"One of many differences, but the most important one is that you rely on unproved hypothesis, for example, on the hypothesis posed by Yanukovich?s adviser, public relation specialist." -- where did you get such a silly idea? I don't subscribe to Pavlovskii's claims. I find the entire idea of a "Polish conspiracy" to be laughable -- Poland's influence is too puny for that.
"So my hypothesis is ?conspiracy theory? and theory of Yanukovich?s adviser is not ?conspiracy theory?." -- they are both equally laughable conspiracy theories. The difference is that Pavlovskii isn't here for me to tell that to him, and you are.
"Where? What is your source? What kind of electoral fraud do you mean? Any details?" -- for details you'll just have to see Yanukovich people's filings with the CEC. For mentions of fraud alleged by Yanukovich even in WESTERN media, you'll have to ask Qvist, who was able to find it relatively quickly (
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=116312&messageid=1101923965 ). Personally, I'm too lazy to search through the archives of various news organizations. Here's Ukrainian media on the subject (since their news archive is easily accessible):
http://proua.com/news/2004/11/23/125707.html
"Should we wait until you mature to be able to exchange arguments\opinions without insulting?" -- I'm not "insulting", I'm stating the obvious.
How else can I classify you if you choose to make strong claims on the subject without the full knowledge of what the media have been writing these days?
"At least CIS observers had access to pooling places. Western observers in many cases do not have such luck. It is also question about scale of electoral
violation in favour of Yuschenko, details please!!" -- this is immaterial for people who prefer facts to conspiracies. The FACTS are: there was an undetermined (as yet) amount of fraud on both sides. Therefore, it is unknown who won the election. Therefore, a new election must be held, hopefully with less fraud.
"I took it from ?the western propaganda? and in original (BBC) it was: ?Yuschenko is concerned as a pro-Western liberal?. Can you see the difference
between ?is concerned? and ?is??" -- could you maybe explain the grammar here in more detail? If they really used the word "concerned", that means that this statement has two messages: a) Yuschenko is "concerned" (don't know what he's concerned about, but that's immaterial); b) Yuschenko is "a pro-Western liberal" (and that causes him to be concerned about something). If that was not the message of the statement, then I would venture a guess that the word "concerned" was not used and you simply confused it with another word (such as "considered").
"About propaganda - I suppose that you have nothing against when I call anything, which is published by Russian media as ?the Russian propaganda? as you do while describing western media?" -- it won't change my opinion of you even one bit.
However, I have to point out that you would have a hard time proving that, due to the chaotic anarchy in the range of opinions found in the Russian media. While my point would be much simpler to demonstrate due to the almost scary uniformity of opinion in the western media. Such uniformity does not relate to Ukraine only. You can try some Noam Chomsky's books for illustrations of the strangely uniform behavior in other foreign policy matters.
"And Yanukovich is getting money from Putin. My statement is as proved as yours." -- hmm, are you telling me that you didn't know that Yuschenko campaign received money from western sources? When even western media admitted it? Did I already mention that you are thick and uninquisitive?
For example, see Ian Traynor's article in the Guardian issue of Nov 26 (sorry, I'm too lazy to search their site right now -- do it yourself). Similarly, check out what I posted here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=116312&messageid=1101504812
I don't understand why you would bother to deny something that is so broadly known. Instead of denying it, you should've claimed that these are "grants" for the development of "democracy" and "civil society", and they do not constitute interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. That's how the National Endowment for Democracy, for example, puts it.
As to Yanukovich being financed from Putin -- yes, it's a valid conspiracy theory. But still nothing but a conspiracy theory.
"Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Maybe. Why Yuschenko is so dangerous to Russia? Yushchenko has never indulged in anti-Russian rhetoric. What is the reason?" -- the issue of what the Russian Federation's stake is and who it should support is a totally separate subject. I don't want to discuss it in the framework of this entertaining argument.
"That is pretty naive claim. How many of them are hired by Yuschenko?" -- that's highly irrelevant, especially considering that Russian spin doctors specialize in re-elections of incumbents, rather than conduction political revolutions (or coup d'etats). But congratulations on another successfully proposed conspiracy theory!
"Russian TV channels and spin doctors close to the Kremlin portray Yushchenko as an agent of the West who would plunge Ukraine into civil war. They do it
voluntarily." -- "spin doctors close to the Kremlin" are a thing of the past. You need to follow political developments in Russia more closely. As to how the Russian media portrays Yuschenko, it is indeed the business of the media. And their accounts of him vary widely, depending on the political alignment of the particular source.
"Your claims about motivation of western politicos are as valid as my assessment." -- really now? So "the west" does not have a history of expanding or attempting to expand its sphere of influence? Does not have a history of supporting "sons of bitches" just because they're "OUR sons of bitches"? That's what my claim is based on. What is your so-called "assessment" based on? Where's the history of genuine attempts to establish democracy? Was it the support for Yeltsin's coup d'etat in 1993? Was it support for his re-elction in 1996, for example?
"If I understand you correctly motivation of western politicos is ?bad? because their actions are against Russia raison d?état?" -- you understand incorrectly. Western politicos are bad because they are hypocritical. And they are hypocritical because under the pretense of promoting democracy they are busy installing friendly regimes (which are not necessarily democratic, but can be, purely as a coincidence) all over the world.
"Let Ukrainian establish their own way. They have two options and let them make a choice in election without fraud." -- that's a very fine sentiment. However, the impression from it is ruined by the simple fact that instead of calling for new elections without fraud, "the west" immediately demanded that the victory be handed to Yuschenko.
"You are just beating the death horse." -- well, you challenged me on this (Ukrainians disliking Poles), didn't you? So the horse will be beaten until you agree it's dead.
"I do not see anything embarrassing for me." -- you make claims on an issue without having even rudimentary knowledge of it, and you're not embarrassed? Well, I'm embarrassed for you.
"I just wrote that 17% population is Russian and even more Ukrainians who do not even speak any Ukrainian." -- that's incorrect. What you are attempting to say is that many Ukrainians CHOOSE not to speak Ukrainian. Otherwise, all Ukrainians and most Russians living in Ukraine CAN speak Ukrainian, because it was a required part in the curriculum of even Russian language grade schools in UkrSSR. Classes in Ukrainian language and Ukrainian literature started in the second grade, IIRC.
"Ethnic Russians are under Kremlin influence and in general are Yanukovich supporters." -- silly claim. What do you mean by "under Kremlin influence"? Ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine are indistinguishible from Ukrainians. And Eastern Ukrainians are all mostly Yanukovich supporters. How they are "under Kremlin influence" remains a mystery.
"About Sovietisation/Russification of Ukraine" -- also silly. Sovietization and Russification are such totally different concepts it's not even funny. But your confusion here is indicative of the level of this entire discussion.
"to assess it we just should know if number of Russians were growing more rapidly in comparison to growth rate (per region, year) in Soviet era." -- the term "Russification" refers to forcefully russifying ethnic Ukrainians (i.e. making Russian their native language as opposed to them simply learning Russian), not to migration of Russians to Ukraine. In general, considering that Ukraine experienced net emigration throughout its Soviet history, should we now start talking of the Ukrainization of Russia?
"And how many books were published in Russian in comparison to Ukrainian (per year). Can anyone from Ukraine help?" -- well, I'm helping you.
Don't have statistics, but I can tell you libraries were crammed with Ukrainian books. Except they weren't as popular as Russian books, since everyone preferred Russian. Which was advantageous for perfectly bilingual people like me -- much easier to get books I wanted, even if they were Ukrainian translations of Russian books.
You see, applying the term "Russification" to Eastern Ukraine is a silly concept, because no one there ever spoke proper Ukrainian, most of that area was never separate from Russia until 1992 (i.e., it was never ruled by Poland), like Slobozhanschina, or was never Russian or Ukrainian to begin with, like Novorossia and the Crimea; and, most importantly -- the dominant factor in the choice of language was personal preference. People spoke Russian because they wanted to speak Russian, not because someone forced them. For bilingual people, as was virtually everyone in Eastern Ukraine, Russian was preferrable because it was the all-Union language, giving them better opportunities on the national scale. So their children grew up already with Russian as their first language.