89Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThanks for that.The USSR is very confusing and what I still don't get is how it could be the Ukrainian SSR when it wasn't even a country yet. Unless it became a country after it joined the USSR.
Thanks for that.
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
Well, it's a large place, far away from you, and you weren't even born when it existed. So no worries. You could understand modern day Russia and other ex USSR republics better from knowing that though. PS - I edit the article and added more info!Originally Posted by UhOhXplode
Thanks for that.
Also, it's kind of nice to show off my knowledge about this!
Finally some use for otherwise useless info.
Anything else you want to know?
I had to learn TONS about the USSR in school. What city makes tractors, cars, cotton, lamps or grew different crops..... What different dams, railroads, canals etc were built, why and by whom. How was the USSR governed, etc. Oh, and "what's the difference between a kolkhoz and a sovkhoz?". Missing that, cost me a grade. I still don't know it.
Then just as I left school, the USSR was history!
Then I went to uni and one of the subjects I took was Political science. The hot topic du jour was all the new ex USSR countries. Re-learn everything, including cities which I previously memorized, but now had new names!
I wrote a rather long paper (assigned topic) about harassment and mistreatment of women in Uzbekistan after Uzbek independence. It was very odd to AGAIN come across the same stuff, but now from the perspective of it being a new country and totally different conditions.
Central Asia was suddenly dirt poor, and extreme islam flourished.
The glimpses you got regarding the ethnical situation in the USSR was always mulitultural, happy-clappy bliss with folk costumes, cute songs and primitive people enlightened and educated. The reality might not have been quite that romantic though, and in reality there were probably lots of conflicts brewing under the lid. As the USSR dissolved and broke up, all of this came to the surface, with countries like Saudi Arabia and the US and probably others adding fuel to the flames via "humanitarian" and religious organisations.
And if this was confusing for ME, imagine for the people living through it, for real, while criminality, corruption and shortages were making every day a struggle.
Respect to those who came through all that with their heads still held high!
It's politics, I don't know what you'd expect from a public speech.
But anyway if you want to see the real masterpiece of political lies, you might wanna read Jen Psaki quotes.
Actually the reasons behind that are mostly economical, I think, energy sector sanctions would be very painful for Russian economy, so Russia is holding its horses, for now.
Russia was not in a position to do anything about it, that time Russia was a broke state with no power to make any big political decisions.
Plus I will have to study the history of the USSR anyway. I've already started studying the history of the Russian Empire so I have to finish that too. US history and the history of India were tons easier. Russian history is massive!Well, it's a large place, far away from you, and you weren't even born when it existed. So no worries. You could understand modern day Russia and other ex USSR republics better from knowing that though. PS - I edit the article and added more info!
Also, it's kind of nice to show off my knowledge about this!
Finally some use for otherwise useless info.
Anything else you want to know?
I had to learn TONS about the USSR in school. What city makes tractors, cars, cotton, lamps or grew different crops..... What different dams, railroads, canals etc were built, why and by whom. How was the USSR governed, etc. Oh, and "what's the difference between a kolkhoz and a sovkhoz?". Missing that, cost me a grade. I still don't know it.
Then just as I left school, the USSR was history!
Then I went to uni and one of the subjects I took was Political science. The hot topic du jour was all the new ex USSR countries. Re-learn everything, including cities which I previously memorized, but now had new names!
I wrote a rather long paper (assigned topic) about harassment and mistreatment of women in Uzbekistan after Uzbek independence. It was very odd to AGAIN come across the same stuff, but now from the perspective of it being a new country and totally different conditions.
Central Asia was suddenly dirt poor, and extreme islam flourished.
The glimpses you got regarding the ethnical situation in the USSR was always mulitultural, happy-clappy bliss with folk costumes, cute songs and primitive people enlightened and educated. The reality might not have been quite that romantic though, and in reality there were probably lots of conflicts brewing under the lid. As the USSR dissolved and broke up, all of this came to the surface, with countries like Saudi Arabia and the US and probably others adding fuel to the flames via "humanitarian" and religious organisations.
And if this was confusing for ME, imagine for the people living through it, for real, while criminality, corruption and shortages were making every day a struggle.
Respect to those who came through all that with their heads still held high!
I'm learning where the major lakes, rivers, and mountains are and I learned why the Dnieper river was so important to Kievan-Rus and how that changed to the Volga after the Middle Ages. I also learned about the nuclear test sites in NE Kazakhstan and on Novaya Zemlya and a lot about the Baikonur, Plesetsk, and the new Vostochny cosmodromes. I even learned how to read Russian street maps but that still leaves tons of questions like where important historical places are, the dams, airports, and some history for each of the major cities. I know a little of the histories for Nizhny Novgorod, Saint Peterburg, Omsk, Sevastopol, Simferopol, and Moscow but again, that leaves a lot more.
So yeah, anything you can tell me about Russia and the USSR will be very helpful and very very appreciated.
Btw, I can't even imagine what it was like in Russia from 1991-1999 but I read that it was a total nightmare.
Yeah, I wasn't thinking about how messed up everything was when the break-up happened so yeah, it would be difficult for President Putin to explain why it happened.
Jen Psaki? LOL! She's too stupid to even be funny and she's not a very good liar. But neither are Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Biden, or McCain. They all tell so many lies that they probably can't even manage them all even with a PC. But hey, a lot of the lies are too obvious to even hide.
Anyway, I wish Russia could move in with it's army and help the Donbass. Poroshenko's pure evil and that "anti-terrorist" thing needs to be stopped! It's destroying peoples lives and killing innocent citizens, even kids. It's military political oppression.
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
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.
Please, correct my mistakes, except for the cases I misspell something on purpose!
@ Basil
good and accurate summary in my opinion
with only exception of the last sentence I agree with you (i think the state of Ukraine will continue to exist, albeit maybe not in its current form)
please always correct my (often poor) russian
Thanks. I agree that some Ukrainian state will remain but the chances it will return to the status quo which was present until the recent tragic events are zero in my opinion.
Please, correct my mistakes, except for the cases I misspell something on purpose!
I only see 2 possibilities for Ukraine.
1. A whole Ukriane (without Crimea) full of only ethnic Ukrainians since all the ethnic-Russian Ukrainians will be living in Russia.
2. A smaller Ukraine (without NovoRossiya).
The extreme anti-Russian violence of the new government and Poroshenko has created too much hate and distrust. Imo, nothing can ever fix that and it will never be forgotten. So if Ukrainians and Russians try to live together after all the violence then it will just lead to new revolutions. With that much violence in only 25 years, can you imagine what can happen in 50.
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
It's not about the conflict between Ukrainians and Russians. From 1/3 to 1/2 of population of Russian Federation have Ukrainian heritage and vice versa. Many ethnic Ukrainians are defending Donetsk and Lugansk republics while at the same time many ethnic Russians are fighting on nazis side. The conflict is more like between Russophobic Russians/Ukrainians etc. and Pro-Russian Russians/Ukrainians etc. You underestimate the current level of hysterical propaganda in Ukraine. For example my wife's mother called yesterday and asked why Russian army is shelling and air-bombing Donbass and killing civilians. Ordinary people in Ukraine believe that all these atrocities which currently happen made by Russian regular army by personal Putin's orders and poor Ukraine soldiers are defending these lands and trying to save civilians by the cost of their lives. But such blatant lies can't be supported too long, that's why after some time I'm certain most people in Ukraine will realise the truth.
Please, correct my mistakes, except for the cases I misspell something on purpose!
А я боюсь, что это растянется на поколения. Потому что люди очень не любят (или даже просто не могут) отказываться от того, во что свято верили.
That's what makes it really confusing and I didn't know there were Russians fighting on the Nazi side. So basically it's just that some Ukrainian citizens want to join with the West and the others want to stay with the East. That sounds a lot like the American civil war.
But yeah, I do know that Poroshenko has been trying to control the media and that Russian journalists are being killed. Well, I hope more people like Mark Franchetti can help get the truth to those people.
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
Да я говорю об элементарном вранье. То что женщин, стариков и детей на Донбассе сейчас убивают укро-каратели, а не российская армия и лично Путин. В тех масштабах, в которых это происходит, замолчать и свалить всё на Путина просто не получится. Другое дело, что "свидомые" ублюдки всегда найдут этому оправдание. Я же говорю про нормальных людей, для которых убийство беззащитных детей, женщин и стариков не может быть ничем оправдано.
Please, correct my mistakes, except for the cases I misspell something on purpose!
Так я вот и боюсь, что даже в этом многих украинцев будет невозможно убедить. Надеюсь ошибиться...
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.
Is he? I think he never said it "has nothing to do with Russia".
А есть ли доказательства целенаправленных убийств беззащитных мирных жителей в том регионе вообще, и в частности, подобных убийств совершенных украинской армией? Вы ведь понимаете, что убийства вооруженных агрессоров никак не могут учитываться в этой статистике. Не вижу причин не ликвидировать тех с оружием в руках воюющих против украинской армии в том регионе - и чем скорее те сепаратисты будут все положены, тем скорее наступит мир.
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.
I believe there are video facts that were taken during killings and injures of Russian, French and Italian journalists that prove:
1. Attackers on those videos are not the rebels
2. There were mortar and heavy small arms fire during the attacks
3. Several civilians, including journalists were killed
Also a UN report that claims that there are 110000 Ukrainians moved to Russia this year and 54000 were replaced inside the country, that proves:
1. Ukrainians that moved trust Russia more than Ukraine - based on numbers
2. Ukrainians are forced to move from their homes - Russian refugee camps prove that, the UN representatives have been there to confirm that there are refugees from Ukraine.
Many refugees also claiming that their homes were shelled almost daily, attacks included airborne raids with helicopters and planes and only Ukrainian army has them.
There is an OSCE report that confirms that Ukrainian military plane hit Luhansk administration building, leaving many civilians dead, as you probably remember Ukrainian officials were saying that there were rebels who launched "Igla" SAM but the rocket hit an air conditioner unit on the building causing all the damage, but it was proved to be a lie, proved by OSCE.
There is also an OSCE report about Odessa massacre, I'm not going into details but again it proves that Ukrainian officials lied about it, you can find and read it if you want.
With so much proof around I think you question is not about finding the truth but about a try to blame rebels and Russia and whitewashing Kiev. I believe it is called propaganda.
I can stand to your shoulder and say that I agree with that.
Although I think that politics and political speeches are never straightforward.
Maybe Putin is playing some kind of game, or maybe the uprising was genuinely unexpected and put him in a very hard position.
It seems to me that Russian media has taken a very strong stance in favour of the rebels, while Putin for some reason is sticking with platitudes and non-sequiteurs.
But I think Lavrov has been brilliant and said some really good things. He is an amazingly talented statesman for sure and come across as really sympathetic.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
