Post: #1

A nation roughly split in half between Ukranian speakers and Russian speakers seems, on its face, odd. Odder that the roots of Russia truly begin in Kiev, yet this city is the capital of Ukraine...

How is it that modern Ukraine came to be? Why would it not be that Kiev and the Russian speaking parts of the country should be in Russia?

Post: #2

Linguistically and politically, Kiev is more Ukrainian than Russian.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-protests/

Post: #3

http://aramaxima.wordpress.com/2014/02/1...in-action/

Probably one of the best analysis.

Post: #4

About a thousand years ago, the Kiev-Rus in what is now modern Ukraine were the dominant Slavs in Eastern Europe. At that time, Moscow was still just a backwater village. If you consider that at that time most trade and economic power was based around the Mediterranean Sea, it makes sense that Ukraine's access to the Black Sea made it richer than their Russian cousins who had not yet taken a port (St. Petersburg) from the Swedes.

As wave after wave of Central Asian nomads (Esp. Tartars and Golden Horde) plundered their way through Eastern Europe, Kiev-Rus civilization fell apart.

Largely spared from the devastation of the Mongol Horde, Moscovites began to slowly come up and challenge the dominance of Sweden. Given that Ukraine had already been weakened, Russia simply swooped in and annexed that territory.

There is a third important variable to what makes modern Ukrainian so diverse -- the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania.

At the same time the Moscovites were coming to power, the Poles were doing quite well. In fact, it was the Polish army that stopped the Mongols from conquering Western Europe.

The Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania comprised much of current Poland, Belarus, the Baltics and Western Ukraine. The Ukrainian city of Lviv has a distinct and obvious Polish influence to this day.

As we all know, the Russians and Poles hate each other. This feud started when Russia crushed Poland-Lithuania and pushed its frontier westward (Belarus is "White Russian") and annexed Ukraine in its entirety. This continued during the Soviet Union when Russia moved the Poles west to expand Belarus to the west.

Taking a step back, the annexation of Ukraine by Moscow did not at first equate to Russification. At first Kiev was fairly autonomous. It was not until Peter the Great and his reforms that Russian started to be forced on Ukraine.

IMHO, the most significant event that led to the current 50-50 split was Stalin's ingenious idea to move Russians into Ukraine and Ukrainians out of Ukraine. I've met ethnic Ukrainians who live in far flung areas of the Russian Federation. Stalin did the same thing with the Volga Deutsch fearing they might join the German Army as it advanced east. He moved them to Siberia.

So you've got a lot of Russian transplants in Ukraine. At this point, many of them feel "Ukrainian" as they are second or third generation but they still speak Russian and feel connected to Moscow. On the other hand, you have ethnic Ukrainians who still resent the treatment they've received from Moscow over the last 800 years (read: Great Potato Famine). These Ukrainians identify with Poland and the EU than with Moscow. Therein lies the rub.

Sorry can't post sources atm (on mobile) but Wikipedia has great articles on all of this.

PS: the general knowledge that Ukrainian politicians, from both East and West, are more corrupt than politicians from some African countries has pissed everyone there off. I think you're seeing and hearing little from the Eastern Ukrainians (general sympathetic to Moscow) because they know VY is shit. It's similar to conservatives in the US in 2008 who didn't put up much of a fight when liberals said Bush was a loser because they knew it to be true.

Post: #5

Czech theoretical physicist and former Harvard professor Luboš Motl has a couple of interesting and insightful blog posts on the history of Ukraine:

Split country: understanding how West, East Ukraine actually differ (2014)

Ukraine's place in Europe is a subtle issue (2013)

There was also an interesting article on STRATFOR:

Ukraine: on the edge of empires (2010)

Post: #6

- Russia's roots are in Kiev in the same way that France's roots are in Rome.. you have to go a long way back for that connection to have any significance. It's mainly the Church which connects them today.

- The Ukrainian state was created during WWI. Prior to that time, the region was a mix of Ukrainian/Russian/Jewish/Polish people from various empires. As a result, Ukrainian is a weird language. The grammar is Eastern Slavic (like Russian and Byelorussian), but the vocabulary is mostly Polish. It also has a lot of words mixed in from Turkish and Arabic.

- The Donbas region (Lugansk and Donetsk) was part of Russia until Lenin transferred them into the Ukrainian SSR to balance up the electorate.

- L'vov and Lutsk (Western region) were Polish until WWII, when they were annexed. There are a lot of Catholics in that region, where as the rest of the country is Orthodox.

- Crimea was 'gifted' to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev during the 1950s in return for some votes in the Supreme Soviet.

Population events were common in the USSR, including:
- Tatars being moved to Siberia
- Ukrainians being moved East when factories were shifted during the wars
- famine due to food planning issues and subsequent re-population of Ukraine and Southern Russia with Siberians.
- Repopulation after WWII

Post: #7

(02-20-2014 09:30 PM)DaveR Wrote:  - L'vov and Lutsk (Western region) were Polish until WWII, when they were annexed. There are a lot of Catholics in that region, where as the rest of the country is Orthodox.

True, the cities themselves were strongly Polish, but from what I understand the surrounding countryside was populated overwhelmingly by Ukrainians, so both groups felt they could claim it once Hapsburg rule fell apart.

Post: #8

(02-20-2014 05:54 PM)Pizdetz Wrote:  http://aramaxima.wordpress.com/2014/02/1...in-action/

Probably one of the best analysis.

Great article.

For a rational economic analysis that's not paid by for by the US government, see this: http://sputnikipogrom.com/.../everything...nihilated/

The source of the Ukraine’s perennial political instability is clear enough - it is the western Ukraine's refusal to accept the legitimacy of any government voted in by voters in the east, especially when such governments try to pursue policies that might favor the east, even, and especially when such a government is elected democratically and constitutionally and though the east possesses by far the biggest share of the country’s voters, possesses the bulk of the country’s wealth and industry and pays the greater share of its taxes.

Western based voters and politicians have used unconstitutional and revolutionary methods to overturn eastern based governments in 2004, 2007 and are again trying to do so today.

At the moment eastern politicians such as Yanukovich have struggled to deal with these challenges by constantly appeasing them much as some Northern politicians such as Buchanan and Douglas sought to hold the Union together by appeasing the South in the antebellum US. Sooner or later however the point will come (as it did in 1860) when easterners decide that enough is enough and that a policy of constant appeasement and concession has achieved precisely nothing. At that point partition (though not civil war) becomes inevitable.

Post: #9

(02-20-2014 10:15 PM)pozdnyshev Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 05:54 PM)Pizdetz Wrote:  http://aramaxima.wordpress.com/2014/02/1...in-action/

Probably one of the best analysis.

Great article.

For a rational economic analysis that's not paid by for by the US government, see this: http://sputnikipogrom.com/.../everything...nihilated/

The source of the Ukraine’s perennial political instability is clear enough - it is the western Ukraine's refusal to accept the legitimacy of any government voted in by voters in the east, especially when such governments try to pursue policies that might favor the east, even, and especially when such a government is elected democratically and constitutionally and though the east possesses by far the biggest share of the country’s voters, possesses the bulk of the country’s wealth and industry and pays the greater share of its taxes.

Western based voters and politicians have used unconstitutional and revolutionary methods to overturn eastern based governments in 2004, 2007 and are again trying to do so today.

At the moment eastern politicians such as Yanukovich have struggled to deal with these challenges by constantly appeasing them much as some Northern politicians such as Buchanan and Douglas sought to hold the Union together by appeasing the South in the antebellum US. Sooner or later however the point will come (as it did in 1860) when easterners decide that enough is enough and that a policy of constant appeasement and concession has achieved precisely nothing. At that point partition (though not civil war) becomes inevitable.

That is a very thought our article..Putins plan. It's sad all the Russo phobic prpaganda.

Post: #10

(02-20-2014 09:30 PM)DaveR Wrote:  - Russia's roots are in Kiev in the same way that France's roots are in Rome.. you have to go a long way back for that connection to have any significance. It's mainly the Church which connects them today.

- The Ukrainian state was created during WWI. Prior to that time, the region was a mix of Ukrainian/Russian/Jewish/Polish people from various empires. As a result, Ukrainian is a weird language. The grammar is Eastern Slavic (like Russian and Byelorussian), but the vocabulary is mostly Polish. It also has a lot of words mixed in from Turkish and Arabic.

- The Donbas region (Lugansk and Donetsk) was part of Russia until Lenin transferred them into the Ukrainian SSR to balance up the electorate.

- L'vov and Lutsk (Western region) were Polish until WWII, when they were annexed. There are a lot of Catholics in that region, where as the rest of the country is Orthodox.

- Crimea was 'gifted' to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev during the 1950s in return for some votes in the Supreme Soviet.

Population events were common in the USSR, including:
- Tatars being moved to Siberia
- Ukrainians being moved East when factories were shifted during the wars
- famine due to food planning issues and subsequent re-population of Ukraine and Southern Russia with Siberians.
- Repopulation after WWII

Another important factor is that those territories were Austro-Hungarian prior to Poland's annexation after WWI.

Post: #11

Tisk tisk tisk.

Nobody is mentioning the cossacks.

Post: #12

(02-20-2014 06:39 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  About a thousand years ago, the Kiev-Rus in what is now modern Ukraine were the dominant Slavs in Eastern Europe. At that time, Moscow was still just a backwater village. If you consider that at that time most trade and economic power was based around the Mediterranean Sea, it makes sense that Ukraine's access to the Black Sea made it richer than their Russian cousins who had not yet taken a port (St. Petersburg) from the Swedes.

As wave after wave of Central Asian nomads (Esp. Tartars and Golden Horde) plundered their way through Eastern Europe, Kiev-Rus civilization fell apart.

Largely spared from the devastation of the Mongol Horde, Moscovites began to slowly come up and challenge the dominance of Sweden.

Moscow was burned to the ground by the mongols and most of the inhabitants were killed.

Quote:At the same time the Moscovites were coming to power, the Poles were doing quite well. In fact, it was the Polish army that stopped the Mongols from conquering Western Europe.

This isn't accurate. The Poles did not stop the mongols from conquering Western Europe. They were utterly defeated by the mongols.

Quote:IMHO, the most significant event that led to the current 50-50 split was Stalin's ingenious idea to move Russians into Ukraine and Ukrainians out of Ukraine. I've met ethnic Ukrainians who live in far flung areas of the Russian Federation. Stalin did the same thing with the Volga Deutsch fearing they might join the German Army as it advanced east. He moved them to Siberia.

The divide between East and West Ukraine has much deeper historical roots than Stalin.

Most of what is now Eastern Ukraine was inhabited by people known as the cossacks, who were a semi-nomadic people organized into military factions.

If you take a look at this map, you'll see that the lands inhabited by the Cossacks (in purple)



closely match those of the current political divide in Ukraine:




One of the most important events in the history of Ukraine is the Khmelnitsky Uprising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnitsky_Uprising

This map illustrates the loss of territory by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after the uprising, which roughly corresponds to the divide of West and East Ukraine:



This is where the Cossacks rebelled against the Polish nobility and actually created a short lived separate state, but soon swore an oath of allegiance towards Russia.

This was called the Treaty of Pereyaslav. It was highly criticized by the most famous poet Taras Shevchenko.

This was a pivotal moment in the history of Ukraine. It meant that Ukraine would be dominated by Russia, not Poland, except for the very western regions which fell under the rule of Hungary and Poland for many centuries until World War II when the borders of Poland were dramatically shifted east.

Ukraine has been divided for a long long time.

In many ways, Viktor Yanukovych is like a modern day Bohdan Khmelnitsky, who decided to seek the support of Russia instead of the rule of the West.

Post: #13

^^ question so is it safe to say that Kherson, Odeesa, Nikoliev, and Crmea, and Kharkiv, LUGNASK WAS NEVER Ukrainian? according to map it was Russain and the south was ottoman empire.

Post: #14

(02-21-2014 01:30 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  ^^ question so is it safe to say that Kherson, Odeesa, Nikoliev, and Crmea, and Kharkiv, LUGNASK WAS NEVER Ukrainian? according to map it was Russain and the south was ottoman empire.

The Ottomans came in late to Eastern Europe. The area of southern Ukraine has always been more ethnically mixed than most.

Post: #15

It appears as if diversity is their greatest strength.

Post: #16

(02-21-2014 01:30 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  According to map it was Russain and the south was ottoman empire.

Maps of Eastern Europe changed dramatically over time.

For example, the map below illustrates Poland in 1619 (in pink):



So, once upon a time, Poland ruled most of present Ukraine.

Post: #17

(02-21-2014 02:00 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(02-21-2014 01:30 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  According to map it was Russain and the south was ottoman empire.

Maps of Eastern Europe changed dramatically over time.

For example, the map below illustrates Poland in 1619 (in pink):



So, once upon a time, Poland ruled most of present Ukraine.

Right. That bottom map I posted shows the bounds of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the early 1600s in dark blue. And after the Khmelnitsky Uprising, these borders were dramatically altered.

Post: #18

^^fuck that SHIT!
Some Native American can come to D.C. with all the maps he wants about how he owns this and that..we ain't giving you squat..back to the reservation!Pretty sure some drunk Indian is going to claim he owned Manhattan island and he was never paid for it correctly.

Post: #19

(02-21-2014 02:05 PM)Tenerife Wrote:  After the Khmelnitsky Uprising, these borders were dramatically altered.

One of the most famous books in Polish history is Ogniem i mieczem ("With fire and sword"), on the Khmelnytsky Uprising. There is also a 1999 movie based on the book:



Yes, that is Polish Bond girl Izabella Scorupco!

Post: #20

Ukraine is an artificial state in my opinion.Western part historically belonged to Poland and the eastern part belonged to Russia.The hothead nationalists reside in the western part and they know that a western only Ukraine is not a livable state since it will soon be absorbed by Poland.So they need to oppress the eastern part or ukranize it which is impossible by the current balance of power between Russia and EU.
For us love tourists the current state of Ukraine as a buffer between EU and Russia is the most beneficial any change to the one or other direction would be damaging.
In case western Ukraine gets annexed to Poland polish and old German guys will have a party and EU will be flooded by horny Ukrainian women.The whole Galicia territory will be destroyed.Eastern Ukraine is already a playground for loaded Russians and they will get their suckers from there once it integrates to big motherland.
The usual mongers will remain with their dicks in their hands in such a case.That is why we should all support Janukovich and Ukraine's integrity.

Post: #21

(02-21-2014 03:42 PM)Greek kamaki Wrote:  Ukraine is an artificial state in my opinion.Western part historically belonged to Poland and the eastern part belonged to Russia.The hothead nationalists reside in the western part and they know that a western only Ukraine is not a livable state since it will soon be absorbed by Poland.So they need to oppress the eastern part or ukranize it which is impossible by the current balance of power between Russia and EU.
For us love tourists the current state of Ukraine as a buffer between EU and Russia is the most beneficial any change to the one or other direction would be damaging.
In case western Ukraine gets annexed to Poland polish and old German guys will have a party and EU will be flooded by horny Ukrainian women.The whole Galicia territory will be destroyed.Eastern Ukraine is already a playground for loaded Russians and they will get their suckers from there once it integrates to big motherland.
The usual mongers will remain with their dicks in their hands in such a case.That is why we should all support Janukovich and Ukraine's integrity.

You should raise a army and commence Baltic power on the protesters. They will run!

Post: #22

Generally I like all Slavs from South to North.These dark Ukrainian nationalists know they should not do that but they gamble as they did in 1942-1954.My guess is UPA will have the same fate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army

To play ball with guys like Ustashi,UPA can probe fatal in the long term way more than playing ball with mujahedeens.Ultras and nationalists are no sheep once they get on fire.

Post: #23

(02-20-2014 10:11 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 09:30 PM)DaveR Wrote:  - L'vov and Lutsk (Western region) were Polish until WWII, when they were annexed. There are a lot of Catholics in that region, where as the rest of the country is Orthodox.

True, the cities themselves were strongly Polish, but from what I understand the surrounding countryside was populated overwhelmingly by Ukrainians, so both groups felt they could claim it once Hapsburg rule fell apart.

Yes, after the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there was a strong wave of gradual polonization in the territories that today make up Lithuania, Belarus and the Ukraine. Most of the nobles and many of the city folks polonized over the centuries. One example is the Jagiello dynasty. They are descended from the pagan Lithuanian rulers of Lithuania. Jagiello became King over a united Polish-Lithuanian when he converted to Christianity. However over the centuries, the Jagiellos became polonized and Polish. At that time the language of administration was what is called "Ruthenian", which was the ancestral form of Ukrainian and Belarussian. However over the centuries this was replaced by Polish. This and the influx of ethnic Polish settlers to some areas, resulted in many of the cities becoming predominantly Polish.

However the countryside in the area of what is now Ukraine was always predominantly Ukrainian. That's why at the end of WW1, that area came under the control of the Western Ukrainian Republic. Actually the Ukrainians have never liked the Poles, usually preferring the Russians over them. You can see that in the actions of Khmelnitsky, who sought independence of the Ukrainians from the Poles, but ended up bringing them under Russia.

As for the Catholics in the Ukraine, they are mostly from the extreme west of the country, close to the border with Poland, and most of them are Greek Catholics, not Roman Catholics. Most Greek Catholics are the result of some Eastern Orthodox swearing allegiance to the Pope back when the area was controlled by Poland. Many of their traditions resemble Eastern Orthodox traditions.

And the split in the Ukraine is not 50-50, but more like 80-20. Russians make up a majority only in the extreme east of the country and only in the cities (Donetsk Oblast). The countryside is predominantly Ukrainian.

Donetsk became an important city only during Soviet times starting from the industrialization period of the 1930s. Before that it was a small town founded by a Welsh industrialist and many of its early inhabitants were immigrants from Wales.

During the Soviet times, many of the cities in eastern Ukraine became industrial centers and attracted immigrants from different parts of the Soviet Union, especially Russia. They became a melting pot and Russian became the common language of communication between the different groups. Many of the ethnic Russians in the east have a very recent origin in the region, with their families having come from different parts of Russia (or other parts of the USSR) fairly recently. For example the father of Viktor Yanukovich was a Lithuanian Pole and his mother was from Russia. His parents died when he was young and he was raised by his grandmother who was actually from Warsaw. Or if you look at Rinat Akhmetov, the biggest Ukrainian oligarch (and also from Donetsk), his father is an ethnic Tatar who emigrated from Central Russia.