Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Kathryn]

So, I guess I would wonder if they have some sort of equivalent to bilingual education in the Donbas. Do Ukrainian businesses offer the option of "press 2 for Russian" if a Russian speaker is calling them? Do they have voting ballots and other official documents in both Ukrainian and Russian? Did the Ukrainians ever make any linguistic accommodations for Crimean Tatars when they still had control of Crimea?

They do not from what I can tell. They have an official state language of Ukrainian (which we do not have by the way, though English is commonly spoken and understood here in the US).

 

[Stevicus]

The differences are much more distinct than that. Closer to the differences between the Romance languages.

Differences, yes, but are they mutually understandable? Many years ago, I worked in a call center which often needed people who could speak other languages. Sometimes, we were short-handed on some languages, so if someone needed a Romanian-speaker (and there were no Romanians available), an Italian speaker would get on the phone and be able to assist them. Or someone speaking Dutch could be assisted by a German speaker. It wasn't the same language (obviously), but the languages were "close enough" that they could still communicate.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, yes you are.

East Germany was never part of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union officially ceased to exist in December 1991. The Ukrainian vote for independence took place, as I said, almost immediately afterwards. Same month, same year.

Actually, no, I am not confusing the two events. But keep on saying that if it makes you feel better. Estonia first pushed for independence from the Soviet Union in 1988 by the way.

East Germany was occupied by Soviet forces after WWII till the fall of the Berlin Wall and afterward even. TRUE STORY TIME: One time after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I drove into what had been eastern Germany to see Ravensbruck concentration camp, among other things. I couldn't figure out where it was because all the signs were in Russian, so I stopped and asked someone (this was before GPS was common) who told me to go up a particular road and turn left, so I did so. I honestly thought "Wow, this place hasn't been touched since WW2!" BUT IT WASN'T RAVENSBRUCK. Ravensbruck was further down that road/ It was a former Soviet camp, with Soviets still living there! I remember also thinking "This is who we were afraid of? This is who we were guarding the Fulda Gap against?"

 

[Tomef]

Differences, yes, but are they mutually understandable? Many years ago, I worked in a call center which often needed people who could speak other languages. Sometimes, we were short-handed on some languages, so if someone needed a Romanian-speaker (and there were no Romanians available), an Italian speaker would get on the phone and be able to assist them. Or someone speaking Dutch could be assisted by a German speaker. It wasn't the same language (obviously), but the languages were "close enough" that they could still communicate.

Sure to a degree, but those degrees are only useful to a certain point. They don’t allow for free and open communication.

 

[Tomef]

Actually, no, I am not confusing the two events. But keep on saying that if it makes you feel better. Estonia first pushed for independence from the Soviet Union in 1988 by the way.

East Germany was occupied by Soviet forces after WWII till the fall of the Berlin Wall and afterward even. TRUE STORY TIME: One time after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I drove into what had been eastern Germany to see Ravensbruck concentration camp, among other things. I couldn't figure out where it was because all the signs were in Russian, so I stopped and asked someone (this was before GPS was common) who told me to go up a particular road and turn left, so I did so. I honestly thought "Wow, this place hasn't been touched since WW2!" BUT IT WASN'T RAVENSBRUCK. Ravensbruck was further down that road/ It was a former Soviet camp, with Soviets still living there! I remember also thinking "This is who we were afraid of? This is who we were guarding the Fulda Gap against?"

I’m not getting what your point is. As I said in the post you originally responded to, the vote for Ukrainian independence occurred immediately after the collapse of the USSR. That is what happened. So what is your point?

 

[Stevicus]

It's a completely different situation. Hispanics are migrants, they deliberately move to the US, an English-speaking country.

In a way, it's somewhat comparable, since the state I live in used to belong to a Spanish-speaking country. (Before that, it used to belong to people speaking Apache, Tohono O'odham, and Navajo, among other languages.)

Donbas people are Russian people who have spoken Russian since the times of Catherine the Great and ended up within the territory of Ukraine, when Ukraine was created by Stalin.
There was no problem until 1991 because the official language of the USSR was Russian.

That's also been a contentious issue for them, as during the Tsarist period, there was a concerted effort towards Russification of the non-Russian nationalities. When the Bolsheviks took power, they initially opposed Russification and wanted to encourage multinationalism and allowed Republics to adopt and use their own language (with Russian being the overriding lingua franca of the USSR). When I was in Soviet Georgia in the 1980s, I saw bilingual signs in both Russian and Georgian (which uses a completely different alphabet).

But in this era they passed a law that imposes Ukrainian on Russian-speaking people.
That is how they became separatists.

I provided the example of South Tyrol where most people speak German, as you can see in the map.
It's a German-speaking province in Italy. Where people don't have to learn Italian, because German is the official language.
So German-speaking people can speak German anywhere: at school, in the university, in the Town Hall, etc...
they need no Italian-learning at all. Anywhere

If someday the Italian Government forbade South-Tyroleans from speaking German, it's normal that separatists would rise up and protest en masse.
And it's natural that Austria and Germany (but Austria in particular) would support them.
If the Italian soldiers massacred the separatists, it's normal that Austria would invade Italy to rescue them.

It seems that South Tyrol was used as a bargaining chip to encourage the Italians to join the war on the side of the Allies in WW1. Apparently, Hitler and Mussolini reached an understanding that would have allowed for Germans to return to Germany if they so desired. (South Tyrol - Wikipedia)

After WW2, the Allies were in a position where they could have redrawn the borders and put South Tyrol back in Austrian hands, but they chose not to do that.

Yes, they are very similar, with some differences about pronunciation, alphabet and vocabulary.
Yet Russians are very proud of their own language and don't want to learn a language in a Donbas that has always been Russophone since the times of Catherine the Great.

When Donbas was part of the Ukrainian state, they had to learn Ukrainian. They could use Russian as second language of course, but the first language was Ukrainian.

Whether mandated to do so or not, it does make sense for someone living in a country to speak the predominant language of that country. They were living in Ukraine, so learning Ukrainian seems a sensible thing to do. Just like a German living in South Tyrol; they may not be forced to learn Italian, but it seems like it would be a good idea just the same.

I get a strong sense that people in the non-Russian former Soviet Republics have a longstanding grudge and resentment against Russians in general. They see Russia as a former oppressor and themselves as victims of Russian oppression. It could be analogous to how Latin Americans see Anglo Americans as "Yankee Imperialists." While it's perfectly understandable that they would be resentful over past oppression, I can also understand how it must be for those who are innocent, yet attacked or hated merely because they share the ethnicity or race of a former oppressor.

I think I've told this story before, about how some Americans traveling in the USSR were in Lithuania, and asked for directions (in Russian) of a passer by, a Lithuanian who gave them the cold shoulder because he thought they were Russians. As he was walking away, he could hear them speaking English, so he came back to them and was quite friendly and accommodating. The guy clearly didn't like Russians, and I have no doubt that such scenes have occurred throughout the former Soviet Union by people who simply didn't like Russians.

The irony of that is that even the Russians didn't seem to identify with "Soviet" all that much in practice. Stalin was actually Georgian, not Russian, which makes their grudge against "Russians" all the more curious and inexplicable. I don't see that they would be analogous to say, the British in India or the French in Algeria or Jim Crow in the Southern U.S. It wasn't like that, since all races and nationalities were considered equal under the Soviet Constitution. I realize it didn't always operate that way in practice, but still, officially, they saw Communism as truly internationalist and open to oppressed peoples of all races and nationalities.

 

[Kathryn]

I’m not getting what your point is. As I said in the post you originally responded to, the vote for Ukrainian independence occurred immediately after the collapse of the USSR. That is what happened. So what is your point?

I'm educating folks. That's my point.

 

[Tomef]

In a way, it's somewhat comparable, since the state I live in used to belong to a Spanish-speaking country. (Before that, it used to belong to people speaking Apache, Tohono O'odham, and Navajo, among other languages.)



That's also been a contentious issue for them, as during the Tsarist period, there was a concerted effort towards Russification of the non-Russian nationalities. When the Bolsheviks took power, they initially opposed Russification and wanted to encourage multinationalism and allowed Republics to adopt and use their own language (with Russian being the overriding lingua franca of the USSR). When I was in Soviet Georgia in the 1980s, I saw bilingual signs in both Russian and Georgian (which uses a completely different alphabet).



It seems that South Tyrol was used as a bargaining chip to encourage the Italians to join the war on the side of the Allies in WW1. Apparently, Hitler and Mussolini reached an understanding that would have allowed for Germans to return to Germany if they so desired. (South Tyrol - Wikipedia)

After WW2, the Allies were in a position where they could have redrawn the borders and put South Tyrol back in Austrian hands, but they chose not to do that.




Whether mandated to do so or not, it does make sense for someone living in a country to speak the predominant language of that country. They were living in Ukraine, so learning Ukrainian seems a sensible thing to do. Just like a German living in South Tyrol; they may not be forced to learn Italian, but it seems like it would be a good idea just the same.

I get a strong sense that people in the non-Russian former Soviet Republics have a longstanding grudge and resentment against Russians in general. They see Russia as a former oppressor and themselves as victims of Russian oppression. It could be analogous to how Latin Americans see Anglo Americans as "Yankee Imperialists." While it's perfectly understandable that they would be resentful over past oppression, I can also understand how it must be for those who are innocent, yet attacked or hated merely because they share the ethnicity or race of a former oppressor.

I think I've told this story before, about how some Americans traveling in the USSR were in Lithuania, and asked for directions (in Russian) of a passer by, a Lithuanian who gave them the cold shoulder because he thought they were Russians. As he was walking away, he could hear them speaking English, so he came back to them and was quite friendly and accommodating. The guy clearly didn't like Russians, and I have no doubt that such scenes have occurred throughout the former Soviet Union by people who simply didn't like Russians.

The irony of that is that even the Russians didn't seem to identify with "Soviet" all that much in practice. Stalin was actually Georgian, not Russian, which makes their grudge against "Russians" all the more curious and inexplicable. I don't see that they would be analogous to say, the British in India or the French in Algeria or Jim Crow in the Southern U.S. It wasn't like that, since all races and nationalities were considered equal under the Soviet Constitution. I realize it didn't always operate that way in practice, but still, officially, they saw Communism as truly internationalist and open to oppressed peoples of all races and nationalities.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Russian state killed literally millions of Ukrainians during the Soviet period, has incessantly meddled in Ukraine’s domestic politics, and neither should the routine use of rape, torture, murder and looting during the more recent conflict be ignored. A more realistic parallel than South Tyrol would be an attempt to establish a German-speaking enclave within Israel within a few decades of the holocaust.

 

[Stevicus]

I’m not getting what your point is. As I said in the post you originally responded to, the vote for Ukrainian independence occurred immediately after the collapse of the USSR. That is what happened. So what is your point?

On paper, all of the Soviet Republics technically had the right to secede from the Soviet Union and form their own independent state. In fact, it was because it was legally allowed that they were able to break up rather quickly, since the legal framework was already in place. They technically could have done it at any time, but perhaps it was believed that the USSR would renege on that constitutional provision and not allow them to leave. But with Gorbachev allowing greater openness and tolerance, the window had been opened for change.

Strictly speaking, it seemed the sensible thing to do. In the USSR and in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, it seemed clear that the people overall were just getting tired of all the BS and nonsense they were having to contend with - the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall. It wasn't 1945 anymore. The USSR had a new leader and was going in a new direction.

What really killed it for the Russians, though, was that abortive coup in 1991, when the hardliners tried one last gasp to get Gorbachev out and put in someone who would bring back the Soviet Union of old. It lasted for a week before it collapsed, and then events pretty much accelerated at that point. They had high hopes for Yeltsin, but he turned out to be a drunken disaster. It seems that things were done quite hastily, and we're now seeing the consequences of the hasty, ill-conceived decisions of the 1990s.

 

[Estro Felino]

Whether mandated to do so or not, it does make sense for someone living in a country to speak the predominant language of that country. They were living in Ukraine, so learning Ukrainian seems a sensible thing to do. Just like a German living in South Tyrol; they may not be forced to learn Italian, but it seems like it would be a good idea just the same.

Look...if Italians forced South-Tyroleans to speak German, on the following day, Austria would break all diplomatic ties with them.
Because in the Italy-Austria agreement it is written that the Germans of South Tyrol shall not be forced to learn Italian.
They will speak their languages. In fact in South Tyrol, there is the German school, the German university.
There are countless South-Tyroleans who can't speak Italian.

 

[Tomef]

On paper, all of the Soviet Republics technically had the right to secede from the Soviet Union and form their own independent state. In fact, it was because it was legally allowed that they were able to break up rather quickly, since the legal framework was already in place. They technically could have done it at any time, but perhaps it was believed that the USSR would renege on that constitutional provision and not allow them to leave. But with Gorbachev allowing greater openness and tolerance, the window had been opened for change.

Strictly speaking, it seemed the sensible thing to do. In the USSR and in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, it seemed clear that the people overall were just getting tired of all the BS and nonsense they were having to contend with - the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall. It wasn't 1945 anymore. The USSR had a new leader and was going in a new direction.

What really killed it for the Russians, though, was that abortive coup in 1991, when the hardliners tried one last gasp to get Gorbachev out and put in someone who would bring back the Soviet Union of old. It lasted for a week before it collapsed, and then events pretty much accelerated at that point. They had high hopes for Yeltsin, but he turned out to be a drunken disaster. It seems that things were done quite hastily, and we're now seeing the consequences of the hasty, ill-conceived decisions of the 1990s.

It’s telling that even supposedly pro-Russian regions voted by a majority to leave, over 80% in all Oblasts other than Crimea, the one part of Ukraine forcibly resettled by Russia. Russia’s attempt to recreate the history of the Donbas region as supposedly separatist by choice has been surprising effective, though.

 

[Estro Felino]

It’s telling that even supposedly pro-Russian regions voted by a majority to leave, over 80% in all Oblasts other than Crimea, the one part of Ukraine forcibly resettled by Russia. Russia’s attempt to recreate the history of the region as supposedly separatist by choice has been surprising effective, though.

The past is irrelevant. Donbas is Russia...and Donbas people voted to leave Ukraine and to join the Russian Federation.

Forcing them to stay in the Ukrainian country is a crime against humanity.

 

[Kathryn]

Right., the Crimean vote was about 54 percent yes to leave Russia.

 

[Stevicus]

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Russian state killed literally millions of Ukrainians during the Soviet period, has incessantly meddled in Ukraine’s domestic politics, and neither should the routine use of rape, torture, murder and looting during the more recent conflict be ignored. A more realistic parallel than South Tyrol would be an attempt to establish a German-speaking enclave within Israel within a few decades of the holocaust.

Was it the "Russian state" or the "Soviet state," and didn't they also kill millions of Russians, too? Are you saying that the Soviet government deliberately targeted Ukrainians in the same way the Nazis targeted Jewish people? I suppose there may be some tie-in here, as the Tsarist autocracy also targeted Jews and restricted them to the Pale of Settlement which happened to be in and around the Ukrainian region. The Soviet government took a different position and officially condemned anti-Semitism and racism, although we know that unofficial practices didn't always reflect that position.

Stalin is considered the worst offender during the Soviet period, but he was clearly not Russian, but Georgian. That may be a small detail, but the multi-national characteristics of the Soviet regime can't be denied. There were more than a few Ukrainians who reached high-ranking positions and were staunch supporters of the Soviet state.

As a counter-example, I might point out that there have been numerous African-Americans and other racial minorities who were supporters of the U.S. system, staunchly patriotic, with many joining the Armed Forces to prove their dedication and service to America. But back in the days of Jim Crow, they still would not have been allowed to sit in the "whites only" section. The Germans were even more fanatical about it, as they wanted their race to be pure, with no mixed parentage or "Jewish blood" (a term which always mystified me), regardless of whether they converted or looked/acted like Germans or whatever. There was absolutely nothing they could do to change how they were classified by the regime.

Tsarist rule and Soviet rule may have been bad for a lot of people, including millions of Russians, too. It seems to me that the ordinary Russians and ordinary Ukrainians would have been, more or less, in the same boat in that regard.

 

[Stevicus]

Look...if Italians forced South-Tyroleans to speak German, on the following day, Austria would break all diplomatic ties with them.
Because in the Italy-Austria agreement it is written that the Germans of South Tyrol shall not be forced to learn Italian.
They will speak their languages. In fact in South Tyrol, there is the German school, the German university.
There are countless South-Tyroleans who can't speak Italian.

I guess I'd really be up the creek if I went there, as I don't speak Italian or German. But I could probably do a fair imitation of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.

 

[Stevicus]

They do not from what I can tell. They have an official state language of Ukrainian (which we do not have by the way, though English is commonly spoken and understood here in the US).

I recall a while back hearing discussions about wanting to make English the official language of the U.S. I've even heard some propose a Constitutional amendment to that effect, but such proposals never seem to go anywhere. Few people seem to think it's needed, and it has a certain odium attached to it that puts people off.

 

[Tomef]

Was it the "Russian state" or the "Soviet state," and didn't they also kill millions of Russians, too? Are you saying that the Soviet government deliberately targeted Ukrainians in the same way the Nazis targeted Jewish people? I suppose there may be some tie-in here, as the Tsarist autocracy also targeted Jews and restricted them to the Pale of Settlement which happened to be in and around the Ukrainian region. The Soviet government took a different position and officially condemned anti-Semitism and racism, although we know that unofficial practices didn't always reflect that position.

Stalin is considered the worst offender during the Soviet period, but he was clearly not Russian, but Georgian. That may be a small detail, but the multi-national characteristics of the Soviet regime can't be denied. There were more than a few Ukrainians who reached high-ranking positions and were staunch supporters of the Soviet state.

As a counter-example, I might point out that there have been numerous African-Americans and other racial minorities who were supporters of the U.S. system, staunchly patriotic, with many joining the Armed Forces to prove their dedication and service to America. But back in the days of Jim Crow, they still would not have been allowed to sit in the "whites only" section. The Germans were even more fanatical about it, as they wanted their race to be pure, with no mixed parentage or "Jewish blood" (a term which always mystified me), regardless of whether they converted or looked/acted like Germans or whatever. There was absolutely nothing they could do to change how they were classified by the regime.

Tsarist rule and Soviet rule may have been bad for a lot of people, including millions of Russians, too. It seems to me that the ordinary Russians and ordinary Ukrainians would have been, more or less, in the same boat in that regard.

Maybe but it’s one thing to look at facts in a book, and another to carry the experience and perception. Take the potato famine - people from the US with an Irish heritage tend to be angry with the English about it, but unaware that almost all of the absentee landlords involved were Scots. What’s more, learning new facts about something a person feels strongly about rarely has any effect on what they believe about it. In the post soviet states I’ve spent time in, and I’m not the only one to have this experience I’m sure, resentment towards Russia is pretty universal. The fine details of who did what has little to do with that feeling, and really why should it? It makes no difference where Stalin was born, no more than it makes any difference that Bonny Prince Charlie was Italian or Che Guevara Argentinian. The blame, or kudos, or whatever is generally taken to be collective, as with white Europeans and the slave trade. The specifics are of interest only as the feelings diminish over very long time scales.

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe but it’s one thing to look at facts in a book, and another to carry the experience and perception. Take the potato famine - people from the US with an Irish heritage tend to be angry with the English about it, but unaware that almost all of the absentee landlords involved were Scots. What’s more, learning new facts about something a person feels strongly about rarely has any effect on what they believe about it. In the post soviet states I’ve spent time in, and I’m not the only one to have this experience I’m sure, resentment towards Russia is pretty universal. The fine details of who did what has little to do with that feeling, and really why should it? It makes no difference where Stalin was born, no more than it makes any difference that Bonny Prince Charlie was Italian or Che Guevara Argentinian. The blame, or kudos, or whatever is generally taken to be collective, as with white Europeans and the slave trade. The specifics are of interest only as the feelings diminish over very long time scales.

Sure, I can understand why there's resentment over these things, but I can also understand that it's not too pleasant for those who are innocent but just happened to be of the same ethnicity or nationality associated with some horrible government. To be an object of hostility just because of that, even if they hadn't done anything personally to deserve it, is simply not right.

If people can accept that idea and truly practice it, there would be a lot less suffering in this world. But there are so many who feel the need to exact vengeance in whatever way they can. It's an idea like, "Your grandfather killed my grandfather, so now I'm going to kill you." Where is the logic in that? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Tomef]

Sure, I can understand why there's resentment over these things, but I can also understand that it's not too pleasant for those who are innocent but just happened to be of the same ethnicity or nationality associated with some horrible government. To be an object of hostility just because of that, even if they hadn't done anything personally to deserve it, is simply not right.

If people can accept that idea and truly practice it, there would be a lot less suffering in this world. But there are so many who feel the need to exact vengeance in whatever way they can. It's an idea like, "Your grandfather killed my grandfather, so now I'm going to kill you." Where is the logic in that? What purpose does it serve?

Bear in mind no-one in Europe attacked Russia. Russia began the hostilities, after spending several years stirring up tensions to create a pretext. Long term studies show little to no tension between speakers of Russia and other languages in the Donbas before that.

 

[Tomef]

"Your grandfather killed my grandfather, so now I'm going to kill you." Where is the logic in that? What purpose does it serve?

That’s a kind of Balkan stereotype, but as in Serbia there’s no evidence that of anything like that on anything approaching a meaningful scale until the people at the top decided they needed a war.