# Forum About Russia Politics  Members of Ukrainian parliament fight over Russian language

## xdns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HMjISG76ck 
The fight is about the proposal to recognize Russian as regional language in 13 out of 27 regions of Ukraine, with more than 10% of native Russian speakers.

----------


## LXNDR

the so called Law About Languages which is being proposed doesn't limit the number of regions where 'a regional' language can be established alongside the official Ukrainian, the population speaking a certain language must amount to at least 10% of the entire population of the administrative unit in order for this language to have the right to receive  'regional' status 
in reality almost in every administrative unit Russian speaking population easily makes up 10% meaning that through this law Russian language will have all the chances to eventually become the second official language alongside Ukrainian 
now legally speaking this law is anticonstitutional because its multiple clauses allow other language(s) becoming official for governmental bodies on the regional level
Clause 10 of the constitution of Ukraine declares Ukrainian as the official language of the state 
hence the only way to lawfully make Russian or any other language official is by constitutional reform which then has to be validated on a state referendum
constitutional reform is a long process and it has to be voted for by 2/3 of the MPs which i don't think is feasible  
politically speaking, Ukraine is on its way to the parliamentary elections scheduled for autumn, so various political forces try to gain dividends by speculating on the issue of language, because being politically insolvent they realistically do not have anything else to offer to the citizens or base their campaigns on

----------


## xdns

Russian parliament is so boring compared to Ukrainian one...
Maybe it's because "Edinaya Rossiya" has Nikolai "Beast from the East" Valuev on its side...  ::

----------


## LXNDR

but Ukrainian will only become more vicious if Klitchko is elected with his party

----------


## Hanna

Well it's clear that a large proportion of Ukrainians prefer to speak Russian over Ukrainian. What is the problem with having two official languages and double signs? Who is against that, and why?  
That way everybody can speak the language they prefer. If the Russian speakers feel discriminated against, they will become disloyal to the Ukrainian state and perhaps identify more with Russia/Russians.  
Anyway, that kind of behaviour in the parliament is disgraceful and it is not good for Ukraine's image. I don't think it's the first time it happened either.

----------


## xdns

The main argument of the opponents is similar to that in Latvia, I think. They fear that Russian would dominate over national language, because it's "bigger". So they prefer to pretend (on official level) that Russian doesn't exist in the country and consider the problem of preserving Ukrainian solved (angry native Russian speakers don't matter)  ::

----------


## LXNDR

> Well it's clear that a large proportion of Ukrainians prefer to speak Russian over Ukrainian. What is the problem with having two official languages and double signs? Who is against that, and why?  
> That way everybody can speak the language they prefer. If the Russian speakers feel discriminated against, they will become disloyal to the Ukrainian state and perhaps identify more with Russia/Russians.  
> Anyway, that kind of behaviour in the parliament is disgraceful and it is not good for Ukraine's image. I don't think it's the first time it happened either.

 because if this is done, Ukrainian language will eventually die out, this is not the way languages are revived, Belorussian language is on it's last legs for the same reason
that's the problem, no one is discriminated against on the language basis, and Ukrainian nationals even though they may speak Russian, normally do not support the idea of another official language
and even if anyone was discriminated against there's judicial system to restore one's rights which are guaranteed by the constitution
i'm not aware that there have been any court cases dealing with language discrimination 
Ukrainian is the titular nation in Ukraine just like the Swedes in Sweden therefore its language has to remain the only official language in the country. And with the right domestic policy it's only a matter of time that Ukrainian becomes widely spoken 
But if another language was to be added, the proper procedure I outlined above, what this anti-ukrainian Party Of Regions is doing by proposing this law is not only unlawful, it's borderline treason

----------


## xdns

One third of Ukrainian citizens have Russian as their mother tongue. Isn't it unfair not to recognize their native language officially (at least on regional level, as it's proposed)?

----------


## LXNDR

it's only fair if their language rights are systematically are discriminated against and the judicial system has been unable to curtail this phenomenon, which is not the case 
the constitution of Ukraine is fait accompli, you can call it unfair, so was the decision of Ukrainian citizens including Russian speaking ones 
for many proponents of the second language it's simply an excuse to not learn and know Ukrainian 
moreover this law opens the whole can of worms for social stability in the country and is dangerous for its very integrity  here's a very sane article on the topic of Russian in former soviet republics

----------


## xdns

> here's a very sane article on the topic of Russian in former soviet republics

 This article is Russophobic. It portrays Russians in a very negative light in just about every respect. In the end the author calls Russian "the enemy language". I don't see how it could be "very sane article"  ::

----------


## LXNDR

every nation which comes to another land and start dictating rules will be perceived as threat and phobia is nothing else than fear, fear of threat in this case, so russophobia is just a manifestation of self-preservation instinct of a nation which feels threatened by Russia 
and I just agree that Russian state and Russian citizens insofar as they agree with their government policies pose threat to neighboring countries, or at  least unfriendly towards them, especially if those countries are oriented towards European values, which are by and large incongruent with the values Russian state currently adheres to 
its aggressiveness Russian state has demonstrated in a recent armed conflict with Georgia

----------


## gRomoZeka

> One third of Ukrainian citizens have Russian as their mother tongue. Isn't it unfair not to recognize their native language officially (at least on regional level, as it's proposed)?

 +1
Those who are against Russian language usually state that "it does not matter" since millions of Ukrainians who speak Russian as their first language "are not forbidden to use it in private settings". Which is not a consolation, because it's quite clear that the only reason it's not forbidden yet is that such a ban is impossible to implement at the time. The government is making baby steps in this direction, though, first forbidding airing Russian songs on radio in certain regions, then forbidding demonstrating foreign films dubbed in Russian in theaters, despite many people in Russian speaking regions being openly against it (in my native city 75% of movie theaters broke because of that), and generally excluding Russian from wherever possible.  
Also the statistics about ratio between Russian and Ukrainian speaking citizens is not fully objective, since questionnaires usually look like "What's your native language?" instead of "What language do you speak at home?" (or similar question). Many respondents see it as a question about their ethnicity, so ethnic Ukrainians usually answer "Ukrainian" regardless of their actual native/primary language.

----------


## Hanna

> especially if those countries are oriented towards European values,  which arw`to

 I just want to point out that modern "European values" includes respecting minority languages. All long time EU member states adhere to this - it's a big, big deal, for the precise reason that the effects of ignoring peoples' language preferences, or generally imposing a different language on people has caused so much problems and resentment in the past. If you move past that and let people choose for themselves, they will not feel pressured or resentful and they will end up with a lot more respect for a state that respects them. The Russian speakers might well choose to speak Ukrainian by their own device if they are let be rather than forced into it - which I believe would cause a backlash.  
In Odessa, I saw some pro-Russian language provocative t-shirts and hats sold. There'd be no need for that in France, Spain, Italy, Finland where the minority languages are respected without throwing history etc in the face of people. They did not choose their mothertongue! 
If you take Switzerland for example - because everyone's language is treated with respect, they usually end up bi or tri-lingual and feeling positive about all 3 languages. Same thing in Finland where the bilingual status is something most people are pleased and proud of.  
For some reason Eastern Europe (not just the ex-USSR) doesn't seem to be interested in taking on these particular values.  It is particularly clear when it comes to how Russian speakers are treated. Why the EU turns a blind eye to the situation in Latvia is an interesting question... Had something like this been going on in Germany, France or the UK it would be totally unacceptable to everyone involved. There are endless laws both at EU and state level to protect peoples right to use their local language in their local area.  
I am not one to preach at others but I just don't get why it's such an issue to respect minority languages in Eastern Europe. Other countries in Europe take pride in it. For what it's worth - this seems to be a problem in several other parts of Eastern Europe, since plenty of people ended up on the "wrong" side of a border during the 20th century wars. These are not immigrants or occupiers - they were born there, and have always lived there.  
I don't know to what degree the Russian Federation respects minority languages within its own borders, but I have a vague notion that it DOES in fact support a bilingual situation in areas that have another language.

----------


## LXNDR

> For some reason Eastern Europe (not just the ex-USSR) doesn't seem to be interested in taking on these particular values.

 because these nations are trying to establish themselves, or regain their footing, a process which Western Europe went through 100 some years ago
with these particular values Arabic has all the chances to soon become the second language in a number of Western European countries   

> It is particularly clear when it comes to how Russian speakers are treated.

 what do you mean, Hanna?    

> I am not one to preach at others but I just don't get why it's such an issue to respect minority languages in Eastern Europe. Other countries in Europe take pride in it. For what it's worth - this seems to be a problem in several other parts of Eastern Europe, since plenty of people ended up on the "wrong" side of a border during the 20th century wars. These are not immigrants or occupiers - *they were born there, and have always lived there*.

 exactly so they've had no problem in learning the local language, it's taught in schools 
my mother tongue is Russian, but I don't need it to become the second state language, why? maybe because I know Ukrainian as well 
in any event the constitution guarantees language rights to all 
but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants    

> I don't know to what degree the Russian Federation respects minority languages within its own borders, but I have a vague notion that it DOES in fact support a bilingual situation in areas that have another language.

 Russian Federation is a federation therefore by its very design it must respect national languages of the federation members

----------


## xdns

Russian is the state language of the Russian Federation. It is mother tongue of 90% of citizens. On regional level dozens of other languages are officially recognized and used alongside Russian.

----------


## Hanna

> what do you mean, Hanna?

 The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care. 
If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive.   

> its aggressiveness Russian state has demonstrated in a recent armed conflict with Georgia

 There are two sides to this story as you well know.

----------


## LXNDR

> The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care. 
> If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive.

 Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

----------


## Hanna

> Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

 I don't see the logic in this reasoning. It is not Russian, but Swedish that is the second language. Sweden occupied Finland for quite a long time and did its best to switch languages in the country during this period. After that, Finland was again occupied, by Russia until 1917. Yet, the Finns can put their history aside and look at the present, not the past, and the benefits of being a bilingual country. I don't think the Winter War or the proximity to the ex USSR has anything to do with their choice when it comes to language policy. Just common sense!   

> but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

 *
I think that is highly debatable!*  
From what I read, the Russians who moved to the Baltic states were *workers* who were told "There is a new factory, institute... whatever.... in Latvia (or wherever). You'll get this/that pay and a nice new flat - are you interested?" Understandably, some were.  
And for all that they were aware, the USSR had liberated the Baltic states, nothing else. From their perspective, I doubt that they felt they were participating in any occupation.  
I suppose some (a minority) were indeed occupiers, in that they were in the military. Most such people left there as soon as they could. I met a guy from this type of background in Belarus - his family essentially left everything behind and just cleared off to Minsk because they felt they were not welcome anymore. He felt a bit nostalgic about his lost childhood in Ventspils. 
And finally - *when I was in Daugavpils, I saw something that really p-d me off:*
There was a huge EU sponsored project to restore an old fortress, which frankly seemed like nothing special to me. But right next to this fortress, in some apalling conditions, lived a pretty large community of ex Soviet military people. It was clear that they were totally impoverished, and likewise that the houses they lived in had not had any maintenance at all for the past 20 years. It was disgraceful! There is talk about how Belarus is a dictatorship and has no money - etc, etc - but I certainly saw nothing close to this in Belarus.  
I feel strongly that the EU money should be used to renovate these people's houses, rather than rebuild a stupid fortress - surely that is a lower priority! Those children could catch dangerous illnesses living in such squalor.  
And if Latvia or the EU won't step up to help these people, then frankly I think Russia has an obligation to do something - fix up their houses or offer them some kind of repatriation deal.  
Again in Liepaja, I saw a similar situation - an ex-Soviet military town (called Karosta) which was in terrible state of repair. It was as if these people were simply abandoned by everyone and unable to sort something out themselves. To add to the farce, the whole place was touted as a tourist attraction to Germans and Scandis, on the grounds of having been a famous naval base of the USSR. But it was a complete dump, apart from a very quaint orthodox church.  
Summary: The Russian speaking people in the Baltics, to a large extent are and were the lower strata of society - not conscious occupiers. IMHO! 
Nevertheless you are right that the situations are not identical, and Latvia did at least go to the trouble of having a referendum about the matter (even if the outcome was rather predictable, in light of the balance between the groups).  
But maybe a referendum might be something for the Ukraine to try, or what do you think?

----------


## LXNDR

> I don't see the logic in this reasoning. It is not Russian, but Swedish that is the second language. Sweden occupied Finland for quite a long time and did its best to switch languages in the country during this period. After that, Finland was again occupied, by Russia until 1917. Yet, the Finns can put their history aside and look at the present, not the past, and the benefits of being a bilingual country. I don't think the Winter War or the proximity to the ex USSR has anything to do with their choice when it comes to language policy. Just common sense!

 you can count the years of Finnish independence and compare the number to that of the Baltic states or other former soviet republics 
usually it's very difficult and imprudent to put the history aside when it very much affects the present day and when the wounds haven't yet healed   

> But maybe a referendum might be something for the Ukraine to try, or what do you think?

 as I said earlier constitutional reform is the only legal way to resolve this debate, so if a referendum on such reform is introduced I can't oppose that, I only know how I will vote should that happen

----------


## Marcus

> Russian Federation is a federation therefore by its very design it must respect national languages of the federation members

 That's the main fault of Russia. We just had to abandon the federation...
The alnguage policy is very tough in France as far as I know. They have practically destroyed other languages and dialects.

----------


## KLAPA

> every nation which comes to another land and start dictating rules will be perceived as threat and phobia is nothing else than fear, fear of threat in this case, so russophobia is just a manifestation of self-preservation instinct of a nation which feels threatened by Russia 
> and I just agree that Russian state and Russian citizens insofar as they agree with their government policies pose threat to neighboring countries, or at  least unfriendly towards them, especially if those countries are oriented towards European values, which are by and large incongruent with the values Russian state currently adheres to 
> its aggressiveness Russian state has demonstrated in a recent armed conflict with Georgia

 I can certainly agree with that. 
Of course MANY Ukrainian's speak Russian language "ethnically" - yet some speak such because they were FORCED to do such by the Soviet boot on their necks. 
The same can be said for many of the "Warsaw pact" nations that were FORCED to study the "Ruski Yazik".  They HATE Russian language - and possibly Russian people as well - because of the 40 years of oppression and repression that their country endured at the hands of the Soviet. 
Of course the contemporary Russian citizen can no more be held accountable for the sins of the Soviet than the contemporary German citizen for the sins of the Nazi - but many people do not understand that.

----------


## Marcus

Государственные и официальные языки в субъектах 
Список официальных языков России

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

 So that's how you justify the complete disregard of wishes and rights of at least 1/3 of Ukrainians? A so called "background" that gives someone right to treat people like second-grade citizens _now_ since their mothers taught them the "wrong" language? 
That's no way to build a democratic society. And since apparently EU silently approves it it's no wonder that many Ukrainians are very skeptical about democracy in general (too many double standards).

----------


## gRomoZeka

> The same can be said for many of the "Warsaw pact" nations that were FORCED to study the "Ruski Yazik".

  Being forced to learn a language is not the worst thing possible - after all we were all "forced" to learn all kinds of languages at school without an opportunity to refuse. In the USSR we were "forced" to learn Ukrainian which I do not regret at all even if I do not feel any particular fondness for it. 
At least Poles were not forced to accept it as their native language and to use it instead of Polish in courts, movie theaters, etc.

----------


## Hanna

> The alnguage policy is very tough in France as far as I know. They have practically destroyed other languages and dialects.

 No, no - it's just English that the French hate (not all, but many). They just want to protect their language against English, so there are quotas about how much English songs can be played on the radio etc. Most young people totally ignore all this and absolutely nothing happens.  
They have some LOCAL languages there, like Occitane and Basque. These are given plenty of support. There are also some people in France that actually have German as their mother tongue (Alsace - belonged to Germany earlier). This is no problem for France either. I know a person from this area and he is bilingual which means he was able to get a great job in Zurich.   

> That's the main fault of Russia. We just had to abandon the federation...

 This almost deserves a separate thread, to hear your views on this.

----------


## LXNDR

> So that's how you justify the *complete disregard* of wishes and rights of at least 1/3 of Ukrainians? A so called "background" that gives someone *right to treat people like second-grade citizens* _now_ since their mothers taught them the "wrong" language?

 i believe with this statement you're taking it too far 
as i already pointed out my mother tongue is Russian, i'm not treated as a second grade citizen, if I am it's not because I speak Russian, but because this is how normally ALL citizens are treated by the corrupt system, no matter what language they speak (and many to be honest can't speak properly neither) 
so far I've submitted quite a few petitions written in Russian to different organizations and local government bodies, not a single one was rejected, they were responded to in Ukrainian as the law orders
if they were rejected that would constitute law violation 
normally i don't listen to radio, if i happen to hear it it's only in the public transportation playing at the driver, almost all music playing on the radio when i hear it is in Russian, there's even a nation wide radiostation called Русское радио, which exclusively plays music in Russian
when the 'oranges' came to power lots of Ukrainian music started being played on the radio, but those days are long gone. 
now ARE YOU treated as a second grade citizen because you speak Russian? please describe the incidents illustrating that statement

----------


## Hanna

> The same can be said for many of the "Warsaw pact" nations that were FORCED to study the "Ruski Yazik".  They HATE Russian language - and possibly Russian people as well - because of the 40 years of oppression and repression that their country endured at the hands of the Soviet.

 I think this is true for some people, maybe the majority. But I have personally met many Eastern Europeans who don't feel this way at all. A Polish person not so long ago, a Bulgarian guy who was running a very successful IT business in London and a German technician that I knew through work. A girl from Lithuania who is in the same book club as me and countless CVs where Eastern Europeans claim to speak fluent Russian. 
 All of them practically brag about their skills in Russian as a second language.  
Many people in France blatantly despise English, some in Germany too. They feel their own language is quite sufficient and do not want to feel like fools expressing themselves in English just because of the current dominance of the USA or whatever they see as the explanation.  
Those of us who speak smaller European languages as our mother tongues (like me) appreciate that knowing English makes all of the internet and endless more literature and culture available. I'd say that Russian would fill a similar type of role for some people even if it is a smaller language than English, it is a "world" language. For Polish, Czech etc people it is considerably easier to learn Russian than English, that's got to count for something. So I wouldn't take their complaints too seriously - it will be forgotten with time. Everyone has to learn English now, and if you don't, certain careers are not available. I don't see the big difference.

----------


## KLAPA

> The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care. 
> If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive. 
> There are two sides to this story as you well know.

 Yes and ONE OTHER side of the story might be that Russia/Soviet never managed to conquer/occupy/rape Finland like they did almost all of those "other"Baltic states. 
Those people have a VERY GOOD reason to treat "ethnic Russian speakers" differently - they are a legacy of illegal occupation of the Soviet. 
When are you Russian's gonna get it?  People do not forget the occupation and systematic raping of their country by the Soviet - and the imposition of the Russian language along with the commie dogma.  Not for a long time to come. 
The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years - the Russian's left after 50 years! 
Why is it not a surprise for you that Baltic states like Lithuania, Estonia not only flock to the EU but treat their "indigenous Russian speakers" ill?  It is because there were NO or very few"indigenous" Russian speakers until Stalin and Russia invaded and raped their country! 
Of course - perhaps you have a different version of the "history"?

----------


## zedeeyen

Was the Soviet occupation the responsibility of the Russian speakers who live in those countries today? Is it OK to oppress a minority just because they speak the same language as people who oppressed your parents and grandparents? 
Linguistic chauvinism really is the most idiotic form of nationalism. Personally, I think the Baltic states should have had their membership of the EU suspended years ago.

----------


## Hanna

I just can't agree with a principle that says:   

> "it's wrong to discriminate linguistic minorities*" 
> *Except if the minority happen to be Russians, then it's ok, because it's ok to discriminate against them since we did not like the USSR.

 That seems to be what some of you are saying!  
Or are you saying that it is ok in general, to discriminate against linguistic minorities? 
I.e. 

> Forget the Welsh, the Frisians, the Basque, the German speakers in Italy, the Swedish speakers in Finland etc... and force them to speak the majority language using any means possible!

 Because that seems to be what you are proposing in the case of the Baltic Russians, in particular.  
I don't think even the USSR - which you say you dislike - would have supported such a policy, at least not post Stalin.  
So as for the Baltics: Now they are in the European _UNION_ instead, where they *have to* learn English instead of Russian... Many cannot get a job and emigrate, many live in poverty and they had a currency crisis and big unemployment. Their countries are used as a location for cheap manufacturing within the borders of the EU.   
It's nice that they are happy with the current situation, I hope things will improve fast and I am glad to have them in the EU, but if you look at it objectively there are some big parallells between then and now..  The Baltic states were definitely not rolling in any wealth prior to the War and Soviet annexation - it was a similar situation to Finland. With this I am not saying I approve of the Soviet annexation, I don't. But there are two sides to this and I always disliked a one sided super-biaised view of things. 
In the case of Finland - they had an absolute crap time of it until about 1980s. I wouldn't say it was much better than the Baltics.  Whole villages and large parts of society were forced to emigrate to support themselves, this never happened in the Baltics, until recently. The situation in Finland had nothing to do with the USSR, they were just poor, with no major natural resources etc in a neglected and unglamorous part of Europe. Luckily things have improved a lot during the last 25 years.  
I know this sounds terrible but I wish the Baltic people would stop their victim mentality and look to the future. If they want to be Europeans in the EU, then behave like it! Leave the past where it belongs and move on! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being bilingual with Russian will eventually turn out to be a huge advantage - if they don't take it someone else will.

----------


## LXNDR

> It's nice that they are happy with the current situation, I hope things will improve fast and I am glad to have them in the EU, but if you look at it objectively there are some big parallells between then and now..  The Baltic states were definitely not rolling in any wealth prior to the War and Soviet annexation - it was a similar situation to Finland. With this I am not saying I approve of the Soviet annexation, I don't. But there are two sides to this and I always disliked a one sided super-biaised view of things. 
> In the case of Finland - they had an absolute crap time of it until about 1980s. I wouldn't say it was much better than the Baltics.  Whole villages and large parts of society were forced to emigrate to support themselves, this never happened in the Baltics. The situation in Finland had nothing to do with the USSR, they were just poor, with no major natural resources etc in a neglected and unglamorous part of Europe. Luckily things have improved a lot during the last 25 years.

 you cannot know how it would pan out for them economically and progress wise in general had they not been annexed by the USSR, and your example of Finland only goes to show that they could have been better off staying independent, plus their national pride wouldn't have been hurt which is an important thing to consider evaluating relative happiness       

> Leave the past where it belongs and move on! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being bilingual with Russian will eventually turn out to be a huge advantage - if they don't take it someone else will.

 they can't leave the past behind them while former occupants and their descendants stir up language controversy looking up to their metropole which is Russia
why not just learn the local language?  
Let me be blatant on this one, the idea of multi-culti is bollocks, we're witnessing what this policy has brought about in Western European countries with large Muslim immigrant population. Maybe you like the tendencies, i don't
It doesn't mean that ethnic minorities should be oppressed, but at the same time they should not dictate national policy or try to sway it in their favor, that's treacherous, they MUST integrate if they like to be integral part of society, that in particular means knowing local language
In Latvia one of the goals of the referendum was making Russian another language used in the sessions of the Seim. Why on earth is this important if the members of the parliament have to know the official language in the first place? 
as far as Russian speaking population is concerned, i think that unfortunately its large part represents mentality alien and at times hostile to the Western world, therefore for a society which associates itself with this world it poses considerable hindrance.

----------


## Crocodile

I think the language talks are nothing but the pure political games. What does it mean 'to re-establish itself' or 'save the language' in that context? If you take the history a little further than 300 or so years, I'm pretty sure you'll find that each dialect of Ukrainian initially belonged to a group of people which physically prevailed another group. So, come to think of it, any language might actually be *'a language of an occupant'* for the most people in the world. But after two generations the 'occupied' people would know the language of the 'occupant' and dump their native language. So, those who fight for the so-called 'their Ukrainian' with heat, would actually fight for the language of the 'occupant' of their ancestors. Their ancestors fought and died and the Ukrainian occupants killed them and wiped out their original language. Is that really something worth to hold onto despite the convenience?  ::

----------


## LXNDR

> Is that really something worth to hold onto despite the convenience?

 yes it is, for the sake of cultural diversity 
but what kind of convenience you mean i don't understand 
there's large Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and Chinese as well, do you think their languages should receive the same status as English and French?

----------


## Marcus

> The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years

 Really?!
American troups are still in Europe, their geographic distribution has broadened for the last 20 years. They even conduct wars in Europe (recall Yugoslavia) against those who refuse to place their troops on their land.

----------


## Hanna

> as far as Russian speaking population is concerned, i think that  unfortunately its large part represents mentality alien and at times  hostile to the Western world, therefore for a society which associates  itself with this world it poses considerable hindrance

 I  was recently in the Baltics and noticed no such mentality among the  Russian speakers. In most cases (except the market in Riga) it was very  hard to tell who was ethnically Russian vs Latvian. They are not very warm people, like Ukrainians for example - but both groups were about equally well or poorly behaved. There were crooks and rude people from either nationality, nice and friendly people from either. The Russians are somewhat the underdog though, the native Latvians are a little bit better off economically I think.  
And no, I do not support any of the pro-immigration nonsense, but that is a completely different question. The current generation moved there. They are first generation immigrants who consciously moved to Europe and have been well taken care of. As far as the Russians in the Baltics and Ukraine knew, they were moving within an existing nation and had not done anything wrong. *I am not saying that the Russians in the Baltics should not try to learn the local language. I absolutely think they should.* But the Balts are practically being fascist about it - that is what I oppose. 
And I support the EU's acceptance of minority languages - it works well, everyone wins, everyone is happy.  _
And if you do not like immigration from Non-european countries, then you can thank your lucky star that your country was in the USSR! Otherwise you would have as many non-Europeans as we have in the EU, looking different, speaking differently and with different culture. The Baltic states are essentially culturally and ethnically homogenous from an outside perspective, which is more than what can be said for any country in Northern Europe for example. In Belarus were only Belarussians and Russians, in the Ukraine I was not able to determine, but there certainly were no Africans or Arabs there at any rate. In Latvia too, were only white people, Europeans._

----------


## Crocodile

> yes it is, for the sake of cultural diversity 
> but what kind of convenience you mean i don't understand 
> there's large Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and Chinese as well, do you think their languages should receive the same status as English and French?

 Well, I know that certain areas in Canada maintain their Ukrainian identity and hold on their language. For more than 100 years. That being said, the Ukrainian Canadians are only making the 10th or so in overall population so making Ukrainian official language is more of an inconvenience than there would be a convenience.  ::   
But, it's good that you mentioned French as a second official language in Canada. So, the francophones are a minority, but since it's very widely spoken language in Canada, it is official. That is a convenience as well as the political unity. The descendants of French settlers had a concern that English as a more dominant culture in the region would obsolete French. Making French an official language solved the issue. Nowdays, both English and French are mandatory languages in all schools in Canada. And even though Canadian French is still under strong influence of English, nobody I think is afraid French would be obsolete. What's wrong with that solution and why couldn't that be implemented in Ukraine? 
That being said, there are a number of organizations which would employ the Ukrainian origin. For example, https://www.ukrainiancu.com/UCU/ which offices are all over Canada would only accept members of the Ukrainian origin. E.g. I cannot become a member and get a credit from that union. Ukrainians are very proud of their origin I guess..  ::

----------


## gRomoZeka

> ...they are a legacy of illegal occupation of the Soviet.

 All this talk about "occupants" is just rhetorics for biased or ignorant. Most of these "occupants" lived there for generations without having any specific rights or privileges over "natives". They worked usual jobs, including unglamorous ones, such as janitors or nurses, they lived at the same types of flats, they were no richer or more powerful. Basically it was just natural working migration.  
So now you are gleefully punishing their children and grandchildren for that, acting all wounded and self-righteous? Kind of petty mentality. Especially considering that some of Baltic states probably would not have been independent now without said annexations.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> That being said, there are a number of organizations which would employ the Ukrainian origin. For example, https://www.ukrainiancu.com/UCU/ which offices are all over Canada would only accept members of the Ukrainian origin. E.g. I cannot become a member and get a credit from that union. Ukrainians are very proud of their origin I guess..

 Any diaspora in any country is usually very serious about their traditions and their origin, sometimes more that those who were left behind in their native country. It's a natural desire to preserve what's left in a new and unfamiliar world. Ukrainian diaspora is well known for cherishing Ukrainian traditions and being as "Ukrainian" as possible (as well as Jews, for example). 
Sometimes they try too hard, though. There was an incident last year or so. Some Canadian organization invited sick and orphaned children from Carpathian region of Ukraine for medical treatment and/or recreation, which was great and very generous of them. Except that there was one condition - no Russian speaking children. I guess they were in their right, but this kind of segregation still looked kind of bad.

----------


## Crocodile

> Any diaspora in any country is usually very serious about their traditions and their origin, sometimes more that those who were left behind in their native country. It's a natural desire to preserve what's left in a new and unfamiliar world. Ukrainian diaspora is well known for cherishing Ukrainian traditions and being as "Ukrainian" as possible (as well as Jews, for example). 
> Sometimes they try too hard, though. There was an incident last year or so. Some Canadian organization invited sick and orphaned children from Carpathian region of Ukraine for medical treatment and/or recreation, which was great and very generous of them. Except that there was one condition - no Russian speaking children. I guess they were in their right, but this kind of segregation still looked kind of bad.

 Exactly, that's what I was talking about. Based on my experience of communicating with the second and third generations of Ukrainian origin, they have nothing against Russians and Russian culture, but they know nothing of it and they obviously can't speak or understand Russian (as much as I can't speak and understand Ukrainian). The Ukrainian organizations seem pretty tough on that matter though..

----------


## KLAPA

> Really?!
> American troups are still in Europe, their geographic distribution has broadened for the last 20 years. They even conduct wars in Europe (recall Yugoslavia) against those who refuse to place their troops on their land.

 Yep - yet they are still there at the behest of the "host country" - and they do not arbitrarily - and with military force - IMPOSE a government on those countries such as the Russian's did.  They do not take things from those counties - they guard the countries against the CONTINUED threat of the Russian's. 
Stalin (and thus Russia) even went so far as to OUTLAW letters of the Ukrainian alphabet! 
It is difficult for me to understand how Russian's cannot understand the "hard feelings" these people have. 
It is also difficult for me to understand WHY Russian's - being the smart and articulate people that they are - continually seem to need to be "led" - by despots like Putin. 
Here in the USA - and all over Europe - we don't have a $1000 penalty for protest marches such as has been recently implemented by the "rubber stamp" Duma for CZAR Putin and his KGB cronies. 
Also here and in Europe - the "state" does not "own" the media like they do in Russia - or should I say "Gazpromia".  Yes - you might say America or Europe is "owned" by corporations - but it is not just one single corporation like it is in Russia.  When any corporation would challenge Putin and Gazprom - well - they just change the laws (think LukOil here) and the "state" simply steals the assets of the "lawbreaker". 
Nobody trusts you - and for good reason! So why would they trust their "indigenous Russian speakers" that were installed by the Soviet invader?

----------


## LXNDR

> I  was recently in the Baltics and noticed no such mentality among the  Russian speakers. In most cases (except the market in Riga) it was very  hard to tell who was ethnically Russian vs Latvian. They are not very warm people, like Ukrainians for example - but both groups were about equally well or poorly behaved. There were crooks and rude people from either nationality, nice and friendly people from either. The Russians are somewhat the underdog though, the native Latvians are a little bit better off economically I think.

 i'm not so much talking from human relations standpoint as from the standpoint of values, and it's the prevailing values which determine the orientation of the entire nation and national consciousness    

> But the Balts are practically being fascist about it - that is what I oppose.

 they restore historical justice, they have every right to since they have been violated   

> The Baltic states are essentially culturally and ethnically homogenous from an outside perspective, which is more than what can be said for any country in Northern Europe for example. In Belarus were only Belarussians and Russians, in the Ukraine I was not able to determine, but there certainly were no Africans or Arabs there at any rate. In Latvia too, were only white people, Europeans.

 that is why it's only logical that there should be only one official language 
I just watched on Эхо Москвы a talk with Riga's mayor Нил Ушаков, as you can tell by his surname he's Russian, by his personal name one can tell how much Russian he is, because Нил is an ancient forgotten Russian name
so maybe the rumors about discrimination are a bit exaggerated, or maybe only a certain stratum of Russian speaking population is discriminated against on whatever grounds    

> Well, I know that certain areas in Canada maintain their Ukrainian identity and hold on their language. For more than 100 years. That being said, the Ukrainian Canadians are *only making the 10th or so in overall population* so making Ukrainian official language is more of an inconvenience than there would be a convenience.

 with such percentage, this Ukrainian law the MPs scrap over, would grant these Ukrainians the right to demand declaring Ukrainian a provincial language alongside English and French, don't you think it's ridiculous?    

> *The descendants of French settlers had a concern that English as a more dominant culture in the region would obsolete French*. Making French an official language solved the issue. Nowdays, both English and French are mandatory languages in all schools in Canada. And even though Canadian French is still under strong influence of English, nobody I think is afraid French would be obsolete. What's wrong with that solution and why couldn't that be implemented in Ukraine?

 that's the exact reason why Ukrainian has to remain the sole official language, i mentioned this reason earlier in this thread

----------


## Crocodile

> Stalin (and thus Russia) even went so far as to OUTLAW letters of the Ukrainian alphabet!

 The official language of USSR was Ukrainian... Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where there any letters taken out of Ukrainian by law? Not sure, but maybe the Ukrainian members of this forum would explain..  ::

----------


## LXNDR

> The official language of USSR was Ukrainian

 what do you mean? what about Russian?

----------


## Crocodile

> with such percentage, this Ukrainian law the MPs scrap over, would grant these Ukrainians the right to demand declaring Ukrainian a provincial language alongside English and French, don't you think it's ridiculous?

 You see, I'm in no position to say that would be ridiculous or not. That's why there are provincial legislatures. A province is typically entitled to make a choice like that. I observed that if a movement like that is very strong and speaks to many citizens, the stakes in the provincial legislature would be pretty high and they would try to perhaps look for a compromise. The reason being is that the politicians are typically riding the waves to gain the votes. The present MP in that area would either vote for Ukrainian language and blame the failure on the other MPs, or face replacement in the other term. Those 'turnaround' forces are pretty strong and MPs would typically prefer to comply. There might be political tricks like following: "Oh, you want Ukrainian become another provincial language? Sure, why not! But, that would cost another $2,000,000 a year for the province and should have subsidized by the higher taxes. Are you ready for that?!!" And then there's going to be the whole fuss about that which would either settle down to the higher provincial taxes or to the majority rejecting that on that ground. But, not because: "Ahh!! Those Ukrainians came to our country and now want to be a dominant force and discriminate against Metis who are 7th number in the population and not the 10th!!" And so on. Do you see the difference?  
So, honestly, I'm not really familiar with Ukrainian economy that well, but deep down I sense making Russian another official language would bring more money to the state than actually would be spent by the state to maintain the extra resources. Does it make sense?   

> that's the exact reason why Ukrainian has to remain the sole official language, i mentioned this reason earlier in this thread

 You mentioned that, and I mentioned a peaceful solution that worked. Would you be able to elaborate why that solution would not work in Ukraine if implemented? An official language means that the citizen has a right to request a service from the state in either of the official language and the state is required by law to provide the service in that language.

----------


## Crocodile

> what do you mean? what about Russian?

 The official language of the Ukrainian SSR was officially Ukrainian. As much as the official language of the Uzbek SSR was Uzbek. Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Russian was the only official language of the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

----------


## LXNDR

> You see, I'm in no position to say that would be ridiculous or not. That's why there are provincial legislatures. A province is typically entitled to make a choice like that. I observed that if a movement like that is very strong and speaks to many citizens, the stakes in the provincial legislature would be pretty high and they would try to perhaps look for a compromise. The reason being is that the politicians are typically riding the waves to gain the votes. The present MP in that area would either vote for Ukrainian language and blame the failure on the other MPs, or face replacement in the other term. Those 'turnaround' forces are pretty strong and MPs would typically prefer to comply. There might be political tricks like following: "Oh, you want Ukrainian become another provincial language? Sure, why not! But, that would cost another $2,000,000 a year for the province and should have subsidized by the higher taxes. Are you ready for that?!!" And then there's going to be the whole fuss about that which would either settle down to the higher provincial taxes or to the majority rejecting that on that ground. But, not because: "Ahh!! Those Ukrainians came to our country and now want to be a dominant force and discriminate against Metis who are 7th number in the population and not the 10th!!" And so on. Do you see the difference?

 in the former Soviet republics historical reasoning cannot be discounted, these are young states    

> You mentioned that, and I mentioned a peaceful solution that worked. Would you be able to elaborate why that solution would not work in Ukraine if implemented? An official language means that the citizen has a right to request a service from the state in either of the official language and the state is required by law to provide the service in that language.

 there's no need in peaceful solution because it's peaceful now, you don't fix what's not broken 
sorry the reasons against the law which is being proposed are too many to mention   

> So, honestly, I'm not really familiar with Ukrainian economy that well, but deep down I sense making Russian another official language would bring more money to the state than actually would be spent by the state to maintain the extra resources. Does it make sense?

 what extra resources do you mean?

----------


## Hanna

> Yep - yet they are still there at the behest of the "host country" - and  they do not arbitrarily - and with military force - IMPOSE a government  on those countries such as the Russian's did.

 Thank you  but you are not able to speak for me or any other European. We can speak  for ourselves. I am European but not Russian. I do not want American  bases in Europe and I am certainly not scared of Russia, never have  been, other than while watching American films where they are villified. My  views are not at all uncommon. In the countries where these bases are  located, in Western Europe, for the most part, local people do not like  them. The Germans still feel uncomfortable about complaining due to their legacy, but soon  enough the US will be asked to pack up and leave. This is what the Japanese  tried in Okinawa, but the USA plain refused to leave, for two decades!  It should be interesting times when we get to that situation in Europe.  I'll spare you the embarrassment of posting pics of anti-USA graffiti  that is common near the American bases.    

> They do not take things  from those counties - they guard the countries against the CONTINUED  threat of the Russian's.

 You can't be serious or have you  been smoking something? What are you doing on this forum if you are so  paranoid and suspicious about Russia? And PS - there should be no  apostrophe in "Russians" in your sentence above.    

> Nobody trusts you - and for good reason!

 Funny,  that's exactly how lots of people around the world feel about the USA,  so how's that for the pot calling the kettle black? This is a forum  where (mainly) Russians are helping people who want to learn the Russian  language. How about showing some respect to the hosts here? Or wait a  second - let's just force them to become pseudo Americans in a cheap USA  clone, that's more the spirit of people like you, isn't it!? I am  totally apalled at the tone of your post!   

> I just watched on Эхо Москвы a talk with Riga's mayor Нил Ушаков,  as you can tell by his surname he's Russian, by his personal name one  can tell how much Russian he is,

 Ok - but half of Riga's population is Russian (at least) so it is not very surprising. The mayor is democratically elected. And hopefully he was not choosen purely on the grounds of his family background. No doubt he had to do plenty of campaigning in absolutely accentless Latvian to get elected to the post.  
The thing that was shocking is that there is another town in Latvia called Daugavpils that I visited. It is the second largest city in Latvia, close to the border with Belarus. Pretty much everyone there is a native Russian speaker. You hear no other language on the streets. Yet absolutely everything in the town was written in Latvian. It was practically comical. For example, in the supermarket, in restaurants etc, signs outside shops, streetnames etc. It was like a parallell universe. Imagine a village in England where everyone was speaking French.  
The market reflected the reality of the situation, everyone trying to sell something had put up handwritten signs in Russian. 
And I compare with Finland where I spent lots of time. Everything is double signed. As a Swedish speaker I have no trouble at all. If I lived there permanently I'd try to learn Finnish but like Latvian it is a very hard language with very few speakers

----------


## Crocodile

> in the former Soviet republics historical reasoning cannot be discounted, these are young states

 Unfortunately, I didn't get that. Would you be able to spell it out for a simple-minded crocodile?   

> there's no need in peaceful solution because it's peaceful now, you don't fix what's not broken

 Well, I'm not so sure about that. I happen to spend some time in Ukraine once in a while and I noticed a growing concern that some of the people have trouble with that sole-Ukrainian thing. My impression (I might be wrong though) was that the assertion of all-Ukrainian was based on the promises of some of the former government officials for the tighter integration with the European Union and the subsequent inevitable economic prosperity and political freedoms. So, to make something of a slogan, that was: "Let's break free from  Russian dominance and integrate with Europe on the equal terms!" More recently I observed a growing disillusionment in that idea. Rather, that seemed like a playing card in the East vs the West parts' of the country power games. (I'm probably oversimplifying that, but I trust you forgive me.) The economic and political tension between the two parts of Ukraine have seem to be growing with every year. And whilst one of the sides is looking for the support from Russia, the other side is looking for the support from the West (let's call it that way). Traditionally, those kind of tensions find their implementations in the separatist sentiments and, subsequently, movements. In light of all that, I think, recognizing Russian as a second official language would rather unite the nation and qualify for a peaceful solution. Does it make sense?   

> sorry the reasons against the law which is being proposed are too many to mention

 The law is not the Ten Commandments. The law is for the people and not the people are for the law.   

> what extra resources do you mean?

 Money.

----------


## LXNDR

> Unfortunately, I didn't get that. Would you be able to spell it out for a simple-minded crocodile?

 you said it best below - *Let's break free from  Russian dominance*   

> Well, I'm not so sure about that. I happen to spend some time in Ukraine once in a while and I noticed a growing concern that some of the people have trouble with that sole-Ukrainian thing. My impression (I might be wrong though) was that the assertion of all-Ukrainian was based on the promises of some of the former government officials for the tighter integration with the European Union and the subsequent inevitable economic prosperity and political freedoms. So, to make something of a slogan, that was: "*Let's break free from  Russian dominance* and integrate with Europe on the equal terms!" More recently I observed a growing disillusionment in that idea. Rather, that seemed like a playing card in the East vs the West parts' of the country power games. (I'm probably oversimplifying that, but I trust you forgive me.) The economic and political tension between the two parts of Ukraine have seem to be growing with every year. And whilst one of the sides is looking for the support from Russia, the other side is looking for the support from the West (let's call it that way). Traditionally, those kind of tensions find their implementations in the separatist sentiments and, subsequently, movements. In light of all that, I think, recognizing Russian as a second official language would rather unite the nation and qualify for a peaceful solution. Does it make sense?

 not sure what observations you base your opinion on, but on the surface there's none of that now, there's a single common enemy now - Yanukovich, for Ukrainian nationalists because under his regime Ukrainian revival stopped and for Russian speaking regions and the whole population in general because he didn't keep his promises and the situation actually worsened 
there's a joke that the only promise he did keep is he united the entire Ukraine (against himself)   

> The law is not the Ten Commandments. The law is for the people and not the people are for the law.

 i already wrote that this law is unconstitutional and constitution IS 10 Commandments for orderly statehood   

> Money.

 i don't see how it can bring in more investments 
i personally wouldn't be too happy about Russian investments, to attract investments from other countries favorable economic, financial and legal climate should be in place 
For example Chinese importers are complaining about overrated import taxes which hurt their business  Китайцы жалуются на беспредел украинских таможенников  
it's not really investments but still they pay to the treasury, and it illustrates the climate of lawlessness fest 
i don't think they care what language is official in Ukraine, they know neither

----------


## Hanna

> In light of all that, I think, recognizing Russian as a second official  language would rather unite the nation and qualify for a peaceful  solution. Does it make sense?

 To me it makes perfect sense, but of course, I am not Ukrainian!  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> 1. you said it best below - *Let's break free from  Russian dominance*
> 2. there's a single common enemy now - Yanukovich

 Well, and I guess Yushenko had not delivered on the economic prosperity because of the same common enemy - Yanukovich? Or maybe there already was economic prosperity and Yanukovich had just slaughtered the chicken which laid the golden eggs?

----------


## LXNDR

> Well, and I guess Yushenko had not delivered on the economic prosperity because of the same common enemy - Yanukovich? Or maybe there already was economic prosperity and Yanukovich had just slaughtered the chicken which laid the golden eggs?

 no, he only slaughtered civil liberties which began to bud during the 'oranges' and didn't deliver his socioeconomic promises even to his own electorate, for whom he wasn't enemy at the time 
civil liberties was the only characteristic which positively distinguished Ukraine against other slavic post-soviet states during Yushenko 
wanna hear what retirees who are literally ready to vote for anyone who hands them a pack of free buckwheat think of him? 
it's in his hometown    
another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xHECL9128A

----------


## Hanna

I still don't think that the logic of the anti-Russian language commentators adds up here. According to your way of viewing thing, French should* not* be an equal language in Canada. The French Canadians should adapt to the majority language. France for the record has some gruesome acts on its conscience from its' days as a colonial power in Africa and East Asia.

----------


## LXNDR

> I still don't think that the logic of the anti-Russian language commentators adds up here. According to your way of viewing thing, French should* not* be an equal language in Canada. The French Canadians should adapt to the majority language. France for the record has some gruesome acts on its conscience from its' days as a colonial power in Africa and East Asia.

 their bilingualism is a historical fact, history is made by the people and if people decide there should only be one official language in Ukraine, so will it be, and they already did decide once, i'm not aware of a law which summons to re-evaluate this decision every some years 
again, there're legal procedures which allow such re-evaluation, their legality isn't conditioned by anyone's personal view on the subject, and if legally the re-evaluation succeeds i will respect that, i will only note that in modern day Ukraine legality of many decisions, processes and political initiatives is questionable 
bilingualism in Ukraine is by far not a topical issue, it's only topical for the Party Of Regions on the eve of elections, a bone for their disillusioned voters 
if French committed those crimes against the people of Canada (not talking about indigenous population), maybe their language doesn't deserve to have the official status IN Canada

----------


## gRomoZeka

> bilingualism in Ukraine is by far not a topical issue, it's only topical for the Party Of Regions on the eve of elections, a bone for their disillusioned voters

  You contradict yourself. The fact that this language issue resurfaces regularly and is important enough to the voters to be a proverbial carrot during elections proves that it_ is_ a "topical issue". After all you spent quite a lot of time arguing about it here, so it does matter. 
I believe any arguments about "preserving" or "defending" Ukrainian language against Russian (as the main reason against Russian as a second official language) have no real weight. Those who speak Ukrainian will continue doing so either way, and with no forceful Ukrainisation Russian speakers won't feel the need to "defend" their right to speak Russian, and maybe will use Ukrainian more often. For now language wars cause tension, they certainly do not consolidate the nation and serve no real purpose except petty vengeance.  

> their bilingualism is a historical fact, history is made by the people

 Erm... I lost you here. So their bilingualism is a historical fact, and bilingualism in Ukraine is not, even if it exists and formed historically over time? It looks like you are bending facts and arguments to fit your purpose.

----------


## KLAPA

> Yep - yet they are still there at the behest of the "host country" - and they do not arbitrarily - and with military force - IMPOSE a government on those countries such as the Russian's did.  They do not take things from those counties - they guard the countries against the CONTINUED threat of the Russian's. 
> Stalin (and thus Russia) even went so far as to OUTLAW letters of the Ukrainian alphabet! 
> It is difficult for me to understand how Russian's cannot understand the "hard feelings" these people have. 
> It is also difficult for me to understand WHY Russian's - being the smart and articulate people that they are - continually seem to need to be "led" - by despots like Putin. 
> Here in the USA - and all over Europe - we don't have a $1000 penalty for protest marches such as has been recently implemented by the "rubber stamp" Duma for CZAR Putin and his KGB cronies. 
> Also here and in Europe - the "state" does not "own" the media like they do in Russia - or should I say "Gazpromia".  Yes - you might say America or Europe is "owned" by corporations - but it is not just one single corporation like it is in Russia.  When any corporation would challenge Putin and Gazprom - well - they just change the laws (think LukOil here) and the "state" simply steals the assets of the "lawbreaker". 
> Nobody trusts you - and for good reason! So why would they trust their "indigenous Russian speakers" that were installed by the Soviet invader?

 I will "add" here - that I know allot about the "so-called" Yugoslavia - I was stationed in northern Greece (Macedonia) in that late 70's - in a place where they called it then the "buffer zone". 
Yugoslavia was a "special case".  This was only a "country" because of the "iron hand" of Tito.  This place - the "Balkan" - it was the crossroads of East vs. West - Slav vs. Muslim - and even orthodox vs. catholic vs. Islam.  This place has been the foment of war in Europe.  The only thing that made that collection of Croatia Serbia, and the rest WAS the AUTHORITARIAN regime of Tito.  As soon as he died - the inevitable troubles began. 
Yet the Euro's did nothing about it - nor did the Russian's - all the while the body's of the innocents were piling up. 
I was very much against the US forces involvement by Madeline "NotSoBright" and the "BillKlingon" administration in that delima - I knew it to be a European problem and thought that it should be a European "fix".  But the Euro's are just like a "neutered dog" and something had to be done.  The USA did it! 
Crap on you Russian's for what you did (or didn't do) there!  You came "riding in" at the last minute after all was over pretending to "save your Slavic brother". 
Where were you Russian's or the Euro's in the BEGINNING of that conflict of a nation that was essentially under your care? 
Where were you?  Nowhere to be found - that is "where you were". 
Typical Russian. 
I always like that "old Soviet saying" - that "history is never set". 
Yup - you Putin robots certainly fit the mold - and you are to be feared - because you are all intelligent, talented, and seem to be brainwashed like a herd of korova. 
Don't any of you "modern" Russian's remember Viktor Tsoy?  Perhaps you should listen to his songs again.  I would point out "печаль". 
I want to say here - that I am married to a Ukrainian woman for 12 years.  I have "inherited" her children and have brought them here to America - I have treated them all well.  I have taken the "Russian view" in politics on many occasions - but now I have grave doubts. 
Why?  Because of what I see happening in Russia now - the absorption of the media by the state run Gazprom.  The people are "fed" a single lunch everyday - they have no informed choices - and if they demand t - they are fined much more than they can pay. 
That is what I see - and being the old "cold warrior" that I am I am glad we have many missiles pointed towards Russia and have changed my mind again to believe that Russia is truly the enemy of freedom - because their people are Korova that subjugate themselves to an authoritarian regime that will be to the detriment on mankind.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I will "add" here - that I know allot about the "so-called" Yugoslavia - I was stationed in northern Greece (Macedonia) in that late 70's - in a place where they called it then the "buffer zone". 
> Yugoslavia was a "special case".  This was only a "country" because of the "iron hand" of Tito.  This place - the "Balkan" - it was the crossroads of East vs. West - Slav vs. Muslim - and even orthodox vs. catholic vs. Islam.  This place has been the foment of war in Europe.  The only thing that made that collection of Croatia Serbia, and the rest WAS the AUTHORITARIAN regime of Tito.  As soon as he died - the inevitable troubles began. 
>  [...] 
> Typical Russian. 
> I always like that "old Soviet saying" - that "history is never set". 
> Yup - you Putin robots certainly fit the mold - and you are to be feared - because you are all intelligent, talented, and seem to be brainwashed like a herd of korova. 
> Don't any of you "modern" Russian's remember Viktor Tsoy?  Perhaps you should listen to his songs again.  I would point out "печаль". 
> I want to say here - that I am married to a Ukrainian woman for 12 years.  I have "inherited" her children and have brought them here to America - I have treated them all well.  I have taken the "Russian view" in politics on many occasions - but now I have grave doubts. 
> Why?  Because of what I see happening in Russia now - the absorption of the media by the state run Gazprom.  The people are "fed" a single lunch everyday - they have no informed choices - and if they demand t - they are fined much more than they can pay. 
> That is what I see - and being the old "cold warrior" that I am I am glad we have many missiles pointed towards Russia and have changed my mind again to believe that Russia is truly the enemy of freedom - because their people are Korova that subjugate themselves to an authoritarian regime that will be to the detriment on mankind.

 Ok, we get it. You don't like Russians.
Is there any valid point in this stream of consciousness? Like, _on topic_?

----------


## KLAPA

I find that rather hard to believe - based on the people of pre baltica that I know here say - where do you get your statistics from? 
Most - if not all - of them are firmly "anti-russian" language - even if they know how to speak it. 
Also - nearly all of them I know (maybe 5 or 6) say that there was NO "indigenous" Russian speakers until the "occupation". 
So - do you DENY that Russia FORCIBLY OCCUPIED pre balitica? 
I am just wondering about your own perception of "history" here.

----------


## KLAPA

You are right - I am wrong - and I stand corrected. 
I got a little emotional here - I have had a tough weekend - I had to bury my dog that has just died 
I do NOT "hate" Russian's - I guess I m just a little disappointing in their actions - still I know I am not GOD - I do not attempt to judge anyone - I am just suspicious. 
"On Topic" - 
My wife IS an "ethnic Russian speaking" Ukrainian.  She is from Zaporiska oblast - her family is from the Donbass region.  They have all spoken Russian there "since there was dirt". 
My wife and her family are "looked down on" by their western Ukrainian counterparts who speak "pure" Ukrainian language. 
My wife is from the kholkhoz - where there was a different life.  I have myself been there. They all speak Russian there - though a "mix" - they say"nye" instead of "nyet".  It is a small distinction and else they speak Russki Yazike..  I have met these people and there is nothing wrong with them - they are strong - and they are not an  enemy. 
However - that is not like it is for most of pre-baltica -  as far as I know. 
These people had the "russki yazike" imposed upon them - I don't think there were many "Russian speakers" there before the imposition of the Soviet state. 
This "debate" in Ukraine about language - it is just a mask to hide much deeper problems - particularly problems with corruption. 
I have had problems with language in Ukraine - I brought my wife and her two children over here in 1999 - and had to have all the papers translated first from Russian to Ukrainian - and then from Ukrainian to English. 
So after all of that we had to go through the American embassy in Warsaw to get everything done. 
At that time - there was very little available to learn the Russian language - much less Ukrainian or Polish. So I had the PROMT software that I bought. 
So - anyway - I thought I was doing a "good thing" to learn some Russian before I went to Warsaw but I had a BIG SURPRISE! 
When I first met the people at the hotel - and spoke to them in Russian - one woman replied to me.... 
"Why do you speak Russian? You can speak anything you want here - English, Italian, or Polish, but DON'T SPEAK RUSSIAN HERE!". 
So there you go - this is a real experience that I think is "on-topic".

----------


## LXNDR

> For now language wars cause tension

 please be honest, there's no such animal as *language wars* in the daily routine of Ukraine, they only reappear every elections round and are confined by the walls of the Parliament and maybe some web forums 
when people aren't comfortable with something they protest, nothing prevents Russian speaking population of Ukraine from starting grassroots campaign for Russian language just like they did in Latvia, the constitution and legislation which guarantee the right of the people to initiate a referendum is there 
i affirmed that quite a few times and i'll do it one last time, i'm not against the official status of Russian as long as it's decided upon by the lawful means, again Latvia is a perfect example, on the other hand i have my personal opinion and i don't think anyone needs to or should try to dissuade me from it  *gRomoZeka* please respond to this lowly request of mine    

> now ARE YOU treated as a second grade citizen because you speak Russian? please describe the incidents illustrating that statement

----------


## Hanna

> Ok, we get it. You don't like Russians.
> Is there any valid point in this stream of consciousness? Like, _on topic_?

 IMHO - It illustrates the dangers of combining poor education with an overdose of propaganda. Sorry but he was asking for it.  
Tragic to hear that your dog died, KLAPA - perhaps you had a fight with your Russian - Ukrainian wife, or something. I still think your comments in the thread are outrageous! You are plain rude to come in here and start hollering hostile and aggressive accusations about Russians. I am sure there are plenty of places online where you can vent your feelings -- this is not the place.  _
But hey, let's just set up a few big ol' US Army bases in the Ukraine to teach that Russian scum to speak Ukrainian (preferably with an American accent) whether they like it or not -eh? Democracy and Human rights ftw! And throw in a few "defensive" nukes pointed at Moscow while you're at it...._ _Problem solved!_ 
That seems to be just the sort of solution that you'd favour!

----------


## xdns

> if French committed those crimes against the people of Canada (not talking about indigenous population), maybe their language doesn't deserve to have the official status IN Canada

 Sorry, what crimes did Russians commit in Ukraine? Maybe when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire they treated it like subordinate, I don't know. But in the 20th century the Soviet Union actually reunited Ukrainian people - Eastern Galicia and Volhynia with its mostly Ukrainian population were taken from Poland and given to Ukraine (1939). Later Soviets gave Ukraine luxurious gift - the Crimea, a peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea and a part of Russia back then (1954). It is clear that Russians helped Ukraine to expand its territory and escape Polish and German (who were not so keen on preserving Ukrainian culture, religion and language) dominance. Thanks to these developments Ukraine emerged eventually as an independent state with one of the biggest areas in Europe. Russians lived in its eastern regions for centuries, and the Crimea was given to Ukraine with its mostly Russian population. How could it be that Russians in Ukraine do not deserve official recognition of their mother tongue after all that?

----------


## Anixx

> Well it's clear that a large proportion of Ukrainians prefer to speak Russian over Ukrainian. What is the problem with having two official languages and double signs? Who is against that, and why?

 Against that are those who are pro-Europe.

----------


## Anixx

> but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

 I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

----------


## Anixx

> Of course MANY Ukrainian's speak Russian language "ethnically" - yet some speak such because they were FORCED to do such by the Soviet boot on their necks. 
> The same can be said for many of the "Warsaw pact" nations that were FORCED to study the "Ruski Yazik".  They HATE Russian language - and possibly Russian people as well - because of the 40 years of oppression and repression that their country endured at the hands of the Soviet. 
> Of course the contemporary Russian citizen can no more be held accountable for the sins of the Soviet than the contemporary German citizen for the sins of the Nazi - but many people do not understand that.

 LOL. If you give independence to Moscow oblast and put regional nationalists in charge, they also will claim that Moscow oblast was suppressed by Moscow for thousands of years, so that all who came from Moscow and their descendants are "occupiers" and their rights should be restricted.

----------


## Anixx

> The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years - the Russian's left after 50 years!

 What do you mean? There are US military bases in Germany (unlike those of Russia) and all of Europe is in Nato. Also as many pointed out, you have to know English to get a good job. So it is doubtful that the Americans "left" whatever do you mean.

----------


## Marcus

> Also - nearly all of them I know (maybe 5 or 6) say that there was NO "indigenous" Russian speakers until the "occupation".

 Are you serious? native Russian speakers were 12 % of the population in the pre-war Latvia.

----------


## Anixx

> I know this sounds terrible but I wish the Baltic people would stop their victim mentality and look to the future. If they want to be Europeans in the EU, then behave like it! Leave the past where it belongs and move on! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being bilingual with Russian will eventually turn out to be a huge advantage - if they don't take it someone else will.

 This will never happen because the EU and the western human rights institutions approve such policy. The Baltic states constantly rate high at various democracy indexes, freedom ratings and so on, produced by Freedom House, Amnesty International and so on, despite having up to 40% of population stripped of their citizenship and having imposed harsh restrictions on them, strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews. They not only cannot participate in elections, but also cannot occupy various positions such as lawers, firefighters or pharmacists.  
It should be noted that the only way to get the citizenship for them is to pass the exams which not only include the language test, but also require them to explain the official interpretation of history, that is to call their parents "occupiers" and to count the Latvian Waffen SS as heroes. Not all people are ready to do so. 
It also should be noted that all those people were not citizenship-less initially. In addition to the Soviet Union citizenship they had the citizenship of the respective republics which was guaranteed by the constitutions of the respective soviet republics. So loosing their citizenship was not a natural process of the USSR dissolution, but was organized deliberately by the legislative bodies which they themselves voted for.

----------


## Anixx

> as far as Russian speaking population is concerned, i think that unfortunately its large part represents mentality alien and at times hostile to the Western world, therefore for a society which associates itself with this world it poses considerable hindrance.

 This resembles to me the infamous "totalitarian genes" theory that alleged that Russians, Serbs, Belorussians had genes favoring totalitarianism, so to protect democracy those people should be prosecuted and/or eliminated.

----------


## Anixx

> Yep - yet they are still there at the behest of the "host country" - and they do not arbitrarily - and with military force - IMPOSE a government on those countries such as the Russian's did.

 Was not Yugoslavian government imposed by the US in 1990s? Was not Greece government imposed by force after WWII?

----------


## Anixx

> So - do you DENY that Russia FORCIBLY OCCUPIED pre balitica? 
> I am just wondering about your own perception of "history" here.

 Well, possibly many of the Baltic peoples were not happy with the unification with the USSR, but actually an invasion by Nazi Germany was anticipated and the governments had to choose between the two evils, as they saw it, and choose the USSR. It is known that Roosevelt during the war asked Stalin to repeat the unification referendums in those republics after the war, because the pre-war referendums were influenced by the immence threat by Germany. Stalin rejected this proposal, saying that the pre-war referendums legally valid even if they were made in a difficult international situation. 
So it is possibly true that the majority of those people did not like the idea to join the USSR *for ever* very much, but it is also true that they made their choice between Germany and the USSR in the pre-war situation. They possibly thought that Germany will not be bold enough to attack the USSR and that they would be able to leave the USSR after the world war is over.

----------


## LXNDR

> This resembles to me the infamous "totalitarian genes" theory that alleged that Russians, Serbs, Belorussians had genes favoring totalitarianism, so to protect democracy those people should be prosecuted and/or eliminated.

 no, they should not be allowed to determine national policy, that's all
not sure what Belorussians and Serbs have to do with the content of any of my posts, no need to multiply entities   

> I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

 please do not wrench my words, why do you do this?  
i said    

> occupiers *and their descendants*

 ok? see the distinction? 
discussion with such attitude as you demonstrate is usually not productive

----------


## LXNDR

> Sorry, what crimes did Russians commit in Ukraine? Maybe when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire they treated it like subordinate, I don't know. But in the 20th century the Soviet Union actually reunited Ukrainian people - Eastern Galicia and Volhynia with its mostly Ukrainian population were taken from Poland and given to Ukraine (1939). Later Soviets gave Ukraine luxurious gift - the Crimea, a peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea and a part of Russia back then (1954). It is clear that Russians helped Ukraine to expand its territory and escape Polish and German (who were not so keen on preserving Ukrainian culture, religion and language) dominance. Thanks to these developments Ukraine emerged eventually as an independent state with one of the biggest areas in Europe. Russians lived in its eastern regions for centuries, and the Crimea was given to Ukraine with its mostly Russian population. How could it be that Russians in Ukraine do not deserve official recognition of their mother tongue after all that?

 none if you discount the operations against population in Western Ukraine, they did commit them in the Baltic states though
either way i was answering a statement about Canada in particular

----------


## Anixx

> no, they should not be allowed to determine national policy, that's all

 Well, my point of view that there are no good and bad peoples, all born with equal rights, nobody should be discriminated based on their ancestry, and there can be different views on democracy. I also think that collective punishment is unacceptable as well as prosecuting or depriving of voting rights an ethnic group to further a certain ideology to which they could be statistically in opposition. 
Unfortunately this is not compatible with current western (and EU) values.

----------


## Anixx

> none if you discount the operations against population in Western Ukraine, they did commit them in the Baltic states though
> either way i was answering a statement about Canada in particular

 Based on this logic the decendants of Western Ukrainians should be stripped of all rights because their ancestors helped the Nazis to clear their region from Jews and Poles. Why the alleged crimes against Western Ukarinians and the Balts are more important than the crimes against Jews, Poles and Russians? I also note that there is nothing the history has recorded about anything happening to Western Ukrainians and Balts comparable to what they did to Jews and Poles in Western Ukraine, what the Latvian SS did to Belorussians in Belorussia and the locals to the Jews in the Baltics.

----------


## xdns

> I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

 Nil Ushakov, the mayor of Riga, puts it right:   

> Мы не уезжали со своей родины. У нас граница сдвинулась. Я родился в Латвии, в Риге. Я не родился в России. Я этнический русский, у меня родной язык русский. У меня родители родом отец из Кронштадта, мама из Красноярского края. Но я родился в Риге. Пока я жил, сменился строй, сменились государства. Не я эмигрировал, страна эмигрировала. Если так можно выразиться.

----------


## Crocodile

> either way i was answering a statement about Canada in particular

 You see, if you want to draw the exact parallel, you should say that French Canadians should ban English from being a second official language.  :: 
The thing is that French Canadians arrived earlier than English settlers and, subsequently, French settlements should probably be considered Canadian and that way English actually conquered/occupied Canada. So, at the time of Confederation (=i.e. when Canada became a country) there were actually only two provinces which were interested: Quebec (mostly French speaking) and Ontario (mostly English speaking). The financial capital of Quebec was Montreal, but that city had the biggest English-speaking population in Quebec (think *Riga*). The official bilingualism united people in Canada, made it one country, so to speak. Allowed people to get past the wars of their ancestors.  
The similar situation happened in some of the other countries with the official bilingualism. Another good example - South Africa. The Afrikaans and English were (and still are) the two official languages. That helped to unite the nation too. 
I just fail to see why to re-invent the wheel and take the risk of unnecessary tension rather than using a peaceful solution that worked in the past and still works perfectly nowdays..  
The other countries which used the 'boiling pot' language strategy (like the US and Israel) faced a totally different set of issues and were pressed to work out their aggressive language policies. But, I don't think that applies to Ukraine anyways. 
PS.   

> - Ну и дьявольщина! Ничего хорошего это не предвещает, - сказал Следопыт [...],
> Только индейцу, *развращенному хитрыми канадскими священниками*, могло 
> прийти в голову вырезать это на своей трубке. 
> Ручаюсь, что негодяй молится на свой талисман всякий раз, как собирается обмануть невинную жертву или замышляет какую-нибудь чудовищную пакость. Похоже, что трубку только что обронили. Верно, Чингачгук?

----------


## LXNDR

> I just fail to see why to re-invent the wheel and take the risk of unnecessary tension rather than using a peaceful solution that worked in the past and still works perfectly nowdays..

 you fail to see because you come from a flawed premise, there's no tension 
for example no one ever demanded from this notorious Party Of Regions to raise this issue in the parliament and they haven't done so of their own accord since 2007 when they gained the majority in the parliament, they only raise it now because elections glimmer on the horizon
it's a cheap political stunt  
sorry i feel i start recycling myself, my opinion i have already made clear

----------


## gRomoZeka

> gRomoZeka please respond to this lowly request of mine       Originally Posted by LXNDR   now ARE YOU treated as a second grade citizen because you speak Russian? please describe the incidents illustrating that statement

 I believe I'm treated as a second grade citizen every time I have no choice about what language to use, filling forms (almost all of them are Ukrainian only) or going to movies (no choice whatsoever, to watch a movie dubbed to Russian I have to go to Russia, it's nonsense, considering at least 15 millions of native Russian speakers in Ukraine). When Russian-speaking schools are turned into Ukrainian forcefully in purely Russian-speaking regions against wishes of teachers, parents and kids - usually without any way to oppose this decision since Russian officially has no more rights in situations like this than any other foreign language (and it concerns me personally because it affects my family, particularly two different schools attended by my niece and cousin). 
When a person I talked to two days ago says something like: "I hope Russians will leave Crimea soon, and real Ukrainians will move in", implying that people who leave there are not "real" to this state or have no right to be there despite the fact that they have been living there for generations and real Ukrainians did not. It was just a personal point of view, but the real problem is that this ridiculous differentiation is widespread and is made purely on language basis, since "haters" have a wonderful and unbeatable argument: "We live in Ukraine, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, ergo Russian-speaking citizens have no right to complain, they are essentially outlaws". 
I'm for bilingualism with both languages equally respected and supported by the state, with people always having a choice between two languages anywhere, in any setting. Right now the state looks another way in regards to Russian (i.e. "allows" people to use it when it can't be avoided or forbidden or controlled anyway), and insists it does us a great favor by doing so. I don't need this kind of unreliable favors, I want this right being supported officially and irrefutably by law. Though I doubt it ever happens.

----------


## LXNDR

> I believe I'm treated as a second grade citizen every time I have no choice about what language to use, filling forms (almost all of them are Ukrainian only) or going to movies (no choice whatsoever, to watch a movie dubbed to Russian I have to go to Russia, it's nonsense, considering at least 15 millions of native Russian speakers in Ukraine).

 don't you know Ukrainian? if so why? 
why do i not feel this way? my mother tongue is Russian    

> When Russian-speaking schools are turned into Ukrainian forcefully in purely Russian-speaking regions against wishes of teachers, parents and kids - usually without any way to oppose this decision since Russian officially has no more rights in situations like this than any other foreign language (and it concerns me personally because it affects my family, particularly two different schools attended by my niece and cousin).

 did you read the Constitution? did you vote for it?

----------


## Crocodile

> Though I doubt it ever happens.

 Now you got me intrigued. Why not?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> don't you know Ukrainian? if so why?

 I'm essentially fluent in Ukrainian, but it's not my native language and never will be. At the same time I'm a citizen of Ukraine for as long as it exists, and I feel that I should have a right to use the language that is "native" to me and _to this part of the country_ freely and officially. Especially since it's just legislation of something that already exists, and will require minimum effort from the state.  

> why do i not feel this way? my mother tongue is Russian

 How could I know? Some people are ambivalent about this, and others are quite passionate (pro or contra). It depends on you personal views, your heritage, your family traditions and place of your residence.
You might feel ok with the current situation, but I'm bothered by it, and have been for a long time.  

> did you read the Constitution? did you vote for it?

 Nope. It was adopted and ratified by the Parliament in 1996 (with only 15 votes over minimum required). There was no referendum, afaik. How was I supposed to vote for it? =/

----------


## Hanna

> When Russian-speaking schools are turned into Ukrainian forcefully in  purely Russian-speaking regions against wishes of teachers, parents and  kids - usually without any way to oppose this decision since Russian  officially has no more rights in situations like this than any other  foreign language (and it concerns me personally because it affects my  family, particularly two different schools attended by my niece and  cousin).

 If you lived in the European Union and this happened, you could complain all the way to the European Court in Brussels. Media would be writing stories about it, everybody would be on the side of your family. This kind of thing is absolutely unthinkable in Western Europe at least. A minority population could never be discriminated against in this way. Imagine if they did that in a school in the Catalunya, in Wales, in the Swedish speaking parts of Finland..... It would simply never happen.  
I know they do it in the Baltic states, but it is a matter of time before public opinion catches on to it and they have to quit it. The situation with Russians in the Baltics is covered quite a bit in the Scandinavian press and nobody defends the behaviour of the Balts. I know the "big" world does not care what Scandinavia thinks, but as soon as it gets picked up in the German press (which is feasible) or a Baltic Russian sues the state in Brussels, they will get forced to change... 
I don't know what would make things change in Ukraine, but I thought Yanukovich was supposedly more oriented towards Russia - doesn't this have a bearing on the language question too?    

> Originally Posted by *Hanna*   
>  But the Balts are practically being fascist about it - that is what I oppose.   they restore historical justice, they have every right to since they have been violated

 You can't be serious about this! This is very primitive justice! 
All countries in Europe have done terrible things to their neighbours at one time or another. If this sort of "an-eye-for-an-eye" retribution onto the next generation_ (sounds like something from the Old Testament..)_ was acceptable, then we might as well nuke each other right away, or start a civil war across the continent!  *
Recent history has shown that forgiving, forgetting and working together with your neighbouring countries is the way to retain peace and prosper*.  
Gosh, even in South Africa they can manage to leave the past behind for goodness sake! 
It seems to me that people here are blackpainting Russians and the USSR far more than what can be justified, and that you are saying there is some kind of "special dispensation" to discriminate against Russians and the Russian language because of these highly debatable accusations against the USSR, from many, many decades ago.  
Most people who have any memory of the Stalin era when all this *might* have taken place, depending on your viewpoint... are very old or dead! This attitude to me is really creepy - it makes me draw parallels with historical events.    

> On Russians in the Baltics:
> They not only cannot participate in elections, but also cannot occupy  various positions such as lawers, firefighters or pharmacists.  
> It should be noted that the only way to get the citizenship for them is  to pass the exams which not only include the language test, but also  require them to explain the official interpretation of history, that is  to call their parents "occupiers" and to count the Latvian Waffen SS as  heroes. Not all people are ready to do so.

 All this sounds practically like fascism to me. It sounds really primitive. Brussels needs to look at this and punish Estonia and Latvia if they don't quit this. It's outrageous. Citizenship should have nothing to do with what opinions you hold about certain historical events, or whether you speak the minority or majority languge. And at 40% the Russians are hardly a small minority in Latvia. Without them, the country would no doubt stop functioning.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Now you got me intrigued. Why not?

  Maybe "ever" was too strong of a word, but I have my doubts. )
Ukrainian politics is extremely divided, corrupted and slow-working. Even reforms that are potentially supported by 90% of population could be awaited for decades. Referendum results are easily ignored (that's already happened in 2000).  
So amendments on such a controversial issue as the second official language will require a lot of work and a certain stubbornness, and I don't see anyone in our government willing to put an effort. The Party of Regions (which is relatively pro-Russian) promised something like it, but their position is precarious, and I doubt they'll take the risk. And those who'll come after them might well be from another political "camp". And so it goes...
  All in all, it is something our politicians would like to postpone for as long as possible, if it suits their interests.

----------


## Crocodile

> I thought Yanukovich was supposedly more oriented towards Russia - doesn't this have a bearing on the language question too?

 Well, I can see where *LXNR* is coming from on that matter. AFAIR, Yanukovich addressed Crimean audience in Russian before him being elected the President several years ago. The language issue is still there. Implying, Yanukovich cares about the people and the state as little as the previous President. So, every time he wants to appeal to the Russian-speaking part of the country, he would employ the 'language issue', but otherwise he's just as ignorant. Based on that, *LXNR* thinks the 'language issue' is not real. Something like that.

----------


## LXNDR

> I'm essentially fluent in Ukrainian, but it's not my native language and never will be. At the same time I'm a citizen of Ukraine for as long as it exists, and I feel that I should have a right to use the language that is "native" to me and _to this part of the country_ freely and officially. Especially since it's just legislation of something that already exists, and will require minimum effort from the state.

 excuse me, but if this is your reasoning i think your desire of having filling forms and subtitles in Russian is just a whim 
i don't care whether they're in English, because i can understand it, let alone Ukrainian   

> How could I know? Some people are ambivalent about this, and others are quite passionate (pro or contra). It depends on you personal views, your heritage, your family traditions and place of your residence.
> You might feel ok with the current situation, but I'm bothered by it, and have been for a long time.

 believe me if i felt discriminated against i would be vocal about it, but i'm not vocal because there's nothing to be vocal about as far as language is concerned   

> Nope. It was adopted and ratified by the Parliament in 1996 (with only 15 votes over minimum required). There was no referendum, afaik. How was I supposed to vote for it? =/

 you're right i retract my question, and i'm really surprised it wasn't ratified on a referendum, i consider it amiss

----------


## Anixx

> If you lived in the European Union and this happened, you could complain all the way to the European Court in Brussels. Media would be writing stories about it, everybody would be on the side of your family. This kind of thing is absolutely unthinkable in Western Europe at least.

 To appeal to the European court of human rights in Brussels there is no need for a country to be member of EU. Even Russian citizens can do so. I am quite sure that there were already numerous appeals to that court about language situation in the Baltics and Ukraine. All these appeals possibly were turned down or not accepted for consideration. Anyway what one can expect from a court that endorsed the Estonian sentence for a 80-years old partisan Vasiliy Kononov for participation in anti-Nazi fight? He was found guilty for killing pro-Nazi Schutzmannschaft members (local Nazi sympathizers who were given weapons by German authorities) during WWII.

----------


## Anixx

> All this sounds practically like fascism to me. It sounds really primitive. Brussels needs to look at this and punish Estonia and Latvia if they don't quit this. It's outrageous. Citizenship should have nothing to do with what opinions you hold about certain historical events, or whether you speak the minority or majority languge. And at 40% the Russians are hardly a small minority in Latvia. Without them, the country would no doubt stop functioning.

 It should be noted that even getting the citizenship does not always give you all rights. For example, to get elected to the parliament, at least until 2002 in Latvia a person had to know the language at the highest, 3rd grade, i.e. native level. One striking story happened with ethnic Russian candidate Podkolzina: despite she had a valid language certificate about knowledge of the language at 3rd grade, a language inspector visited her at work and examined her at the workplace. After that he concluded that she does not satisfy the 3rd level and she was banned from the elections.

----------


## Hanna

I am just curious  - how do you Ukrainians know what language to use in different social situations?
With a stranger at the bus stop... in the market.... at university.. in a shop or department store...? 
Do you always speak the same language with some people, or do you vary even with your friends?
What happens if a particular friend is better at one of the languages while the other prefers the other language?

----------


## it-ogo

> I am just curious  - how do you Ukrainians know what language to use in different social situations?
> With a stranger at the bus stop... in the market.... at university.. in a shop or department store...? 
> Do you always speak the same language with some people, or do you vary even with your friends?
> What happens if a particular friend is better at one of the languages while the other prefers the other language?

  Language usage depends on the region of Ukraine. In the region, where I live, Ukrainian is used only in some official papers and some of the most official ceremonies. In Kiev AFAIK situation when each one speaks language of his choice is quite normal even for the conversation of strangers. Usually there are no problems in understanding each other. Often it leads to mixing languages and words.

----------


## Crocodile

> excuse me, but if this is your reasoning i think your desire of having filling forms and subtitles in Russian is just a whim

 I think to turn a blind eye on what gRomoZeka is saying is not that wise. If tomorrow she or her children would vote for a separatist party or join some secessionist movements, don't start blaming Russia for its aggressive foreign politics. Blame the ignorance.  ::

----------


## xdns

The "5th Channel" launched an advertising campaign against official recognition of Russian language in Ukraine:  Я хочу розмовляти українською мовою! - YouTube Єдина державна мова - українська! - YouTube Скажи "НІ" казнокрадам і українофобам! - YouTube Я не хочу жити в резервації! - YouTube

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I am just curious  - how do you Ukrainians know what language to use in different social situations?
> With a stranger at the bus stop... in the market.... at university.. in a shop or department store...?

  Regardless of where an informal conversation with a stranger happens (between locals) the language is generally depends on the language used in this region, and most regions are pretty homogeneous in this regard (with slight deviation between cities and country areas). In other words there's no social rule that in a department shop you should speak one language, and at a beauty salon another - it's usually one language all the way.  
In areas where both languages are widespread (like Kiev) strangers on the street can swap to one language or the other, but quite often they speak both - i.e. each one uses his/her own language of preference. It does not cause any difficulties in understanding, since an absolute majority of Ukrainians are bilingual (at least at comprehension level). 
In official or semi-official situations, especially if the target audience is all-Ukrainian (political speeches or announcements, for example), Ukrainian is used almost exclusively, since it's required by law. It's also required of most state office clerks, who communicate with public. But if the said event is local (in a Russian speaking region) most people use Russian since there's no one to tell them otherwise.  

> Do you always speak the same language with some people, or do you vary even with your friends?
> What happens if a particular friend is better at one of the languages while the other prefers the other language?

 It's an interesting question, I think it's possible to talk with different groups of friends in different languages, but said friends should probably have drastically different backgrounds...
 Personally I do not have anyone to speak to in Ukrainian here. I grew up in a very homogeneous region (I was 11 when I've fleetingly seen a genuine Ukrainian-speaking person for the first time in real life (not on TV)). later I moved to another region, but it's also mostly Russian speaking, or rather cities are almost exclusively Russian-speaking and villagers and people from small towns speak "surgik" (a mix of both languages). 
 But I had a friend at Uni, who spoke Russian (as everyone else), and only after her Dad visited, I realized that they spoke "surgik" only at home, because she switched between two seamlessly. It was cool (even if "surgik" is often considered a "hillbilly" dialect).  ::  In other words, most people adapt to general language setting, if they move somewhere with different language preferences, so there's no Babel confusion.
﻿

----------


## Hanna

Interesting responses to the question about which language you speak. 
Based on what you are saying, it seems like there is a not-insignificant risk that parts of Ukraine become separatist and apply for membership in the Russian Federation.... Or simply that the Russian speaking part becomes its own country, like Pridnestrovie (which I visited!!) Pridnestrovie is small enough that it can be ignored. But if something like that were to happen in the Ukraine it would be a totally different story.    Can I ask - why are these Russian speaking areas part of the Ukraine in the first place? Is there some "USSR related" reason......?Otherwise, since Russia is right next to the Ukraine, why aren't these regions simply part of Russia?Is there an "ethnic" difference between Ukrainians and Russians, or is it simply a cultural/linguistic thing...Are the Russian speaking Ukrainians "real" Ukrainians?  *
Would anyone prefer the option of being part of Russia, or do you think it's preferable to solve the problem in a Ukrainian context..?  
Does this question alienate you as citizens of the Ukraine or do you feel loyal to the Ukraine regardless? *

----------


## Crocodile

> since Russia is right next to the Ukraine, why aren't these regions simply part of Russia?

 LOL. When you say something like that, the etiquette requires you to add: "Всем чмоки."  ::   http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A7%D0%BC%D0%B...B0%D1%82%D0%B5

----------


## xdns

Let the epic battle begin!  ::  
Not PC map of Ukraine from the link above:

----------


## Marcus

> why are these Russian speaking areas part of the Ukraine in the first place? Is there some "USSR related" reason......?

 That was a decision of the Soviet leaders, mainly Stalin and Khrushchev.  

> Is there an "ethnic" difference between Ukrainians and Russians, or is it simply a cultural/linguistic thing...

 No, only selfdetermination, which is promoted by the state. Many "Russians" have become "Ukrainians" since the independence.

----------


## Hanna

> Not PC map of Ukraine from the link above:

 Haha, I get the idea... Interesting, I knew none of that...  
Some of the things that Gromozeka and it-ogo said, reminded me of the situation in Belgium. 
I spent some time there for work, when there was a big crisis there, due to the language issue. 
They could not even form a government. I was in Brussels, which is a "mixed" city, half the population is Dutch speaking and the other half is French speaking. Most of the Dutch speakers can speak French but don't necessarily want to. Some of the French speakers never learn Dutch very well, and the same is true for their English skills.   
People are very talented in knowing which language to speak with whom. I was walking around town with a Belgian collegue and sometimes he started talking French with people, sometimes Dutch. He said "I can usually guess". Things were very complicated in the office too - who speaks what language, and when....  
They don't HATE eachother but the main complaint is that the French speakers don't bother learning Dutch (and occassionally the other way around). They simply get on with life and most have mainly friends from one lanuage groups, but also a few friends from the other group. Some Dutch parents put their children in French speaking schools and vice versa just to make sure the child is bilingual. They also have schools that use both languages for instruction. 
The reason Belgium is a separate country is because the Belgians usually are Catholic whereas the Netherlands and the part of France bordering Belgium are protestant. But nowadays people care more about language than religion....

----------


## xdns

The Belgium situation is different because French and Dutch belong to different language families, whereas Russian and Ukrainian are closely related.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> The Belgium situation is different because French and Dutch belong to different language families, whereas Russian and Ukrainian are closely related.

 Mmm.. I found the situation described by Hanna to be _really_ similar to what is going on in Ukraine. Except that in Ukraine there is (probably!) a little more animosity between two groups (or more radical representatives of two groups) due to the fact that it's not only language issue, but the whole baggage of historical and continuing political controversies.  
Even the fact that Belgium is called "Belgium" (and not Francland or Dutchmania) makes at an equal field while in Ukraine the name of the state is often used as an argument in language discussions.

----------


## Hanna

> But I had a friend at Uni, who spoke Russian (as everyone else), and only after her Dad visited, I realized that they spoke "surgik" only at home, because she switched between two seamlessly. It was cool (even if "surgik" is often considered a "hillbilly" dialect).  In other words, most people adapt to general language setting, if they move somewhere with different language preferences, so there's no Babel confusion.﻿

 Interesting that she was able to switch between Surgik and Russian. If you take people in the UK who speak in an accent, they cannot just switch it off and speak Queen's English - only if they had training in speaking "accentless".  I knew a few "posh" people from Southern Sweden who speak in the (terrible!!) accent from there with their local friends and standard Swedish with others. But normal local people there cannot do it, they are stuck with their accent..... 
In Belarus, as I mentioned, I noticed that some people were speaking in accent. They pronounced the leter "г" as "h", for example. It's kind of funny that Belarus has never been a separate country before, yet it does not have the same problems with language that Ukraine has. Belarus instead, has lots of national campaigns going on, to make people feel "Belarussian" even if they originally are from somewhere else in the ex USSR or imperial Russia. They have some signs and official paperwork in Belarussian, but I did not hear ANYONE actually speak Belarussian, and I kept asking people about it. They all said "Oh, I wish I knew it, but I don't know it very well..." and things like that.  
This is an example of from the Belarus pro-nationalism campaign:

----------


## zedeeyen

> Interesting that she was able to switch between Surgik and Russian. If you take people in the UK who speak in an accent, they cannot just switch it off and speak Queen's English - only if they had training in speaking "accentless".

 Why would they want to? The stigma associated with regional accents hasn't really existed for many, many decades, and learning RP went out of fashion shorty after the war and sounds totally absurd to any modern ears (at least ears not belonging to a person named Windsor). It's not that Brits are incapable of speaking "neutral" English, rather it's become generally accepted that there is no such thing as "neutral English" in the first place - no one geographical area or social caste has any more right to claim ownership over the language than any other. 
That's not to say that we don't modulate our accents depending on the context, of course we do, but knocking the edge of an accent for the sake of communication isn't the same as trying to hide it.  
I grew up speaking Scots at home, then when I started school I was punished, occasionally even beaten, for using anything other than standard English because back then Scots was considered by the British establishment to be a degenerate, vulgar form of regional English rather than a language in its own right as is the case today. Imagine, being beaten for using the language of Robert Burns in a school not 50 miles from where he lived and wrote! So you can be damn sure I and my fellow students learned to code-switch automatically at a pretty young age, speaking Scots amongst ourselves and at home and speaking Scottish Standard English while in school or whenever we found ourselves outwith our local area. 
And I still do so today. I've been away from my local area for twenty years and away from Scotland for ten so the edges have certainly been knocked off my accent, but sit me down in my old local with a group of my old friends and within a few minutes I'll be unintelligible to anyone born more than 5 miles away.

----------


## Hanna

I hope you did not misunderstand me! Perhaps my post came out wrong - I simplified and did not consider how it would sound to a British person. From a Russian perspective, according to themselves, they don't even have accents, and the expression RP is not known outside of Britain, I think. I should have said BBC English though.  
I am not proposing that you should speak RP and I don't like the accent snobbery in the UK. Because of this, I retain a slight foreign accent, just to avoid people putting a label on me. My point was, some people in the UK _want_ to change their accent but cannot. It's harder than you might think. A person that was very close to me wanted to speak _less_ RP and more London or Derbyshire. But he simply wasn't able to. His accent was too posh and trying to speak local just made him sound ludicrous. An Indian friend of mine wanted to reduce his Indian accent, and actually took lessons for it! He was a completely fluent English speaker, but he felt that people had a stereotypical view of him because of his accent. Very ambitious person...... 
 I like Scots but in its most extreme forms I can't understand it, that's all. I prefer it if the BBC sticks to "standard Scottish", Welsh or neutral English because a strong accent is distracting when watching the news. So shoot me....  
If you speak Scots, did you see the thread where somebody was asking about Robert Burns?  Translate to modern English   

> The "5th Channel" launched an advertising campaign  against official recognition of Russian language in Ukraine:  Я хочу розмовляти українською мовою! - YouTube Єдина державна мова - українська! - YouTube Скажи "НІ" казнокрадам і українофобам! - YouTube Я не хочу жити в резервації! - YouTube

 Oh dear....! And like someone said, this is not like Dutch and French, they are similar languages. Not that I can understand Ukrainian though! But since it-ogo said, people could practically speak one and respond in the other (that's exactly what we do in Scandinavia and it works fine). What's the point of forcing people to use a different language than they are used to, when it is a local language?  
I imagine if somebody came to me and said that I have to fill in all papers in Danish and get Danish TV etc, etc. and Swedish would be pushed to the side. I would find that extremely irritating and insulting. I like Danish/Norwegian precisely because they are never forced on me. If they were, like one time at university, when some Danish books were mandatory reading, I'd hate it. 
Likewise the dominance of English in business. It is one thing for a French or German person if the CHOOSE to speak English. It is quite another to more or less be bullied or forced to. I am glad I speak English, but I am sometimes very ambivalent of the backside of it....

----------


## zedeeyen

> I hope you did not misunderstand me! Perhaps my post came out wrong - I simplified and did not consider how it would sound to a British person. From a Russian perspective, according to themselves, they don't even have accents, and the expression RP is not known outside of Britain, I think. I should have said BBC English though.  
> I am not proposing that you should speak RP and I don't like the accent snobbery in the UK. Because of this, I retain a slight foreign accent, just to avoid people putting a label on me. My point was, some people in the UK _want_ to change their accent but cannot. It's harder than you might think. A person that was very close to me wanted to speak _less_ RP and more London or Derbyshire. But he simply wasn't able to. His accent was too posh and trying to speak local just made him sound ludicrous. An Indian friend of mine wanted to reduce his Indian accent, and actually took lessons for it! He was a completely fluent English speaker, but he felt that people had a stereotypical view of him because of his accent. Very ambitious person......

 I don't accept your premise. Sorry  ::   
For one thing, losing one's accent was the done thing for the aspiring middle classes for many many years and many millions of Brits did so successfully while it was the fashionable thing to do, and there are still a good number who do so now in spite of it being generally considered pretentious rather than admirable.  We haven't magically lost the ability, only the motivation. Of course there will be examples of people who want to lose their accent and simply can't, but you can't generalise from those specific cases. 
Secondly, I don't accept that there is accent snobbery as such any more. Accent snobbery was looking down at people who spoke with regional accents because having such an accent  was considered a sign of being working class and uneducated. What we have now is accent _rivalry_, or accent xenophobia, where people become targets because their accent is out of place or different, not because it's "common". 
And thirdly, you need to be sure you're talking about accent and not dialect. You mention "BBC English", but if you watch the BBC nowadays you will hear lots of different accents, some of them quite strong. What you won't [often] hear is regional (non-standard) grammar or vocabulary.   

> If you speak Scots, did you see the thread where somebody was asking about Robert Burns?  Translate to modern English

 Hadn't seen it, but have now!

----------


## Hanna

This is not something worth quibbling about - we don't disagree about the principle, just on what it means and how some people view it. It's not an objective matter.

----------


## Hanna

The BBC wrote the following about the language situation in Ukraine today.   

> A contentious bill to  boost the status of the Russian language in Ukraine has passed its first  hurdle in parliament, in the teeth of strong opposition. MPs from the ruling Party of the Regions passed the bill in its first reading, with 234 votes in the 450-seat lower house. 
>          Fighting erupted in the chamber when the bill was proposed last month.
>          The bill grants Russian, mother tongue of most people in east and south Ukraine, "regional language" status. 
>          It will become law if approved at a second reading later this  year and signed off by President Viktor Yanukovych, who is seen by his  critics as being close to Moscow. 
>          While Ukrainian would remain the country's official language,  Russian could be used in courts, hospitals and other institutions in  Russian-speaking regions.    
>          Opponents of the bill, notably the Fatherland bloc of jailed  former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, argue the bill would undermine  the status of Ukrainian, the language which predominates in the centre  and west.
>    'Invaders and Russifiers'               Party of the Regions MPs surrounded the speaker's tribune in parliament   
>        On Tuesday, Yanukovych MPs formed a cordon around parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn to allow him to put the bill to a vote.  
>          Noisy, rival demonstrations for and against the bill were held outside the parliament in the capital, Kiev.
> ...

 See highlighted text just above. CIA Factbook, hmmm....  
Is 24% the correct figure?  I

----------


## Crocodile

> The BBC wrote the following about the language situation in Ukraine today.
> See highlighted text just above. CIA Factbook, hmmm....  
> Is 24% the correct figure?  I

 When have you started trusting the CIA?!! And, especially, their 'facts'?!! And also the BBC!! When have you started to trust those enemies of the people?! It's all a lie. There's no language problem in Ukraine. People there are free to speak lots of languages at any time they want and it's not up to the BBC and the CIA to ignite the perfectly peaceful situation that is not bothering any person in Ukraine. All the protesters are paid by the CIA and the BBC is just happy to report on the havoc they themselves imagined. Those lazy people who posed as the 'protesters' do neither work nor study, but were just paid enough to show up for two minutes, make a picture, and go home.  ::   ::   ::

----------


## Hanna

Ok, clever point Croc............. ::  
I can understand both sides in the conflict, but I find it hard to sympathize with denying old people the right to read a prescription in a language that they have always used, in a country where they have always lived... Or the right of somebody on trial to be tried in his own language, in his native country...  
I think they are right to protect the status of Ukrainian, but it should not be at the expense of near human-rights violations like the ones that I mentioned, that are also mentioned in the BBC article.  
Here is an American site which is trying to present the facts, sans agenda as far as I can tell. Interesting reading.  Ukraine Languages: Dealing with Ukraine's Bilingual Society

----------


## Crocodile

> I can understand both sides in the conflict, but I find it hard to  sympathize with denying old people the right to read a prescription in a  language that they have always used, in a country where they have  always lived...

 There's no conflict. The conflict is made up by the CIA to ignite the situation and establish new NATO bases on the historic European soil. The old people have no trouble reading their medical prescription in Ukrainian. It's just one of them - Lyudmila Nyronova, 69 - was paid a few dollars to say the opposite. And who can read the physicians' prescriptions anyways? Be them written in Satanic, that would make no difference to the ordinary people who make up the majority of the nation.    

> Ok, clever point Croc.............

 It's just the 'ad extra absurdum' is very popular in MR this summer...  ::

----------


## Marcus

> The BBC wrote the following about the language situation in Ukraine today.   
> See highlighted text just above. CIA Factbook, hmmm....  
> Is 24% the correct figure?  I

 No. The number is certainly underestimated.

----------


## it-ogo

> What's the point of forcing people to use a different language than they are used to, when it is a local language?

  The point is that in fact the positions of Russian language in Ukraine is much stronger than that of Ukrainian language. Russian is the de-facto uniform standard language to speak "outside one's village" while "inside village" they normally speak local dialects. Plus there are many 99%-95% Russian-speaking regions and cities. Pro-Ukrainian people argue that without forced support Ukrainian language will vanish in few generations.

----------


## Hanna

> The point is that in fact the positions of Russian language in Ukraine is much stronger than that of Ukrainian language. Russian is the de-facto uniform standard language to speak "outside one's village" while "inside village" they normally speak local dialects. Plus there are many 99%-95% Russian-speaking regions and cities. Pro-Ukrainian people argue that without forced support Ukrainian language will vanish in few generations.

 The sort of "patterns" of when you speak Ukrainian vs Russian are fascinating, I think. When did you, yourself speak Ukrainian last, for example? I remember you saying that you sometimes regret that you don't speak it often enough at home? I suppose there are certain  
Perhaps because I study Russian, I have been overly partial to Russian in this discussion. I don't know. And I am aware that it is not my business in any form or shape. With Latvia, I feel I have a right to a small say; after all they are in the EU and there are really strong ties with Scandinavia where I come from.  
I approve of these sorts of language-protective-measures when they are done in Wales or in Northern Scandinavia. In both these places it is essentially "too late" anyway, though. Mostly old people and rural people are really fluent in the local language. But this is the first time I have heard of "language protection measures" that are actually perceived as intrusive by speakers of the larger language. I suppose the situation in Ukraine is quite unique.  
But I foresee that we will have this situation with local language vs English, in about 50-100 years in places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia unless something change. The really sad things is that some of the biggest English proponents don't even speak English very well! They insist on using English even when there is no good reason, and then they write or speak it poorly, putting themselves at a disadvantage in comparison with native speakers.

----------

