Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes. Ukraine used to be a 'little brother' to Russia. What is so insulting about that? Remember that they, the Russians used the word 'brother' when describing the Ukrainians. Because Russia regards Ukraine as family, not as a subject. Ukraine since 2014 has become the USA's pet. Ukraine can't negotiate peace with Russia without the US's consent. Which is more insulting for Ukraine? Brother? Or pet?
I think it was until the end of the 19th century that the Russians referred to the Ukrainians as "Little Russians". This was before their national identity developed.
All major powers want to have their geopolitical space. Russia has its backyard. USA has its backyard. If another intrudes into the geopolitical space of another, then shit happens. This is not decided by you or me. Wake up and grow up. The world is not rainbows and unicorns.
We are in this mess right now in part because consecutive USA governments, starting with Clinton, considered Russia a third rate power and therefore not deserving to have its own backyard.

George Bush senior had a very different take on the situation. From his speech in Kyviv, 1991:
Yet freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.
 

Lethe

Captain
I think it was until the end of the 19th century that the Russians referred to the Ukrainians as "Little Russians". This was before their national identity developed.

From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Ukraine, along with Russia, had constituted a "loose federation of East Slavic tribes" known as warrior-traders that were ruled by the Rurik dynasty from the 9th to 13th century in what is historically referred to as Kievan Rus. Ties were cemented by the Orthodox Church when Prince Vladimir chose that religion for his people in the 10th century. By the time of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, the area had degenerated into rivalries among various princes who’d lorded over a dozen or so independent areas. When the Mongol massacre killed about two-thirds of the population, some of the survivors managed to flee closer to what is modern-day Moscow and those who remained were forced into subjugation, rupturing Slavic bonds. Those from the southern part of the Kieven Rus region later became known as Ukrainians and were cut off and later ruled over by Poles and Lithuanians.

In the mid-17th century, the Treaty of Pereyaslavl united Ukraine to Russia as an autonomous region. This led to a 13-year war between Russia and Poland which resulted in the division of Ukraine between the two countries. From then on, the Ukrainian-speaking parts of Poland-Lithuania were progressively conquered by the Russian Empire, leading many Orthodox Ukrainians to strongly identify with Russia. From the late 18th century on, Russians referred to Ukraine territory as Malorussia or "Little Russia," viewing Ukraine and the Ukrainian language as having derived from the greater Russian history and culture and later sought to standardize it to Russian.

The Western parts of modern-day Ukraine had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries while the southeastern portion was part of the Russian Empire. An independent Ukrainian state emerged very briefly in the years of the Russian Revolution and early civil war period, but the project failed in 1919. From then until WWII, parts of Ukraine were ruled by Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Soviet Russia, with the latter becoming a Soviet Republic ruled by the Communist Party. Russian/Soviet rule of Ukraine in the 19th and 20th centuries created complex patterns of migration with significant parts of southern Ukraine settled by Russians, including those who came to work in the mines and factories of the Donbas region, bringing the Russian language with them.

In 1991, Ukraine gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Based on the history outlined above, Ukraine found itself with ethnic, cultural, and linguistic divisions within the country. According to British scholar Richard Sakwa in Frontline Ukraine, there emerged two different and irreconcilable views of how to organize the Ukrainian state.

The first is the monist approach. This is the belief that Ukraine is a single cultural and political entity. The political philosophy underpinning this view is heavily influenced by the Galician ethnonationalist identity of Ukraine rather than a civic or pluralistic one. It advocates for the Ukrianization of society including a unitary state with one language. It partly draws on the thinking of those who were trying to create the independent state that failed in 1919. That failure was subsequently blamed on democracy, liberalism and a lack of will, paving the way for fascist sympathies. In the early 1930’s Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, led by Stepan Bandera, violently resisted Polish rule in Galicia. In 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union made Galicia part of the Soviet Union – a region that had never been under Russian imperial rule and today remains the most strongly nationalist and anti-Russian part of Ukraine.

When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Ukrainian ultranationalists supported Germans thinking they would assist in the creation of an independent Ukraine. The Ukrainian ultranationalist army – who were supporters of Bandera – massacred 70,000 Poles in Volyn in 1943 and is estimated to have killed 130,000 in Eastern Galicia by 1945. Statues of Bandera have been erected throughout western Ukraine starting in October of 2007. Streets have also been named after him and a giant portrait of Bandera was displayed on stage at the Maidan protests in 2014.

The alternative view of how to organize the state is based on pluralism and acknowledges that Ukraine has a common ancestry with Kievan Rus and emphasizes a civic Ukrainian identity rather than an ethnonationalist one. The pluralist approach says that cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity must be acknowledged and respected. It calls for a degree of decentralization. However, support for this is complicated by the fact that centralization benefits certain financial as well as political interests, namely oligarchs.

For its first two decades of independence, Ukraine was engaged in a clumsy balancing act between the nationalist west, the Russophile east and the relatively moderate central part of the country.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It turns out, those S-300 in Slovakia got the MiG deal treatment and never went into Ukraine, and maybe never will judging from the tone.
Apparently the Patriot batteries in Slovakia are not gifts, they remain the property of German et al and are just there to protect Slovakia for a few month. So understandably Slovakia is having second thoughts about giving their S-300 to Ukraine.
 
Last edited:

tygyg1111

Captain
Registered Member
Can anyone kindly explain the reasonings of Russia's actions?
Shouldn't a nation with financial crisis/difficulties sell their gold reserves to save/hold up the economy?
What currency / resource would they receive for their gold in exchange though?
Gold is universally tradeable, Russia produces many of the resources other countries lack and what Russia do lack they can get from China without needing to sell their gold
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top