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.
"official" status of Ukrainian language on the occupied territories including Crimea means nothing, you are not that naive not to understand that, but one can easily get beaten, detained even killed for speaking in "official" Ukrainian there. It is a clear cut case of ethnocide and ethnic cleansing. One does not risk his life by speaking in Russian in Kiev etc.. As for teachers, they have no freedom to insult Ukraine and all the things Ukrainian while extolling virtues of Russian imperial nazism and all those wonderful things it gave to the world. Only in Ukraine they still do it in the open. Where else is anything like that allowed?
OK, let's try one more time...
I don't think that Crimea WANTS Ukrainian language to have any "official status."
Crimea IS Russian, pro-Russian, has always been and always will be.
Not only that, Crimea actually LOVES to revive old Imperial traditions for real.
So Ukrainian language ( "official" and "unofficial" alike) was never wanted or needed there - the majority of Russians were simply waiting till it was going to be gone, seeing it as artificially enforced on them. So I don't see any future for Ukrainian language in Crimea to be honest.
Now EASTERN Ukraine is a totally different story. THERE Ukrainian language sounds alongside Russian and people often speak interchangeably; Russians that don't speak Ukrainian, understand it easily.
That's what it is, and that's how IT SHOULD BE for that area, because of the long-standing traditions and history.
This is really remarkable. It's way higher than it ever used to be. Ukrainians are up from 77.8% in 2001, while ethnic Russians are down from 17.3% in 2001.
More evidence yet that Ukrainian citizens are seeing themselves as Ukrainians more than ever before. The cause? Russian aggression in Ukraine, obviously. Russian society, including the highest levels of the Kremlin, is in deep denial about the extent of the paradigm shift they've precipitated in Ukraine. As one Russian user even speculated in this very thread, they think an all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine would be welcomed by a critical part of the population. They have no idea how wrong they are.
This is really remarkable. It's way higher than it ever used to be. Ukrainians are up from 77.8% in 2001, while ethnic Russians are down from 17.3% in 2001.
More evidence yet that Ukrainian citizens are seeing themselves as Ukrainians more than ever before. The cause? Russian aggression in Ukraine, obviously. Russian society, including the highest levels of the Kremlin, is in deep denial about the extent of the paradigm shift they've precipitated in Ukraine. As one Russian user even speculated in this very thread, they think an all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine would be welcomed by a critical part of the population. They have no idea how wrong they are.
A big part of this actually is the definition of what being a Ukrainian means. I know 10 years ago being a real "Ukrainian" was understood by many to be like Yuschenko and pro Bandera and all that. The nationalists (fascisti) from Lvov were the ones carrying the banner of being real Ukrainians. This has changed since the revolution, and I know from my own contacts in the south-east they are reawakening to the fact that they are also Ukrainians and newly anti Russian but still anti Bandera. I suspect its this way across much of central and eastern Ukraine now. A lot of the resentment against Russia is not just the war but also they got tired of seeing the lies about Ukraine pushed on the Russian news (which they watched because its their language). Everyone I know there (in their 30s and 40s) stopped watching Russian news.
The shift is even more pronounced generationaly. The majority of "pro Russian" Ukrainians left are over 40 at least. This will be a permanent shift because the younger ones don't remember when the 2 countries were one. I will say though that the Kremlin has finally begun to understand what they have done. This is so obvious to anyone who goes there that there is no way that they don't all know it by now.
Their only hope is that Ukraine fails to reform and a new restart happens. Even then, Putin's Russia will have to reform enough itself to be presented as an attractive model for the next Ukrainian system. And they have to stop the war in the east. One can hold out hope I guess.
"Whatsoever* means "I can't find proof, because nothing of this kind is published in English."
But you can't read Russian, so obviously you receive only the information that *Western media* wants you to have.
I know people who speak Russian. I am also very good with media, and can gather a lot of information from all kinds of sources. I'm not stuck only with CNN and BBC.
OK, let's try one more time...
I don't think that Crimea WANTS Ukrainian language to have any "official status."
Crimea IS Russian, pro-Russian, has always been and always will be.
Not only that, Crimea actually LOVES to revive old Imperial traditions for real.
So Ukrainian language ( "official" and "unofficial" alike) was never wanted or needed there - the majority of Russians were simply waiting till it was going to be gone, seeing it as artificially enforced on them. So I don't see any future for Ukrainian language in Crimea to be honest.
Now EASTERN Ukraine is a totally different story. THERE Ukrainian language sounds alongside Russian and people often speak interchangeably; Russians that don't speak Ukrainian, understand it easily.
That's what it is, and that's how IT SHOULD BE for that area, because of the long-standing traditions and history.
What do mean by "always was Russian". It is a clear distortion and exaggeration you should save for RT. Crimea is occupied territory of Ukraine just like Sudetenland was an occupied territory of Chech republic, high percentage of colloborants in either region does not change the fact of occupation. Ethnic Russians were shipped to Crimea to fill space left after Crimean tartarts etc. were cleansed after WWII while Germans lived in Sudetenland for a good thousand years. Russian Empire occupied Crimea at the end of 18th century, ethic Russians became a majority only after WWII cleansing of Tartars etc.. Ukraine has as much rights to Russian Empire legacy as Russian Federation. Russian Federation commited gross violation of International law by annexing Crimea, the first post WWII annexion was like a pile of crap Putin's Russia dumped on the people who died in WW2.
Last edited by RememberMee; 10-26-2017 at 03:08 PM..
When the Austro Hungarian empire collapsed, countries like Czechoslovakia were born. It wasn't too different than Ukraine being born when the USSR fell apart. Elements of the nations existed prior but the modern versions are much more defined than ever before. The difference here is that Russia is "reclaiming" Crimea, whereas the Sudetenland was Austrian more than it was German. In any case, Crimea was Ottoman and Russian for about the past 500 years and the nation of Ukraine has nothing to do at all with Crimea other than it was an autonomous region of Ukraine for 24 years. Very few Ukrainians actually lived there.
It should be settled someday but it won't be rejoining Ukraine because at the heart of it, Ukraine doesn't actually care to control it. That's a pretty good reason why they didn't try to resist the occupation. Crimea was a drain on Ukraine's resources and a albatross politically. The Tatars are pro Ukrainian only because they have less local control now than they had under Ukraine. That will continue but they will always be a minority.
Would Ukraine give up all rights to Crimea to join the EU? In a heartbeat.
OK, let's try one more time...
I don't think that Crimea WANTS Ukrainian language to have any "official status."
Crimea IS Russian, pro-Russian, has always been and always will be.
Not only that, Crimea actually LOVES to revive old Imperial traditions for real.
So Ukrainian language ( "official" and "unofficial" alike) was never wanted or needed there - the majority of Russians were simply waiting till it was going to be gone, seeing it as artificially enforced on them. So I don't see any future for Ukrainian language in Crimea to be honest.
Now EASTERN Ukraine is a totally different story. THERE Ukrainian language sounds alongside Russian and people often speak interchangeably; Russians that don't speak Ukrainian, understand it easily.
That's what it is, and that's how IT SHOULD BE for that area, because of the long-standing traditions and history.
Crimea has a substantial minority of ethnic Ukrainians, counting in hundreds of thousands, even now. There used to be entirely Ukrainian villages dotting crimean steppes. Those people were always terrorized by Russians for their identity, and many became russified without them leaving Ukraine, but now Russians went 100% nazi on them. An eye for an eye. Ethnic Russians should be treated exactly in the same way they treat(ed) Ukrainians and other minorities, Russian language and identity will become neither wanted nor needed.
Last edited by RememberMee; 10-26-2017 at 03:27 PM..
Ethnic doesn't mean much there. 1st, there are more than 2 ethnicities when dealing with Ukrainians and Russians. 2nd, there isn't much difference between "ethnic" Ukrainian or Russian. 3rd that doesn't make them take one side or another any more than my German American relatives felt about fighting Nazi's in Europe.
There are right now Russian speaking ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian army fighting against local ethnic pro Putin Ukrainians in Donbas. Not a lot, but it does exist and my point anyway is that ethnic whatever doesn't ascribe loyalty and that goes both ways.
Ethnic doesn't mean much there. 1st, there are more than 2 ethnicities when dealing with Ukrainians and Russians. 2nd, there isn't much difference between "ethnic" Ukrainian or Russian. 3rd that doesn't make them take one side or another any more than my German American relatives felt about fighting Nazi's in Europe.
There are right now Russian speaking ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian army fighting against local ethnic pro Putin Ukrainians in Donbas. Not a lot, but it does exist and my point anyway is that ethnic whatever doesn't ascribe loyalty and that goes both ways.
Those would seem to be the exceptions though. You're right that this isn't purely about ethnicity, but politics would tend to shape one's ethnic identity in this particular case. For example, why would pro-Russian self-declared Ukrainians really even exist? For most pro-Russian people, Ukrainians are a constituent of the Russian people. For a pro-Ukrainian Russian, the dynamic is different. But if he lives in Ukraine and perhaps has any ancestry from Donbass or even Kuban, for example, he might claim Ukrainian ethnicity. So pro-Ukrainian ethnic Russians are probably more numerous than vice versa, but ethnicity has a clear influence.
On the other hand, German-Americans and Italian-Americans fought en masse for America in WWII in spite of Germany and Italy being on the opposite side. Ethnicity had almost no impact on the loyalties of these two ethnicities in the war. I can tell you that while many Italian-Americans once admired Mussolini, support for him almost completely vanished after Italy declared war on America. Very different examples.
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.
