Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think as long as Russia felt its port is secure, they do not care. being closer to the EU does not put the port in danger, but having a radical government does. Ukraine has been constantly getting closer and closer to the EU, even with Yanukovich.
Dream on!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Another what-if scenario; what if Russia did not intervene, and the new gov went on a rampage against the ethnic Russian (and others) population? What would have bee the West's actions then? What would be the West's actions if they intervened?
Well, the west would have condemned a scenario like this. But there were no signs that anything like that would have happened.
Condemned, but take any action? What signs are there suppose to be?
Is taking power by force, and one of the first things to do is declare Russian "a language of oppression", a sign of unity? Or a sign of divide with a certain group? If the governor of Florida all of a sudden made Spanish illegal, would the Spanish speaking population think he is trying to unite everyone? Or target a specific group?
Condemned, but take any action? What signs are there suppose to be?
Is taking power by force, and one of the first things to do is declare Russian "a language of oppression", a sign of unity? Or a sign of divide with a certain group? If the governor of Florida all of a sudden made Spanish illegal, would the Spanish speaking population think he is trying to unite everyone? Or target a specific group?
Too many "what ifs".
Fact 1: There were no actions of fascists against Russian speaking Ukrainians. Not even signs that something like that could happen.
Fact 2: Russia invaded anyway.
Also: The law never went into force and it would not have made speaking Russian illegal. But you are right: It was a big mistake to even think about stripping the language of its official status. Does that justify a military invasion? Not in my books.
Ukraine does trade with the EU, so does Russia; it is not an either/or scenario. As long as Russia feels its Black Sea access is secured, little concern will be from Russia. However, if Russia feels its port is at risk, and feel it is being surrounded by a "pads" of airbases and radar installations, of course it will react. The US would do the same, and has been through the Monroe Doctrine.
Condemned, but take any action? What signs are there suppose to be?
Is taking power by force, and one of the first things to do is declare Russian "a language of oppression", a sign of unity? Or a sign of divide with a certain group? If the governor of Florida all of a sudden made Spanish illegal, would the Spanish speaking population think he is trying to unite everyone? Or target a specific group?
"Today, 97% of the public school students of Russia receive their education only or mostly in Russian, even though Russia is made up of approximately 80% ethnic Russians"
"Russification (Russian: русификация rusifikátsiya) is a form of cultural assimilation process during which non-Russian communities, voluntarily or not, give up their culture and language in favor of the Russian one."
"Russia conducted a policy of Russification of Ukraine from 1709 to 1991. Since then, the Ukrainian government has implemented policies in order to decrease the use of Russian and favour Ukrianian"
As long as Russia feels its Black Sea access is secured, little concern will be from Russia. However, if Russia feels its port is at risk, and feel it is being surrounded by a "pads" of airbases and radar installations, of course it will react. The US would do the same, and has been through the Monroe Doctrine.
Yes which gets me to this. Simply the EU, Russia and the US are indifferent worlds. I'm not so sure everybody in this is sensitive to histories, national pscychologies and a sense of the other's position. It's like everything is set up to fail. Kissinger I think is right when he says Putin is a serious strategist. Ok but on the premises of Russian history. So he may not be 'getting' the US/European view of military activity. Then we have political infighting in Ukraine politics which scares the hell out of Putin. In hindsight that didn't help.
"Today, 97% of the public school students of Russia receive their education only or mostly in Russian, even though Russia is made up of approximately 80% ethnic Russians"
"Russification (Russian: русификация rusifikátsiya) is a form of cultural assimilation process during which non-Russian communities, voluntarily or not, give up their culture and language in favor of the Russian one."
"Russia conducted a policy of Russification of Ukraine from 1709 to 1991. Since then, the Ukrainian government has implemented policies in order to decrease the use of Russian and favour Ukrianian"
Also, Russia, and the USSR, preserved a lot of ethnic cultures, including language that were taught in schools, I know this very well. Unlike the US which basically annihilated all local inhabitants and their culture (I would say this is a historical fallacy, but you went back to 1709), Russia though a degree of Russification does exist, did preserve quite well cultures of the area even through the Soviet period. You can just look at the Soviet parades and see the representation. If you lived there, they taught the local languages (an option), and left alone much of the cultures (except things like Bride kidnapping for example), etc.
Tell me, what public school system in America offers native languages? Because I can tell you of the numerous in the USSR that offered the local languages as an option. Also, all gov publications were in Russian, and in the local language.
Also, Russia, and the USSR, preserved a lot of ethnic cultures, including language that were taught in schools, I know this very well. Unlike the US which basically annihilated all local inhabitants and their culture (I would say this is a historical fallacy, but you went back to 1709), Russia though a degree of Russification does exist, did preserve quite well cultures of the area even through the Soviet period. You can just look at the Soviet parades and see the representation. If you lived there, they taught the local languages (an option), and left alone much of the cultures (except things like Bride kidnapping for example), etc.
Tell me, what public school system in America offers native languages? Because I can tell you of the numerous in the USSR that offered the local languages as an option. Also, all gov publications were in Russian, and in the local language.
And what does the US have to do with this conversation?
I don't want to talk about America. Why you always want to talk about America in the first place! Do you ever participate in any thread on this forum without ever mentioning the US, whatever the topic is? Ever??? Do you really seriously think that it is your moral obligation to always link the US to any topic or any conversation and you feel it is appropriately to do this?
In any case, Russia does not look to me as a shining example of preserving languages other than Russian!
Any way you turn it around!
In my opinion, Ukraine, as an independent state (the first time in the history ?) just wants to get its language back. And this is probably partly the result of the process of russification which took place for centuries before.
How many countries in the world have more than one official language? How does Ukraine compare with most other countries (EXCLUDING THE US)in this regard?
Can you answer those questions just once without mentioning the US (please)? Are you capable of this?
Last edited by movingwiththewind; 03-06-2014 at 03:23 PM..
No, the US Civil War shows that US troops will use force to ensure the US stays together, and that all threats to the US gov will be put down.
Numerous events before and after show the US is more than willing to US force and extreme legal means to put down even the simplest of protests, ranging from the Whiskey Rebellion, the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, to the three year imprisonment of Megan Rice.
Oh please. Name one country that wouldn't try to put down an internal rebellion. A rebellion whose leaders wanted to establish a permanent slave empire in the USA. Get real.
It seems there is no doubt that Russian forces are occupying Crimea, contrary to what Putin says. I just saw in the news that a Russian ship was deliberately sunk to hinder Ukrainian navy ship access. (What is the current status of the Ukrainian military in Crimea, by the way?)
Given that ethnic Russians comprise about 60% of the Crimean population, did the Ukrainian government ever consider this as a possible threat before the actual crisis occurred? To extend this issue to other parts of the world, could growing minority groups be problematic for a nation? For example, the increasing Hispanic population in the southwestern United States...
---------------
on another note: I am curious why there is plenty western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis even though there are similar conflicts/protests/bloodshed currently occurring in Syria, Thailand (Bangkok), and Venezuela.
Could it be that the western media chooses to cover the Ukraine situation more because Russia, a G8 summit member, is involved?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
