
> > > European individual-based system of Rus to the Eurasian one of
> > > Muscovy?
> >
> > As you read Gumilev you should understand times of ups and downs
> > of diffrent nations are not the same. What is the point to compare
> > someone's ups with someone's else downs?
>
> It's good that, above, you seem to agree that Rus and Russia are
> different nations.
misaderstanding. I always was saying that rusynes and russians
are diffrent and ukranians are not rusynes.
> The fact is that the pro-individual worldview
> described above existed in Ukraine not only in the times of Rus bbut
> in the times of the cossacks and throughout history. This wass why
> our peasants were always rebelling against conditions that in Russia
> were considered normal.
So what? Russians peasats did just the same, but centralized state
won all these battles.
> This was why Ukraine was composed not of
> collectivistic mirs but of individual small farms, and why it was so
> much harder to the Soviets to establish their control in ukraine
> versus Russia.
Not very hard. It took one year or so.
> When two different civilizations are involved there
> can be enormous conflicts.
sure intil the final merge. That's why it is so productive
and important thing to finish as soon as possible for all
sides involved.
>
> > can we compare galicia at time it was organizing SS division with Russia's > modern times?
>
> Well, despite numerous investigations there was never any evidence of
> Galician SS wrongdoings, war crimes, etc - not even from the Russian
> side
Please do not start it. We all know what was going on there in 41-44.
>(sorry, propoganda pamphlets written decades after the war don't
> count). The Russian army in Chechnya on the other hand...
restores peace and order.
>
> > > > > in Cossack Ukraine (the
> > > > > democratic Sich was even noted by Vernasky as a cultural manifestation
> > > > > of Rus' traditions), etc.
> > > >
> > > > Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
> > > > And you know that very well.
> > >
> > > A comment as insulting
> >
> > Why?
>
> Cossacks were literate, cultured, democratic people. Compare to
> Chechen gangsters.
Chechens are also literate (thanks to soviet policies), in their
own sense cultured and exteremely democratic. Ever heard about
military democracy whic is based on force and not on law.
just like it was in Cossacks military communities. The law
came to them from North and they certainly strogly dislike
it for centuries.
>
> > > as it is untrue!
> >
> > it is a different story. Although there were no police to
> > registrate Cossacks crimes at that times...
> >
> > >Cossacks were literate
> > > Europeans, far more civilized and less barbaric than their northern
> > > half-brothers. But don't take my word for it.
> >
> > I do not.
> >
> > > This is what European
> > > travelors had to say when comparing Russians and Cossacks in the
> > > 17th-18th centuries:
> > >
> > > A French diplomat, Jean Baluse, whose memoirs are in the
> > > National Library in Paris, on Mazepa:
> > >
> > > "At his court he has two German doctors, with whom he converses in
> > > their tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are several in
> > > the castle, he speaks in the Italian language. I spoke with the
> > > master of Ukraine in the Latin language, inasmuch he assured me
> > > that he was not very fluent in French...I do not know if this
> > > statement of his concealed a special motive, for I myself saw
> > > French and Dutch newspapers in his study."
> >
> > What does his ability to speak French can prove?
>
> That he is well educated. Furthermore, by speaking French, Latin etc.
> he is more cultured and worldy.
Ok he was cultured and worldy traitor, a state criminal in russia.
deal?
> Already major differences between cossacks and "Chechen gangters".
Oh sure there were many differences even major ones.
>
> > > The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
> > >
> > > "Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
> > > Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
> >
> > the same
>
> It shows that Ukraine was a very educated place, unlike Muscovy at
> that time, and unlike Chechnya (you compared cossacks to Chechen
> gangsters)
One guy spend many years in europe and capabale to speak several
languages is enough to claim "Ukraine was a very educated place,
unlike Muscovy at that time"?
Your pretends of Ukraine who never had even its own stabile state
to be european country is indeed artificial.
> Significantly, in his attempts to "Europeanize" Russian society,
> Peter I relied mostly on Ukrainians from Cossack lands.
but according to you those cossacks became totaly uneuropean
after peter I relied on them. That's funny.
> As the
> Eurasianist Vernadsky stated, Russia needed Kiev to enter Europe. And
> he wasn't speaking in geographic terms.
Never heard more stuipid and groundless claims.
>
> > > "The tsar's entourage behaved without conscience and shame; they
> > > shouted, whistled, belched, spat, berated each other, and even
> > > shamelessly spat in the faces of decent people"
> > >
> > > [sounds like a gathering of New Russians in one of Moscow's more
> > > expensive restaurants]
> > >
> > > Just described how all of the teachers at the Moscow gymnasium were
> > > either Ukrainians or Byelorussians ("Orthodox from Poland").
> > >
> > > Cultural level of the Russian leaders (contrast this with the
> > > descriptions of Mazepa above):
> >
> > Or maybe those observers were just russian enemies? Coild it be?
>
> Actually, not. The Danish envoy was formulating an alliance with the
> Russians against the Swedes. He was Russia's ally. So your claims
> that his comparison of Russians and Ukrainians were nonobjective based
> upon being Russia's enemy is not true.
untrue. it depends on the time. even if so his claims can
be dissmised since he was stuipid of being "envoy formulating
an alliance with the Russians" and simulteneosely writing
insulting text about people and tzar of russia. Really
stuipid guy who opinions has zero value.
I understood but not share your opinion. All this sounds like
a weak attempt to clean shity traitor of his crimes.
>
> The contractual obligation was an act of mutual obligation. The
> vassal promised his lord obedience, service, and loyalty in return for
> the latter's protection and respect for the vassal's privileges and
> the traditions of his land. If the vassal had good reason to believe
> that his lord was breaking his obligations, he had the right - the
> famous ius resistendi - to rise against him to protect his interests.
> Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of
> disloyalty. The German Schwabenspiegel, one of the primary sources
> for customary law in east central Europe, provided a concise summary
> of the principle: "We should serve our sovereigns because they protect
> us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more
> service". Mazepa's position could not have been stated more
> succinctly.
There is nothing of that kind in britannica and elsethere. although
everbody knowns that russians distroyed not only Swedes but also
its cossacks helpers. Thus russians could fulfill its obligations.
Also since Ukraine was part of russia rules applied in europe are
not applied in Ukraine. Russian rules must be applied instead.
Logically isn't it? from any point of view you are wrong.
>
> As I have said before, to Ukrainians and other Europeans, Mazepa's
> acts were justified. Indeed, it was Peter who betrayed Mazepa by not
> fulfilling his part of the obligation. Because to Ukrainians and
> Europeans, every man has innate rights and no one is a slave. Rulers
> are responsible to the ruled.
>
> Of course, the land of khans and tsars - a different ethnos - this is
> not the case. Think about that, please.
>
> I could draw a parallel with Khmelnitsky who "betrayed" Poland.
Sure. I do not care about that. Let's poles complains about
Khmenitsky.
> For
> some reason, other than a Polish nationalist fringe, most Poles do not
> see Khmel. as a traitor, although he did to Poland pretty much what
> Mazepa tried to do to to Russia. But Poles, like Ukrainians, are
> Europeans and can easily understand each other this way...
So they do not. That's fine for me.
>
> I would add, here, that the comprison goes both ways. Some Ukrainians
> tend to view Russians as monsters, as people who hate Ukrainians and
> so on. This is completely incorrect. Russians never treated
> Ukrainians worse than they treated their own people, if their own
> people tried to rebel.
correct. noone can require more than that. Even Kant
asked only about that. right?
> The great misunderstanding here is that
> Russians, operating with a Eurasian political understanding which
> demands strict obedience to the ruler and a centralized state based
> upon obeisance (inherited from the khans), see Ukrainians operating
> with European assumptions of duty of the ruler to the ruled and basic
> individual rights as "traitors".
Not Ukranians but Mazepa and some 5000 his cossacks of Polish
origin.
> Ukrainians, on the other hand, see
> Russians as being hostile to Ukrainians when indeed most Russians are
> quite fond of Ukrainians but cannot accept lack of obedience (an
> uncharatable word would be, slavery) to the the "tsar-father".
This is not that wander me so much. I wonder how poor Rusynes
cannot remember only traubles that happend > 300 years ago.
>
> > Cossacks:
> >
> > "Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
> > member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
> > and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
> > received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Article confuses Ukrainian and Russian cossacks. Situations were
> quite different.
I see, clearly it does not agree well with views of rusynes historians?
>
> > services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
> > semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
> > term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
> > had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
> > and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
> > communities."
> >
> > military and not religious or educational community.
>
> Rurikovychy were originally just merchant-warriers. So?
do not ask me. it seems it is you who should disprove Britannica.
Go ahead.
>
> > "In the 16th century there were six major Cossack hosts: the Don, the
> > Greben (in Caucasia), the Yaik (on the middle Ural River), the Volga,
> > the Dnieper, and the Zaporozhian (mainly west of the Dnieper)..."
>
> > So originally there were tatars but late became "peasants who had fled
> > from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy" which according to
> > that time law were criminals. ordinary killers of all kinds are known
> > to escape to Cossacks as well.
>
> The founder of the Zaporozhian sitch was a prince, "Baida"
> Vyshyvetsky. His great-great grandson would sit on the Polish throne.
> Maybe Russian cossacks had a different background.
So baida had tobe a tatar as Britanica claims or he did not found3ed sitch.
>
> > An other intersting point is that serfdom was not only
> > tradition of Moscovy but as well as in Poland and Lithuania.
>
> But not Ukraine.
With only one possibility it did not reach that level
of development and was still govern not by law but
a kind of military democracy a sort of chechens had
till recently.
>
> > Logically. close neighbours normaly have similar customs.
> >
> > Going further:
> >
> > "Polish kings in the early 16th century began to organize the
> > Zaporozhian Cossacks into military colonies to protect Poland's
> > borders.
>
> Ah. But here there is a contradiction. In the same source, it was
> said:
>
> Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
> member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
> and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
> received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
> services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
> semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
> term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
> had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
> and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
> communities."
where is contradiction. one thing is 15-th century another is 16-th one.
>
> So, therefore, with different histories and ethnicities Russian and
> Ukrainian cossacks should not be placed in the same categories. After
> all, both America and Argentina had cowboys with similar lifestyles,
> yet radically different cultures.
Ok you have already divided russians and ukranans. Now you want to
divide Cossacks...
>
> > Throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th,
> > these Cossacks retained their political autonomy, briefly forming a
> > semi-independent state under Bohdan Khmelnytsky (c. 1649). But,
> > threatened by Polish domination, the Zaporozhian Cossacks signed a
> > treaty with Russia in 1654..."
> >
> > so voluntary
>
> Yes. And so?
>
> > "...,under which their autonomy was to be respected. The Russians
> > likewise used the Cossacks first as defenders of the Russian frontier
> > and later as advance guards for the territorial extension of the
> > Russian Empire. Internally, the Cossacks regained a greater degree of
> > their cherished liberties under the Russians than they had known under
> > the Poles..."
> >
> > ???!!! while we heard from your sources that Cossaks were suffering
> > from russians only
>
> Where did I or my sources say that?
In many places you stated that Cossaks are only ukranians
and ukranians were always suffering from russian hands.
>
> > but in fact the matter was that russian gave more freedom than Poles did.
>
> No. Ukrainians got that freedom themselves, and kept it (initially)
> under the Russians.
>
> > Nice! BTW this was very typical for russians when they expanded.
>
> Yes. Only later was reality revealed.
I never deny this.
> For example, a similar
> situation after the Revolution. In the 1920's eastern Ukraine
> experienced a cultural Renaissance. But, quietly, Russia established
> political control. Once this was complete, you know what happened in
> the 1930's.
As you correctly said they treated Ukranians as as they did with
themselfs. right?
> Another eason Ukrainians should be suspicious of Russian
> unity, and think about such a thing only as a last resort, if union
> with Europe is unfeasible.
Did they (rusynes) experienced european rule not enough under
Austria, Poland and germany (41-44)?
>
> > "...The Russian throne reserved the right to approve Cossacks'
> > negotiations with the Poles and the Turks, the peoples with whom
> > Russian relations were the most sensitive. Otherwise the chief ruler,
> > or hetman (ataman), of the Cossack army had a free hand in foreign
> > policy. Thus, in exchange for some military obligations, the Cossacks
> > had restored some of their autonomy--in the short term. Over the
> > years, however, Russia increasingly came to dominate the Cossacks."
> >
> > So many tried but russians as usualy won the struggle for Ukraine.
> >
> > As for the criminals among them. there were lot even in the written
> > history.
> >
> > "Under the Russian umbrella, the Cossacks expanded eastward from their
> > home in the Don and were early colonizers of Siberia. By the end of
> > the 19th century the number of Cossack groups had expanded to 11,
> > including the Don, Kuban, Terek, Orenburg, and Ussuri Cossacks.
> >
> > When their privileges were threatened, the Cossacks revolted, their
> > most famous rebel leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries being Stenka
> > Razin, Kondraty Bulavin, and Yemelyan Pugachov..."
> >
> > do you know a kind of people Mr. Stenka Razin, Mr. Kondraty Bulavin,
> > and Mr. Yemelyan Pugachov were? Pretty similar to Mr. Basaev, Mr.
> > Baraev and Mr. Zakaev.
>
> I know that none of them were Ukrainian.
They were all according to Britannica were Cossacks atamans.
Also what is the difference between them and Mr. Mazepa?
he was even worser since was helping foreign invador.
> We were discussing
> Ukrainians (including Ukrainian Cossacks) versus Russians. I suspect
> Stenka Razin couldn't converse in Latin, German or Greek as a
> Ukrainian Hetman could : )
In fact during last 10 years we had to kill 100s west Ukranian
nationalists tarrorizing civilian population in Chechenya.
Ukranians nationalists speciality was to pretend to be russian
army.
>
> > "As a result, they gradually lost their autonomous status..."
> >
> > Undertsandably.
> >
> > >
> > > But I would like to add that in the case of the Russians described
> > > previously, barbarity should not be seen as an insult. Russia was a
> > > young nation (still is), having developed only a fw centuries before.
> > > It was and will be a shame if it becomes civilized, not through its
> > > own unique development, but by the forcing of civilized European
> > > culture on it. Just think how human progress would have been retarded
> > > if the German barbarians of the 4th century had adopted the decadent
> > > yet civilized ways of their advanced southern neighbors instead of
> > > rudely going their own way. There would have been no Kant, no
> > > Beethoven, no Mozart, etc. etc.
> > >
> > > However, note how these visitors often compared Ukrainians to other
> > > Europeans, found a natural affinity to their own kind.
> >
> > Why do you believe that europeans who wrote insulting things about
> > its bitter enemy the Russia? Maybe they were just affraid and hated
> > russians who just recently destroyed Sweedes, the top military power
> > of Europe at that times.
>
> As I stated, many of those diplomats were grateful for Russia for
> destroying Sweden (in particular the Danes), and were in Russia
> cementing alliances with Russia.
So democtatic Danes were grateful while their brothers european
brothers Ukranians according to you were not at all. But maybe they
were not europeans?
> Their insults were nothing more than
> a reflection of what they perceived in the Russian Empire: barbaric
> Russians and fellow-European, educated Ukrainians (including Ukrainian
> Cossacks). It sadly normal for people to view those different from
> themsleves in insulting ways. The fact that they did so with Russians
> and not Ukrainians also shows how Ukraine was European and Russia was
> not.
>
> > Sweeden never recovered after that defeat.
> > Maybe they wanted open second front agaist russians in Ukraine.
> > If not this what was their goal of traveling between Moscow and
> > Ukarine? Do not be naive. All those travelers and observes were
> > government spies at that times.
>
> Yes. Denmark, or England, were getting ready to dominate eastern
> Europe : ))))
>
> Those observations were nothing more than traveler's notes, describing
> the places they've seen. But they do reveal much.
Much? that mazepa was civilized as being fluent in french while
Peter I who destryed most aggressive state in that time europe
was specking Danish with acient was barbaric... Really much indeed.
>
> > > Why the history lesson? Because it provides a key to understanding
> > > the present and the future. It provides a context for Ukraine's
> > > relationship to Russia.
> >
> > Sure. However true historical picture will serve that goal only.
> > Not the politically motivated crap as you just cited.
> >
>
> > Well I understand we have fundamental cultural differences with
> > germans or french with whome we just sometimes met in battle field.
> > but tell me how it can be that people living together for 1000 years
> > (most of the time in a single state),
>
> Let's add it up. Russia did not exist as an ethnos until the mixture
> of Slavs, Finns and Asians starting, at earliest in 1150 or so. By
> that time, Rus was already a decentralized state
In positive europen sense I guess.
>- actually several
> states such as Galicia, Vladimir-Suzdal, Chernigov, Novgorod, etc.
> After 1240 they were completely seperate. Galicia was independent
> from 1240 until 1349, then was ruled by the Poles and Austrians. Kiev
> was ruled after from the 14th century by Lithuania and then Poland.
> Russia did not really absorb Ukraine until after Poltava, and even
> that was only ontheastern half. It did not rule the right Bank
> (Cherkassy, Vynnytsia, Zhitomir) until 1780's.
>
> To summarize, in the last 1000 years Russians and Ukrainians lived
> together in the same state:
>
> About 300 years for eastern Ukraine (c.1700-1990)
> About 200 years for central Ukraine (c.1780-1990)
> About 55 years for Galicia and Zakarpatia (1944-1990)
>
> Hmmm. Spain ruled Mexico for about 300 years.
>
> And, of course, Ukrainians and Europeans (Poles, Lithuanians,
> Austrians) lived together in the same state:
>
> 250 years for eastern Ukraine (c. 1400-c.1650)
> 380 years for central Ukraine (c.1400-c.1780)
> 600 years for Galicia (c. 1350 - c. 1950)
>
you convinietnly forgot it was LAST 200-300 years with
russia. As for Galicia yes that's why do not consider them
to be the same people.
> So, two out of three of Ukraine's regions were linked to Europe more
> than to Russia, and in the latter case the difference was only 50
> years.
Last years... last ones.
>
> > mixing each other all the time can have so "fundamental cultural differences" > that one is european and another is noneuropen nation. Tell me also what is > measure of europeaness?
>
> Mexicans and Spaniards lived together for along time also. As did
> Jamicans and British, British and Indians, etc. Britian ruled India
> for the same amunt of time that Russia ruled central Ukraine.
> Although there was much influence (railroads, democratic system,
> English lingua franca in India) nobody can argue that they are not
> different civilizations.
I told you about geography. That's importamt factor.
maybe most important one for ethnogenesis.
>
> > >
> > > ...cut...
> > >
> > > > > > In fact Putin was elected mostly due his KGB past.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > True story. Back in early 2000 an acquainatence of mine connected to
> > > > > Ziuganov (won't give his name) phoned up a high official in
> > > > > Yeltsin's/Putin's government to wish him a happy birthday. This
> > > > > official told him that, btw, Putin would win the next election "even
> > > > > by 51% to 49% if he had to". Of course he didn't have to but it shows
> > > > > what a democrat he is.
> > > >
> > > > I would not recommend anyone to base any judgements on
> > > > that kind of 'stories'.
> > >
> > > Well, I trust that the guy who made the phone call told me the truth
> > > about the phone call he made, and what he was told.
> >
> > You seems to be too trusting. is that a part of your europeaness?
>
> Well, I have heard a lot of Russian politics from the inside. My wife
> has fond childhood memories of the dacha on the Central Committee of
> the Communist Party (they made the best shashliks one could hope for);
> I have heard many stories about Gorby, and Yanayev, Brezhnev who
> personally only cared about racing cars, etc. etc. So, given that
> what that guy heard about the elections matches what others have told
> me, I trust it.
>
Vertainly its upto you. But I would be very careful to extrapolate
rumors about Gorby, Yanaev and Breznev to Putin of whome you seem
you have no idea about.
Michael
ldm...@hotmail.com
http://www.1953.ru/murder.html
petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Bolshoy Murza
> > > Because stronger culture always assimilate weaker ones.
> >
> > You seem to be overemphasizing the military/repressive aspect of
> > "culture".
>
> I am not about its military aspects. In human history there were
> tons of cases when victourious invadors were quickly assimilated
> by people who lost the was bu who had stronger culture. for
> instance mongols in china or hoons in europe.
...Or Bulgars and Slavs in the Balkans, or Scandanavians and Rus.
Of course the sheer numbers make a difference.
> > In the case of Russia and Ukraine, your so-called equality would mean
> > that if 60% of Russians supported a law that was against the interests
> > of Ukraine (say, to eliminate subsidies to Ukrainian farmers but not
> > to Russian ones - only a hypothetical example!) and 80% of Ukrainians
> > would oppose this law, it would still go through.
>
> it is about rights of minority which should have voice heard.
> but decisions are made by majority. It is in best majority
> interests to respect minority rights in order to pereserve
> stability of the system and also in order merge can continue
> without any interruption.
That's true but it has not been the case. The English with respect to
the Scots were an example of this. Rather than place the Scots under
their boots, they enabled a large measure of autonomy (including, a
seperate parliament) and allowed the Scots to be almost-equal partners
in the creation of the English-Scottish British Empire.
Of course, the English were a European people, without the zealous
need for an all-powerful central authority.
> > > > Your love of the all-powerful central authority (an attitude Russia
> > > > inherited from the Mongols) is different from the European view,
> > >
> > > All this time depenent. france is even now very centralized, germany
> > > recently was. So european veiews have notning to do with that.
> >
> > Corsica has autonomy within France. You seem to be not very aware of
> > Germany's history. With the brief exception of the Hitler
> > dictatorship it was always a federal state (actually, Germany was
> > composed of different states until the Franco-Prussian War).
>
> And what? I have juts showed that there were no such thing as
> decentralization european tradition.
How? On the contrary, as seen above the rule has been some measure of
local autonomy, particularly for regions which have distinct cultures.
> IOn diffrent times and
> diffrent countries there were different views on that matters.
> That's all I said. I agree russians have cenralization tradition.
> Ukranians do not have any established tradition on that matters
> since in fact they (ukranians not ruses) never had stabile
> state before 1992. it remains to see will they be able to establish
> their own state tradions or not.
State traditions arise from the culture: it is the culture that
determines the type of state. For the most part Ukrainian attempts at
state-building were quite democratic, whether it be the Ukrainian
Cossacks or the Rada or even Galician Rus.
> > Europeans being ignorant of Ukraine does not mean that Ukraine is not
> > part of Europe culturally. A tribesman in Africa probably has not
> > even heard of Ukraine; that does not mean that Ukraine does not exist.
>
> No doubt it does exist. But to be part of something means having
> common history, interests and culture. Therefore it is not
> simply possible to change "sides" so quickly even with all best
> hopes.
But we see the common hisotry of Ukraine with Europe; I have shown
evidence of common culture, interests, etc.
> > Perhaps you should travel to Lviv or Kyiv and then state that these
> > are not European cities (I remember some friends from Moscow,
> > Russians, returned after a trip to Kyiv and were very much surprised
> > and amazed and how un-Russian, and European, the place was)? Ukraine
> > is not Lugansk.
>
> Many say nowdays that Moscow are St.Petersburg are very european cities...
I haven't heard about that being said of Moscow! "Peter", of course,
but even Dostoyevsky admitted it was an abstraction.
> > > To become europens Ukranians would have to give up
> > > all its culture and history, which simply not possible.
> >
> > They already are Europeans.
>
> In reality the meaning of that statement that Ukranians have nothing
> to give up since they have no culture, no history no religion.
How? Ukraine has a culture of individualism (European), history
linked to Europe and/or involving a struggle to return to Europe, a
religion whose tradition links it to Greece and other parts of Europe
more than to Russia prior to Russia's suppression of the Ukrainian
Church.
> I disagree with that kind of views.
>
> > If they were to become Russians than,
> > indeed, they would give that up.
>
> In my view there is one important difference between
> ukranians and russians. Later do have understanding
> of their own ineterest and no illusions that someones
> are gonna help them to protect it. I do not know
> when Ukranians will became adult capabale to define
> and protect their own interests.
Immersing themselves in the sort of union you propose is unfortunately
hardly protecting one's own interests.
> > You are mixing the fact of European-ness with the EU. I agree that
> > Ukraine should be suspicious with respect to the EU. However, perhaps
> > you've heard, but recently the EU accepted almost all of Poland's
> > demands, including $1 billion in farmer subsidies. So movement is
> > occurring in the right direction...
>
> I never had any doubts on that minor matters. However Ukraine
> is not Poland and 1 bil $ is not a replacement for equal
> long term partnership based on vital interests. We can
> easily pay 1-2 bil $ if ukraine agree to join our union
> with belorus. In fact we do it already using gaz and oil
> cheap prices.
> > Lithaunia has a smaller Russian population.
>
> and is a most friendly to russia among all those baltic counties.
> strange isn't it?
A good observation. It feels less threatened.
> > >
> > > So what? Michael Romanov was also elected.
> >
> > He was related to the Rurikovychy through a maternal line.
>
> The thing is that level of "democtacy" in russia, galicia,
> lithuania and poland at that time was not significantly
> different. That's was your point. It is clearly wishful
> thinking.
Do you seriously think that Russia and Poland-Lithuania were
comparable with regards to level of democracy????
Poland-Lithuania was a "Republic of Nobles". The 10% of the
population with noble rank (similar in ratio to ancient Greece) were
pretty free and equal.
> > Novgorod was indeed European and an integral part of Rus. Muscovy, a
> > misture of Slavs, Finns and Mongols, was already a different nation
> > than that of Novgorod.
> >
> > BTW Moscow's Ivan the Terrible destroyed Novgorod. He had the city
> > subdued, and then, over several weeks, executed nearly every person in
> > the town. He and his deranged son would sometimes, for their
> > amusement, watch while Novogorod's men and women were fried to death
> > on giant skillets, or placed in vats of burning oil (see Norman
> > Davies' History of Europe). Actions worthy of a khan demonstrating
> > his authority, but antithetical to the West.
>
> No need I know all this from russian sources.
>
> >
> > So modern Russia can make little claim on Novogorod.
>
> incredible statement. who do you think can claim Novgorod?
> teftons I guess.
Well, nobody, because it was destroyed. Certainly not - except to the
smallest of extents - Russia the heir of Muscovy who as I have showed
obliterated Novgorod without a trace.
Actually, Ukraine with its retention of Rus "Europeanness" could
perhaps be considered more of a cyultural heir of Novgorod although
that'd be stretching it.
>
> > The fact is that the pro-individual worldview
> > described above existed in Ukraine not only in the times of Rus bbut
> > in the times of the cossacks and throughout history. This wass why
> > our peasants were always rebelling against conditions that in Russia
> > were considered normal.
>
> So what? Russians peasats did just the same, but centralized state
> won all these battles.
I suspect that the extent and number of peasant rebellions in relation
to overall population was just not comparable in Russia versus
Ukraine. What Russian rebel would be a statesman comparable to
Khmelnitsky?
> > This was why Ukraine was composed not of
> > collectivistic mirs but of individual small farms, and why it was so
> > much harder to the Soviets to establish their control in ukraine
> > versus Russia.
>
> Not very hard. It took one year or so.
Wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine about six times before being
successful. Makhno was not defeated until the middle of 1921. Large
scale revolts involving hundreds of armed peasants existed until 1924
(at least); the last big raid was in 1928. Compare that to Russia
which has 3 times the population.
> > When two different civilizations are involved there
> > can be enormous conflicts.
>
> sure intil the final merge. That's why it is so productive
> and important thing to finish as soon as possible for all
> sides involved.
>
> > Well, despite numerous investigations there was never any evidence of
> > Galician SS wrongdoings, war crimes, etc - not even from the Russian
> > side
>
> Please do not start it. We all know what was going on there in 41-44.
Sorry, but if you refer to the Galician SS specifically than you
cannot show they were criminals specifically.
> >(sorry, propoganda pamphlets written decades after the war don't
> > count). The Russian army in Chechnya on the other hand...
>
> restores peace and order.
Heh. The liberation of TV sets is very imprtant (there were some
funny pictures of this in one of Chicago's Polish noewspapers a few
years ago)
> > > > > Cossacks at that times were very similar to modern chechen gungsters.
> > > > > And you know that very well.
> > > >
> > > > A comment as insulting
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Cossacks were literate, cultured, democratic people. Compare to
> > Chechen gangsters.
>
> Chechens are also literate (thanks to soviet policies),
Actually the younger Chechens brought up after 1990 are not literate.
Ukrainians living under the Hetmanate could be considered among the
most literate population in Europe. Kyiv with its academy was the
intellectual center of the Orthodox world, where Serbian, Bulgarian,
Greek and Ukrainian scholars taught and studied. It was no
coincidence that after the union with Russia, 70% of the Russian upper
clergy (including the first leader of the Holy Synod) were Ukrainians.
Do you seriously compare Grozny and Chechens to Kyiv and (Ukrainian)
Cossacks?
> in their
> own sense cultured and exteremely democratic. Ever heard about
> military democracy whic is based on force and not on law.
Chechnya is using Sharia, isn't it?
> just like it was in Cossacks military communities. The law
> came to them from North and they certainly strogly dislike
> it for centuries.
>
> > > > This is what European
> > > > travelors had to say when comparing Russians and Cossacks in the
> > > > 17th-18th centuries:
> > > >
> > > > A French diplomat, Jean Baluse, whose memoirs are in the
> > > > National Library in Paris, on Mazepa:
> > > >
> > > > "At his court he has two German doctors, with whom he converses in
> > > > their tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are several in
> > > > the castle, he speaks in the Italian language. I spoke with the
> > > > master of Ukraine in the Latin language, inasmuch he assured me
> > > > that he was not very fluent in French...I do not know if this
> > > > statement of his concealed a special motive, for I myself saw
> > > > French and Dutch newspapers in his study."
> > >
> > > What does his ability to speak French can prove?
> >
> > That he is well educated. Furthermore, by speaking French, Latin etc.
> > he is more cultured and worldy.
>
> Ok he was cultured and worldy traitor, a state criminal in russia.
> deal?
No, because his "treachery" occurred after Russia violated its
agreement by refusing to defend Ukraine. It was Russia which betrayed
Ukraine.
> > Already major differences between cossacks and "Chechen gangters".
>
> Oh sure there were many differences even major ones.
>
> >
> > > > The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
> > > >
> > > > "Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
> > > > Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
> > >
> > > the same
> >
> > It shows that Ukraine was a very educated place, unlike Muscovy at
> > that time, and unlike Chechnya (you compared cossacks to Chechen
> > gangsters)
>
> One guy spend many years in europe and capabale to speak several
> languages is enough to claim "Ukraine was a very educated place,
> unlike Muscovy at that time"?
You forgot:
The German Friedrich Weber in 1720 about the son of Hetman Apostol:
"Although he was never abroad, he speaks fluently Latin, French,
Italian, German, Russian and Polish..."
But you cut out the other parts of my post: for example, the fact that
monks at the Lavra were mostly all fluent in Latin.
Most imprtant, one foreign traveller was shocked to see peasants (!)
going to Church with their prayerbooks. This obviously means that
they were literate. At that time, even in Western Europe peasants
generally couldn't read.
BTW, by 1900 after two centuries of Russian rule literacy in Ukraine
was only 13%.
> > > > Danish envoy in Moscow Jul Just, 1709-1712:
> > > >
> > > > "Although at the present time the Russians in their conduct are
> > > > trying to emulate in monkey fashion the other nations, and though
> > > > they don French attire and in their external appearance they appear
> > > > more civilized, inwardly, however, there sits a cholop"
> > >
> > > Do you consider "to emulate in monkey fashion the other nations"
> > > as adequate and objective description of Peter I reforms?
> >
> > To a certain extent, yes. There was a high degree of artificiality in
> > it.
>
> Your pretends of Ukraine who never had even its own stabile state
> to be european country is indeed artificial.
Sorry, but it's built on empirical evidence which I have provided.
Love of democracy, emphasis on the rights of every person, dislike of
centralized authority, all of these are European attributes.
> > Significantly, in his attempts to "Europeanize" Russian society,
> > Peter I relied mostly on Ukrainians from Cossack lands.
>
> but according to you those cossacks became totaly uneuropean
> after peter I relied on them. That's funny.
???? Explain yourself, please.
> > As the
> > Eurasianist Vernadsky stated, Russia needed Kiev to enter Europe. And
> > he wasn't speaking in geographic terms.
>
> Never heard more stuipid and groundless claims.
The late Russian historian Vernadsky, at Yale university, is
considered one of the formeost experts on Russian history. He is also
one of the main proponents of the "Eurasian" school. Hardly a stupid
man given to making "groundless" claims.
> > > > "The tsar's entourage behaved without conscience and shame; they
> > > > shouted, whistled, belched, spat, berated each other, and even
> > > > shamelessly spat in the faces of decent people"
> > > >
> > > > [sounds like a gathering of New Russians in one of Moscow's more
> > > > expensive restaurants]
> > > >
> > > > Just described how all of the teachers at the Moscow gymnasium were
> > > > either Ukrainians or Byelorussians ("Orthodox from Poland").
> > > >
> > > > Cultural level of the Russian leaders (contrast this with the
> > > > descriptions of Mazepa above):
> > >
> > > Or maybe those observers were just russian enemies? Coild it be?
> >
> > Actually, not. The Danish envoy was formulating an alliance with the
> > Russians against the Swedes. He was Russia's ally. So your claims
> > that his comparison of Russians and Ukrainians were nonobjective based
> > upon being Russia's enemy is not true.
>
> untrue. it depends on the time. even if so his claims can
> be dissmised since he was stuipid of being "envoy formulating
> an alliance with the Russians" and simulteneosely writing
> insulting text about people and tzar of russia.
Obviously those writings which were released years later were not made
public (especially to the Russians). As a diplomat however he was
responsibile to his people to give them what he perceived to be an
accurate picture of the nation he was visiting.
> Really stuipid guy who opinions has zero value.
Your dismissal is simply not logical. Denmark would not choose a fool
for its imnportant task. And I believe he was succesfull in forging
agreements with Peter I.
It is irrelevent what it "sounds like". Do you have evidence backing
your claim?
> > The contractual obligation was an act of mutual obligation. The
> > vassal promised his lord obedience, service, and loyalty in return for
> > the latter's protection and respect for the vassal's privileges and
> > the traditions of his land. If the vassal had good reason to believe
> > that his lord was breaking his obligations, he had the right - the
> > famous ius resistendi - to rise against him to protect his interests.
> > Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of
> > disloyalty. The German Schwabenspiegel, one of the primary sources
> > for customary law in east central Europe, provided a concise summary
> > of the principle: "We should serve our sovereigns because they protect
> > us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more
> > service". Mazepa's position could not have been stated more
> > succinctly.
>
> There is nothing of that kind in britannica and elsethere.
...So it must not exist : ))) Look up in Britannica, feudalism or
vassalage or similar terms.
> although
> everbody knowns that russians distroyed not only Swedes but also
> its cossacks helpers. Thus russians could fulfill its obligations.
> Also since Ukraine was part of russia rules applied in europe are
> not applied in Ukraine. Russian rules must be applied instead.
> Logically isn't it? from any point of view you are wrong.
This works both ways. Because Russia was making an agreement with a
European country, and not some Bashkir khanate - it must also have
taken the customs of the European Ukraine into account, which included
the idea that they - the Ukrainians - did not enter into a union of de
facto slavery. But this is besides the point, which is the fact that
Ukraine with its European traditions and Russia with its Eurasian
culture could not understand each other. It seems you still do not
understand...
> > As I have said before, to Ukrainians and other Europeans, Mazepa's
> > acts were justified. Indeed, it was Peter who betrayed Mazepa by not
> > fulfilling his part of the obligation. Because to Ukrainians and
> > Europeans, every man has innate rights and no one is a slave. Rulers
> > are responsible to the ruled.
> >
> > Of course, the land of khans and tsars - a different ethnos - this is
> > not the case. Think about that, please.
> >
> > I could draw a parallel with Khmelnitsky who "betrayed" Poland.
>
> Sure. I do not care about that. Let's poles complains about
> Khmenitsky.
You should care. Because it proves that Ukrainians and Poles
understand each
other in a way tha Russians (at least, you) do not. Which brings us
back to Ukraine's European essence.
> > For
> > some reason, other than a Polish nationalist fringe, most Poles do not
> > see Khmel. as a traitor, although he did to Poland pretty much what
> > Mazepa tried to do to to Russia. But Poles, like Ukrainians, are
> > Europeans and can easily understand each other this way...
>
> So they do not. That's fine for me.
Well, Europeans and even democratic, European-phile Russians (such as
the Decembrists) were quite supportive and understanding of Mazepa
(remember Byron's famous poem), viewing him as a tragic hero. Why is
that?
> > I would add, here, that the comprison goes both ways. Some Ukrainians
> > tend to view Russians as monsters, as people who hate Ukrainians and
> > so on. This is completely incorrect. Russians never treated
> > Ukrainians worse than they treated their own people, if their own
> > people tried to rebel.
>
> correct. noone can require more than that. Even Kant
> asked only about that. right?
>
> > The great misunderstanding here is that
> > Russians, operating with a Eurasian political understanding which
> > demands strict obedience to the ruler and a centralized state based
> > upon obeisance (inherited from the khans), see Ukrainians operating
> > with European assumptions of duty of the ruler to the ruled and basic
> > individual rights as "traitors".
>
> Not Ukranians but Mazepa and some 5000 his cossacks of Polish
> origin.
???? I can speak of one of those officers, a nobleman from Chernihiv
whose roots go back to Scandanavian druzhina serving the kniazi in the
time of old Rus'. After Poltava, he escaped to Galicia where his
family retained their noble status and military traditions (as well as
Orthodoxy and later Greek Catholicism). The first priest to give a
sermon at St. George's Cathedral, in the vernacular Ukrainian
langauge, was the descendent of this "Polish" officer. He was also
the brother of my great-great grandfather.
> > Ukrainians, on the other hand, see
> > Russians as being hostile to Ukrainians when indeed most Russians are
> > quite fond of Ukrainians but cannot accept lack of obedience (an
> > uncharatable word would be, slavery) to the the "tsar-father".
>
> This is not that wander me so much. I wonder how poor Rusynes
> cannot remember only traubles that happend > 300 years ago.
>
> >
> > > Cossacks:
> > >
> > > "Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
> > > member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
> > > and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
> > > received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Article confuses Ukrainian and Russian cossacks. Situations were
> > quite different.
>
> I see, clearly it does not agree well with views of rusynes historians?
It doesn't even agree with logic. If Zaporozhian cossacks consisted
of Ukrainians going to the steppe and Russian cossacks consisted of
Russians escaping to different steppes, how could they be the same
people?
> > > services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
> > > semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
> > > term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
> > > had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
> > > and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
> > > communities."
> > >
> > > military and not religious or educational community.
> >
> > Rurikovychy were originally just merchant-warriers. So?
>
> do not ask me. it seems it is you who should disprove Britannica.
> Go ahead.
It's been done.
> > > "In the 16th century there were six major Cossack hosts: the Don, the
> > > Greben (in Caucasia), the Yaik (on the middle Ural River), the Volga,
> > > the Dnieper, and the Zaporozhian (mainly west of the Dnieper)..."
> > > So originally there were tatars but late became "peasants who had fled
> > > from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy" which according to
> > > that time law were criminals. ordinary killers of all kinds are known
> > > to escape to Cossacks as well.
> >
> > The founder of the Zaporozhian sitch was a prince, "Baida"
> > Vyshyvetsky. His great-great grandson would sit on the Polish throne.
> > Maybe Russian cossacks had a different background.
>
> So baida had tobe a tatar as Britanica claims or he did not found3ed sitch.
Well, Baida founded the Sitch and thus Britannica was wrong in
equating Ukrainian and Russian cossacks (who may have had tatar
roots). Look up works by historians and you will see that they all
agree that Baida founded the Sitch.
> > > An other intersting point is that serfdom was not only
> > > tradition of Moscovy but as well as in Poland and Lithuania.
> >
> > But not Ukraine.
>
> With only one possibility it did not reach that level
> of development and was still govern not by law but
> a kind of military democracy a sort of chechens had
> till recently.
>
> >
> > > Logically. close neighbours normaly have similar customs.
> > >
> > > Going further:
> > >
> > > "Polish kings in the early 16th century began to organize the
> > > Zaporozhian Cossacks into military colonies to protect Poland's
> > > borders.
> >
> > Ah. But here there is a contradiction. In the same source, it was
> > said:
> >
> > Russian KAZAK (from Turkic kazak, "adventurer," or "free man"),
> > member of a people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black
> > and Caspian seas. They had a tradition of independence and finally
> > received privileges from the Russian government in return for military
> > services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to
> > semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the
> > term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who
----------------
The above, also applies, means that the Turkish kozaks and
escaped-peasant kozaks were not necessarily the same.
> > had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper
> > and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military
> > communities."
>
> where is contradiction. one thing is 15-th century another is 16-th one.
You are correct. But see the point, above.
> >
> > So, therefore, with different histories and ethnicities Russian and
> > Ukrainian cossacks should not be placed in the same categories. After
> > all, both America and Argentina had cowboys with similar lifestyles,
> > yet radically different cultures.
>
> Ok you have already divided russians and ukranans. Now you want to
> divide Cossacks...
Do you know any Ukrainian cossacks? Here in the disaspora we knew a
family of Kuban cossacks (ex-Zaporozhians). Totally Ukrainian, not
Russian (Denikin was quite ruthless with supressing Ukrainian
sympathies among the Kuban cossacks). Actually, their Ukrainian
language was better than that of some modern Ukrainians...
In 1991 the Kuban cossacks requested aid and money for setting up
Ukrainian-language schools on their territory. Unfortunately the
Ukrainian state was too broke to pay for its own Ukrainization, much
less that of Kuban.
> > > Throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th,
> > > these Cossacks retained their political autonomy, briefly forming a
> > > semi-independent state under Bohdan Khmelnytsky (c. 1649). But,
> > > threatened by Polish domination, the Zaporozhian Cossacks signed a
> > > treaty with Russia in 1654..."
> > >
> > > so voluntary
> >
> > Yes. And so?
> >
> > > "...,under which their autonomy was to be respected. The Russians
> > > likewise used the Cossacks first as defenders of the Russian frontier
> > > and later as advance guards for the territorial extension of the
> > > Russian Empire. Internally, the Cossacks regained a greater degree of
> > > their cherished liberties under the Russians than they had known under
> > > the Poles..."
> > >
> > > ???!!! while we heard from your sources that Cossaks were suffering
> > > from russians only
> >
> > Where did I or my sources say that?
>
> In many places you stated that Cossaks are only ukranians
> and ukranians were always suffering from russian hands.
Where? Any proof that I stated that cossacks were *only* Ukrainians?
>
> >
> > > but in fact the matter was that russian gave more freedom than Poles did.
> >
> > No. Ukrainians got that freedom themselves, and kept it (initially)
> > under the Russians.
> >
> > > Nice! BTW this was very typical for russians when they expanded.
> >
> > Yes. Only later was reality revealed.
>
> I never deny this.
Good.
> > For example, a similar
> > situation after the Revolution. In the 1920's eastern Ukraine
> > experienced a cultural Renaissance. But, quietly, Russia established
> > political control. Once this was complete, you know what happened in
> > the 1930's.
>
> As you correctly said they treated Ukranians as as they did with
> themselfs. right?
Yes. Unfortunately, it is not the same for the objects of such
policies to be treated "the same" by different people than it is for
them to be treated "the same" if they were the same people.
> > Another eason Ukrainians should be suspicious of Russian
> > unity, and think about such a thing only as a last resort, if union
> > with Europe is unfeasible.
>
> Did they (rusynes) experienced european rule not enough under
> Austria, Poland and germany (41-44)?
How about Russia in 1932-1933? It beats Hitler for sheer scale of
tragedy. But Austrian rule was probably the best time in Ukraine's
history during the last 250 years.
> > > When their privileges were threatened, the Cossacks revolted, their
> > > most famous rebel leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries being Stenka
> > > Razin, Kondraty Bulavin, and Yemelyan Pugachov..."
> > >
> > > do you know a kind of people Mr. Stenka Razin, Mr. Kondraty Bulavin,
> > > and Mr. Yemelyan Pugachov were? Pretty similar to Mr. Basaev, Mr.
> > > Baraev and Mr. Zakaev.
> >
> > I know that none of them were Ukrainian.
>
> They were all according to Britannica were Cossacks atamans.
Yes. And there are also cowboys from Texas and cowboys from the
pampas of Argentina, who lead similar lifestyles. So?
> Also what is the difference between them and Mr. Mazepa?
Mazepa was a huge patron of the arts and culture. I forget the
number, but he built something like 500 churches in the distinctive
"Cossack Baroque" style that is so typical of Kyiv and other Ukrainian
cities. Under Mazepa Kyiv was a major intellectual center in eastern
Europe.
You'll compare him to Razin or other Russian cossacks?
> he was even worser since was helping foreign invador.
>
> > We were discussing
> > Ukrainians (including Ukrainian Cossacks) versus Russians. I suspect
> > Stenka Razin couldn't converse in Latin, German or Greek as a
> > Ukrainian Hetman could : )
>
> In fact during last 10 years we had to kill 100s west Ukranian
> nationalists tarrorizing civilian population in Chechenya.
> Ukranians nationalists speciality was to pretend to be russian
> army.
Changing the subject?
> > > "As a result, they gradually lost their autonomous status..."
> > >
> > > Undertsandably.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But I would like to add that in the case of the Russians described
> > > > previously, barbarity should not be seen as an insult. Russia was a
> > > > young nation (still is), having developed only a fw centuries before.
> > > > It was and will be a shame if it becomes civilized, not through its
> > > > own unique development, but by the forcing of civilized European
> > > > culture on it. Just think how human progress would have been retarded
> > > > if the German barbarians of the 4th century had adopted the decadent
> > > > yet civilized ways of their advanced southern neighbors instead of
> > > > rudely going their own way. There would have been no Kant, no
> > > > Beethoven, no Mozart, etc. etc.
> > > >
> > > > However, note how these visitors often compared Ukrainians to other
> > > > Europeans, found a natural affinity to their own kind.
> > >
> > > Why do you believe that europeans who wrote insulting things about
> > > its bitter enemy the Russia? Maybe they were just affraid and hated
> > > russians who just recently destroyed Sweedes, the top military power
> > > of Europe at that times.
> >
> > As I stated, many of those diplomats were grateful for Russia for
> > destroying Sweden (in particular the Danes), and were in Russia
> > cementing alliances with Russia.
>
> So democtatic Danes were grateful while their brothers european
> brothers Ukranians according to you were not at all. But maybe they
> were not europeans?
Do you inply that I claim that Europeans don't fight each other?
However, despite the warfare between different groups of Europeans
they generally wouldn't write about each other as uncultured
barbarians in the same way that those envoys from Denmark, France,
Austria etc. wrote about Russia (and didn't write about Ukraine).
> > Their insults were nothing more than
> > a reflection of what they perceived in the Russian Empire: barbaric
> > Russians and fellow-European, educated Ukrainians (including Ukrainian
> > Cossacks). It sadly normal for people to view those different from
> > themsleves in insulting ways. The fact that they did so with Russians
> > and not Ukrainians also shows how Ukraine was European and Russia was
> > not.
> >
> > > Sweeden never recovered after that defeat.
> > > Maybe they wanted open second front agaist russians in Ukraine.
> > > If not this what was their goal of traveling between Moscow and
> > > Ukarine? Do not be naive. All those travelers and observes were
> > > government spies at that times.
> >
> > Yes. Denmark, or England, were getting ready to dominate eastern
> > Europe : ))))
> >
> > Those observations were nothing more than traveler's notes, describing
> > the places they've seen. But they do reveal much.
>
> Much? that mazepa was civilized as being fluent in french while
> Peter I who destryed most aggressive state in that time europe
> was specking Danish with acient was barbaric... Really much indeed.
------
Dutch.
But hey. Stalin destroyed Hitler. Was he not a barbarian?
How could I conveniently forget when, as you can see above, I provided
the dates.
> As for Galicia yes that's why do not consider them to be the same people.
Funny, Ukrainians themselves (say, from Kyiv) do not agree.
> > So, two out of three of Ukraine's regions were linked to Europe more
> > than to Russia, and in the latter case the difference was only 50
> > years.
>
> Last years... last ones.
Yes. But not the most formative ones, were they? Furthermore, an
*important point*, was that for most of the czarist years the rule was
pretty...distant, at least among the peasants. There was no public
education, villagers were enserfed but the landlords were very often
Polish. Education became nonexistent but wasn't Russian either. In
the 1850's, for example, Kyiv was about 80% Ukrainian. So don't
overestimate the importance of Russian cultural influence.
> > Mexicans and Spaniards lived together for along time also. As did
> > Jamicans and British, British and Indians, etc. Britian ruled India
> > for the same amunt of time that Russia ruled central Ukraine.
> > Although there was much influence (railroads, democratic system,
> > English lingua franca in India) nobody can argue that they are not
> > different civilizations.
>
> I told you about geography. That's importamt factor.
> maybe most important one for ethnogenesis.
And which cities are closer to Kyiv? Warsaw or Moscow? Or for that
matter, is Berlin much farther from Kyiv than Moscow is? We won't
even discuss Lviv here, but even Odessa is closer to Warsaw,
Bucharest, and other European cities than it is to Moscow.
regards,
Bolshoy Murza
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
What is important is what they did, accomplished,
caused, while they lived.
Therein shows their true Russian character.
Similarly to Hitler who commited suicide and
cremation when finally trapped in his bunker
in Berlin, how they died doesn't matter.
What they caused matters a lot, the whole
lot of them on the list of monsters in the
history of humankind.
--
Rostyk