ePoshta pointed out this great article by the Guardian as Russia imperliasm eyes Ukraine’s Crimea:
The message was blunt: whoever wins Ukraine’s presidential election in January has to accept Russia’s veto over the country’s strategic direction
Medvedev’s video was an ultimatum, the diplomat added: accept Russian domination, voluntarily renounce plans to join Nato and renew the lease on Russia’s naval base.
In recent weeks, pro-Kremlin newspapers have been speculating that Crimea might soon be “reunited” with mother Russia, solving the fleet issue. The best-selling Komsomolskaya Pravda even printed a map showing Europe in 2015. The Russian Federation had swallowed Crimea, together with eastern and central Ukraine. Ukraine still existed, but it was a small chunk of territory around the western town of Lviv.
In a symbolic gesture, several Russian restaurants in Moscow have stopped selling Ukrainian borsch. They are still serving up the dishes of tasty purple beetroot soup, but they have renamed it “Little Russia” soup. Little Russia, or Malorossiya, is what Kremlin ideologists are now calling a post-independent Ukraine, back under Russia’s grasp.
According to Gorbulin, Europe’s apparent abandonment of Ukraine is as pernicious as America’s. He points out that Nato countries have “stopped the struggle” for Ukraine in order to preserve good relations with Russia. France and Germany, especially, have rebuffed Yushchenko’s attempts to join Nato. Gorbulin dubs the Europeans’ informal deal with Moscow “Munich Agreement 2”, comparing it to the notorious September 1938 Anglo-French deal that allowed Hitler to seize the Sudetenland, the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia
Yanukovich lost in a re-run to Yushchenko. Yanukovich is ahead in the polls, but Putin has better relations with the populist Tymoshenko, who may steal through to win in a run-off second vote.
While the article touched  upon many areas, it had some errors that I’d like to point out:
To a large extent, Ukraine has itself to blame for the mess. Since the 2004 pro-western Orange Revolution Kiev has been in a state of political crisis. Yushchenko has fallen out with his one-time ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister. They have been involved in a power struggle that has paralysed governance and brought the economy to the brink of default.
I’m not sure why the author, Luke Harding, needs to feel apologetic for Russia’s imperialist bullying. Many countries that undergo reform like the Orange Revolution have problems internally as old regime structures are (painfully) removed, but what makes Ukraine’s so unique is that it is one of the few that has constant meddling from its neighbour – Russia.
Finally, the article’s ‘A short history of Ukraine’ contains a major historical inaccuracy:
â– Ukraine’s history stretches back to the ninth century, when it was part of a Byzantine Russian dynasty centred on Kiev. But despite its ancient origins Ukraine only emerged as a fully independent state in the 20th century, after long periods of foreign domination.
Not sure where Luke is getting his history lessons from but if he thinks the Byzantine dynasty was so ‘Russian’, why did it take only 400 years for it to spread from Ukraine to the establishment of what’s known as Russia today – Muscovy?
Great Russian is a name Tsarist Russian imperialists decided to give themselves when Peter the Great renamed Muscovy as Russia, intending to usurp the legacy of Kyivan Rus — the original Ukrainian state. The purpose was to deny Ukrainians their own national identity, relegating them to the role of an inferior “little Russian” branch of the “Great Russian” nation. As such, it must be categorically rejected.
That’s a question you can e-mail the Guardian to find out.
The Guardian, like so many mainstream publications, is like western politicians. They give lip service to “emerging democracies” but play footsie with autocrats.
The author of this article could have been a bit more diligent in distancing himself from the Walter Duranty brand of reporting on Eastern Europe. It's easy enoughto blame Ukraine's squabbling politicians and polarized populace for its current instability. Western governments and media are still unapologetic for their role in facilitating the Kremlin's depopulation (through famines, gulags, and purges) of Ukrainians in Ukraine and repopulatiing those areas with Russians. I believe this is called “blaming the victim” … and it is a tactic favoured by both bullies and appeasers.
Golubin is right-on with his “Munich 2 agreement” assessment of Europe's dealings with Moscow. If another war does break out in Europe, then the west will have only itself to blame. Yet again.
In 1939 the world had Chamberlain. In 2009, it has Obama.
What are the chances? Well, there's that thing about history repeating itself when its lessons aren't learned…
Dear Editor/s
Your reference to a “Byzantine Russian dynasty centred in Kyiv” (not Kiev which is the Russian spelling of the word) in your article about Ukrainian Russian tenstions 11th October 2009, is a mistake.
Ukraine's ancestral identity was that of Kyivan Rus. Russia's was not. Rus should not be confused with “Rhossia” which when misleadingly mispronounced in English is Russia.
Peter the Great took full advantage of this confusion to swoop Ukraine's history and call it his own.
Russia's history starts in 1380 when the Muscovites won a battle against the Mongol “Golden Horde” Khanate at the battle of Kulikovo Pole (field). As the Russian historian Nikolay Karamzin said, the Russians went to the Kulikovo Field as citizens of various principalities and returned as a united Russian nation. So by his own admittance, “Russia” as such didn't exist as an entity until 1380 . Ukraine used to be Rus and Russia used to be a principality called Moskovia, centred around Moscow . Even today many Ukrainians still call Russians by their old name “Moskali”. Unfortunately even 18 years after Ukraine's independence this historical inaccuracy still prevails due to pure laziness on the part of the West and a reliance on outdated biased and inaccurate historical sources that were supplied by Moscow's propaganda machine to legitimise its claim to Ukraine. Much of Russia's early history if anything is defined by its attempts at destroying the Kyivan Rus dynasty by raiding sacking and plundering Kyiv.
The word Rus is believed to originate from a description of hair colour of the people of Kyivan Rus. This would have been most probably by Greek historians who had ancient trading links with the country Kyivan Rus.
“Rusevy” probably referred to the hair colour of the people or Rus. “Rus” is the root word from which Rust and Russet come as in ” a russet apple”. This is due to the fact that PIE the “Proto Indo European” language from which most European languages are descended, came from present day Ukraine.
“Rhossia” (Russia) on the other hand, has nothing to do with the word “Rus”. It stems from the verb “Rhossiany”, ” those that are spread – sown like seed everywhere” , a grandiose self description of the conquering prowess of the Moscali (original name of the Russians i.e. Muscovites). It was used by leaders such as Peter the Great to glorify his peoples imperialist achievements.
Try reading Hrushevsky's or Nahayevsky's histories of Ukraine before printing such inaccuracies in future.
Nahayevsky deals with the above historical misconceptions in detail. If still in doubt try Russian historian Karamzin, who also explains Ukraine's and Russia's seperate, and not common origins.
Ukraine is a European country, with a distinctly European civilisation, whilst Russia is a Eurasian one, a synthesis of the two, which is probably why historically so many have found it a difficult identity to understand.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely
Stepan Pasicznyk
60 Cranbrook Road
East Barnet
Hertfordshire
England UK
The Guardian, like so many mainstream publications, is like western politicians. They give lip service to “emerging democracies” but play footsie with autocrats.
The author of this article could have been a bit more diligent in distancing himself from the Walter Duranty brand of reporting on Eastern Europe. It's easy enoughto blame Ukraine's squabbling politicians and polarized populace for its current instability. Western governments and media are still unapologetic for their role in facilitating the Kremlin's depopulation (through famines, gulags, and purges) of Ukrainians in Ukraine and repopulatiing those areas with Russians. I believe this is called “blaming the victim” … and it is a tactic favoured by both bullies and appeasers.
Golubin is right-on with his “Munich 2 agreement” assessment of Europe's dealings with Moscow. If another war does break out in Europe, then the west will have only itself to blame. Yet again.
In 1939 the world had Chamberlain. In 2009, it has Obama.
What are the chances? Well, there's that thing about history repeating itself when its lessons aren't learned…
Dear Editor/s
Your reference to a “Byzantine Russian dynasty centred in Kyiv” (not Kiev which is the Russian spelling of the word) in your article about Ukrainian Russian tenstions 11th October 2009, is a mistake.
Ukraine's ancestral identity was that of Kyivan Rus. Russia's was not. Rus should not be confused with “Rhossia” which when misleadingly mispronounced in English is Russia.
Peter the Great took full advantage of this confusion to swoop Ukraine's history and call it his own.
Russia's history starts in 1380 when the Muscovites won a battle against the Mongol “Golden Horde” Khanate at the battle of Kulikovo Pole (field). As the Russian historian Nikolay Karamzin said, the Russians went to the Kulikovo Field as citizens of various principalities and returned as a united Russian nation. So by his own admittance, “Russia” as such didn't exist as an entity until 1380 . Ukraine used to be Rus and Russia used to be a principality called Moskovia, centred around Moscow . Even today many Ukrainians still call Russians by their old name “Moskali”. Unfortunately even 18 years after Ukraine's independence this historical inaccuracy still prevails due to pure laziness on the part of the West and a reliance on outdated biased and inaccurate historical sources that were supplied by Moscow's propaganda machine to legitimise its claim to Ukraine. Much of Russia's early history if anything is defined by its attempts at destroying the Kyivan Rus dynasty by raiding sacking and plundering Kyiv.
The word Rus is believed to originate from a description of hair colour of the people of Kyivan Rus. This would have been most probably by Greek historians who had ancient trading links with the country Kyivan Rus.
“Rusevy” probably referred to the hair colour of the people or Rus. “Rus” is the root word from which Rust and Russet come as in ” a russet apple”. This is due to the fact that PIE the “Proto Indo European” language from which most European languages are descended, came from present day Ukraine.
“Rhossia” (Russia) on the other hand, has nothing to do with the word “Rus”. It stems from the verb “Rhossiany”, ” those that are spread – sown like seed everywhere” , a grandiose self description of the conquering prowess of the Moscali (original name of the Russians i.e. Muscovites). It was used by leaders such as Peter the Great to glorify his peoples imperialist achievements.
Try reading Hrushevsky's or Nahayevsky's histories of Ukraine before printing such inaccuracies in future.
Nahayevsky deals with the above historical misconceptions in detail. If still in doubt try Russian historian Karamzin, who also explains Ukraine's and Russia's seperate, and not common origins.
Ukraine is a European country, with a distinctly European civilisation, whilst Russia is a Eurasian one, a synthesis of the two, which is probably why historically so many have found it a difficult identity to understand.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely
Stepan Pasicznyk
60 Cranbrook Road
East Barnet
Hertfordshire
England UK