Thread: Local people comment what happened in Mariupol at 9th May (video) + related

Actually, Ukraine was not "part of Russia" during the USSR era, and that is one of the main reasons there are problems now. Ukraine was a separate republic, in the USSR.

I am too fed up with the whole business to explain it though.

The USSR was a union with some similarities to the EU, but of course a closer union than the EU, and a different type of governance.
In terms of closeness between the Soviet republics, it was somewhere in between states of the USA and the nations of the EU.
Read this to understand the organisation of the USSR into Republics and Regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...e_Soviet_Union

Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This system worked well during Soviet days, as far as I understand, but it lead to several wars after the breakup of the USSR, since a number of regions had been in the "wrong" Soviet republic (which didn't matter much during Soviet days, but suddenly became important when regional languages were pushed hard in the new countries, or ethnicity/religion became a big deal.

As a result these regions subsequently ended up in the "wrong" country when the USSR split up. Examples: Nagorno Karabach, Pridnestrovie, Gaugazia, Crimea and possibly Donbass, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and probably some more places that I don't know about. Hopefully the names should sound familiar - there have been wars or conflicts in all of these places, mainly in the 1990s.

In the USSR ethnicity, religion and language had been somewhat secondary to the Soviet ideal of a strong union, and the State had prevented extreme regionalism.

The problem was: Soviet leaders had transferred regions from one Soviet republic to another for, in hindsight, unwise reasons. Of course, they envisaged the USSR would last indefinitely and did not realise what a huge problem they created with their grand gestures or administrative decisions taken in Moscow... The Donbass area was given to the Ukrainian ASSR in such a gesture, in the 1950s.

As a result it ended up in the modern nation of Ukraine, despite being historically Rusisan.

(When reading Wiki, bear in mind that a lot of the edits of these types of articiles in Wiki were traced back to US gov't agencies before it was revealed and they smartened up. Now they probably use proxies and aliases.)

Originally Posted by Hanna

The Donbass area was given to the Ukrainian ASSR in such a gesture, in the 1950s.
As a result it ended up in the modern nation of Ukraine, despite being historically Rusisan.

I have to correct you. Donbass as well as Black Sea coast regions (Odessa, Nikolayev and Kherson) and also Ekaterinoslav (modern Dnepropetrovsk) region along with Kharkov region were given to Ukraine by Lenin in 1920s. The reason of that was his Marxist logic. Ukraine proper (or Malorossia) was historically agrarian region mostly populated by peasants. According to Marx peasants are very conservative and non-progressive class and can't be the leading force of socialist revolution. Only factory workers can be such a force. And all these regions incorporated into new-created Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had relatively developed industry and a significant worker population. So one of the main reasons was to make Ukrainian Soviet Republic more proletarian and less agrarian. And the reason of creation of Ukrainian SSR as long as other republics and to make new socialist state look like a union of different states was in Lenin's main goal. His main goal was not only to build communism in former Russian Empire. It was only one of first steps. His main goal was a world proletarian revolution and to make the whole planet a huge socialist republic. It could sound insane if you don't familiar with history of Russian revolution but it's true. So when in 1922 the Soviet Union was created it was made to look like a union of socialist countries, not just one country to give other possible countries where socialist revolution may happen a beacon to move at. At that time there was not any visible border line between ethnic Russian and ethnic Ukrainian regions, people just spoke various Russian and Malorussian dialects using more Russian words at the east and more Ukrainian or Polish words at the west. But since Ukrainian Socialist republic was created the modern Ukrainian language (they took one of the western dialects as official language to make it look more separate from Russian) was made official there to make the new created republic look more like a separate state (the same story with Belorussia). Crimea was transfered from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR much later in 1954 and the reasons of that were different.
Also to better understand modern conflict in Ukraine one should bear in mind that the western part of the country never was even in Russian Empire, it was a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and later a part of Austria-Hungarian Empire. Also note that Ukrainians in western part are not even Russian Orthodox, their Orthodox church was forced to subordinate to Pope while they were ruled by Catholic Poles. Stalin annexed it in 1939 after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So the state that appeared on the map in 1991 after collapse of Soviet Union consisted of 3 major parts (Ukraine proper or Malorossia, mostly Russian Donbass+Novorossia (the regions along Black Sea cost) and western Galicia. Also minor parts: Crimea which was almost completely Russian, Ukrainian language wasn't even taught in schools there until 1991 (Tatar minority just started to return from exile in Middle Asia then), Uzhgorod region inhabited by Rusyns, Hungarians and Slovaks and Chernovcy and at some extend Budjak which are partially Romanian/Moldavian. I think that the only way to keep such artificial country whole was to make it a federation, let people at least on regional level to use officially the languages that historically were used in that areas and to provide very balanced policy towards both neighboring major powers: Russia and EU. But idiots who was and especially is in charge in Ukraine make their stake on a strong monoethnic unitarian Ukrainian state and confrontation with Russia. With such a policy it's only a matter of time when modern state of Ukraine will cease to exist.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I have to correct you. Donbass as well as Black Sea coast regions (Odessa, Nikolayev and Kherson) and also Ekaterinoslav...

Thanks for the correction. Of course, you are right. I also accidentally wrote ASSR in one place where I should have said SSR. I would encourage anyone non-Russian who doesn't know the basics about how the USSR was organised and governed to inform themselves, it has an impact on how things work today. Also - inform yourselves about the Russian empire, the tsars, the various wars other campaigns and conditions for regular people in those days.

Basically I wanted to quickly get across that Ukraine was not "part of Russia" as Uhox believed, during the USSR times then I went off on a tangent a bit.
It was quite a fundamental misconception, so I really wanted to correct it.
It's amazing how fast really basic things disappear from public knowledge. I really would have taken for granted that anyone knew that the USSR consisted of republics. But of course, Uhox is born after then, and on a different continent..

The background about exactly what was part of Ukraine during Soviet times wasn't really something I was well aware of, but of course, I looked into it when all this started.

During Imperial Russian days of course, most of present day Ukraine was part of Russia, though, but that was before the USSR.

In a way, it was relatively sensitive of the communists, really, to recognise Ukraine and Belarus as separate republics. Probably, they could have got away with saying it was part of Russia... (?) On the other hand, they included some of the non-Slavic Caucasian countries into the Russian SSR despite the fact that they had both different languages and religions. I guess they were "autonomous regions" though?

My guess is that part of Ukraine will go its own way, whether independent or with Russia. But the bulk of it, if not all will remain as an independent nation, I think. People on Western Ukraine and Kiev seem to hate Russia with a vengence right now. They won't become Russians over their dead bodies.

I also think that Putin is silly trying to pretend that what goes on in Donbass has nothing to do with Russia. Clearly it has.

After getting involved and spurring this on in Kiev, the EU now has a responsibility towards Ukraine I think. Whatever is left of it after all this finishes. I have a strong feeling it won't be all they started with, and they already lost Crimea.

The EU ought to support it and fast track it into membership. That's what the initial coup makers obviously dremed of, and its the carrot that was dangled in front of them by all the visiting EU officials. If they want to be an Eastern European EU country, fine - I don't care. Just another in a long line. That's assuming there is even a future for the EU - that's not a given right now.

It would be extreme double standards though, if in Western Europe, we can't even mention the word "immigration politics" without being labelled racist - social death sentence - while in a potential future Ukrainian EU state, they have statues of Nazis, marches etc. The EU really should take a very long look at corruption, oligarchs, extremist nationalism etc before starting to spend money there.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I also think that Putin is silly trying to pretend that what goes on in Donbass has nothing to do with Russia.

Is he? I think he never said it "has nothing to do with Russia".

Originally Posted by lodka

Is he? I think he never said it "has nothing to do with Russia".

It's more or less what he says in international press conferences.
Or have I missed something?

I think he should be open and say that Russia has legitimate interests in that region, that people there have strong ties to Russia and that Russia is going to - within reasons - look after its own interests and those of people who ask them for help.

Most Europeans / Americans don't really know about the common history, and it's a critical fact. I saw a survey where Americans were asked to point out Ukraine on a map. The most common places they pointed to, were central Siberia, Turkey or just somewhere random in Near Asia. So that's the level of knowledge of many of the people who are nevertheless judging Russia and Putin over Ukraine today.

Lavrov was more open about that when I saw him interviewed on RT and I always prefer when the cards are on the table.

Lavrov was also clear about Western meddling, foreign backing of the coup d'etat etc. I haven't heard Putin say anything about it. All he talks about is "Our Western partners this....", "Our Western partners that".

Maybe it's my naivité believing that an international leader should just "say it as it is". But that's my view anyway.

The problem (as we can see in this thread) is that most people in Europe let alone America don't know enough about the background, the ties or the motivation for any of what happens in Ukraine.

So if Putin pretends that Ukraine and Russia are two "normal" European neighbours, like German and France, then a lot of people will never be aware that this is more than just two countries that just happen to be next to each other.

Plus, as per the other thread, it's automatically assumed that the Russian position must be wrong. "Russophobia". So I think Putin should be honest and straightforward. Because even when he tries to be diplomatic or keep quiet, he is accused of aggressiveness etc.

It's not like he could get any less popular in the West anyway. And surely the people in Eastern Ukraine would appreciate if he said something acknowledging that Russia cares about them - instead it's like "we're not involved, nothing to do with us!"

That's my personal view/opinion. Not very relevant in all this, but it's how it seems to me.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think he should be open and say that Russia has legitimate interests in that region, that people there have strong ties to Russia and that Russia is going to - within reasons - look after its own interests and those of people who ask them for help.

I can stand to your shoulder and say that I agree with that.
Although I think that politics and political speeches are never straightforward.