>>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.<< >>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.<<
You posted Sergei Markov’s theory because you do not like “conspiracy theory”? Correct me if I am wrong.
Please explain what criteria do you use to classify some theory as “conspiracy”? It is very handy to label some ideas as “conspiracy” some people as “western agents” etc.
>> even western media reported on the allegations of electoral fraud in favor of Yuschenko. [previous post]<<
So where did you find it? Guardian?
>>Here's Ukrainian media on the subject<<
Thanks for link but unfortunately it is in Ukrainian/Russian I prefer English.
>>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?<<
There is no need to classify each other. You are stating what is obvious, but only for you. How should I classify you if you make strong claims on the without the full knowledge of what the media have been writing these days??? = <<Personally, I'm too lazy to search through the archives of various news organizations.>>
>>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.<<
Facts are important for me. The Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered the re-run on Friday after upholding opposition claims that the original vote was rigged in favour of Mr Yanukovych.
>>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").<<
You are right I check it again: “is regarded as a pro-Western liberal reformer”. Obviously English is not my native, sorry! It still does not be equal to “is a pro-Western liberal reformer”. And I agree to Quist in his opinion about western media.
>>While my point would be much simpler to demonstrate due to the almost scary uniformity of opinion in the western media.<<
Really? Try to prove it. It will be nice conspiracy theory.
>> You can try some Noam Chomsky's books for illustrations of the strangely uniform behavior in other foreign policy matters.<<
It looks like another conspiracy but obviously you do not accept them. So please explain it more thoroughly.
>>"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? <<
If you perceive some international organisations (like the OSCE) as constructed to interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine it is your problem. But it is a valid conspiracy theory.
What convinces you that Ian Traynor’s statement is true?
>>"spin doctors close to the Kremlin" are a thing of the past.<<
Really? It is from BBC. Maybe source close to Kremlin sounds better for you.
>> 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.<<
I am following what Putin is saying. Try to listen to Putin and sources close to Kremlin.
>>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.<<
So Russians do not have a long 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 "THEIR sons of bitches"??? And they are busy installing friendly regimes.
It looks similar isn’t it? And is as valid as your statement.
>>"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.<<
Everybody in the west (or more precisely - Solana, Kwasniewski, Adamkus) called for election without fraud. On what basis do you built your theory?
>>"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.<<
Do you have any statistic research done to claim that Ukrainians disliking especially Poles?? If you personally do not like Poles (are you a racist/nationalist by the way?) it does not mean that everyone feel the same.
>>you make claims on an issue without having even rudimentary knowledge of it, and you're not embarrassed? Well, I'm embarrassed for you.<<
Thanks for nothing. You probably have no elementary knowledge about statistic but it is no reason to be embarrassed, believe me. Unless you start claims something especially ridiculous. So could you be more specific and explain me what part of your lesson was in contrary to my statement?
>>"I just wrote that 17% population is Russian and even more Ukrainians who do not even speak any Ukrainian." -- that's incorrect.<<
Where is a reason for being embarrassed? What is incorrect? 17% or even more who does not speak Ukrainian?
>>What you are attempting to say is that many Ukrainians CHOOSE not to speak Ukrainian.<<
If somebody in its own country choose not to/do not want to speak its own language it is sign of disease. It leads to situation where Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians = russification.
>>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.<<
How many hours of Russian in comparison to Ukrainian they had? There was any difference between Russian language and Ukrainian language schools?
>>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.<<
I did not say that “Eastern Ukrainians are all mostly Yanukovich supporters”. Watch yours letters!
>>"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.<<
I did not say that it is the same. I clearly differentiate it but in general both lead to increase of Russians on Ukraine and to situation when Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians.
Indeed your misinterpretation and imputing something which I have never said impact the level of discussion.
>>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.<<
Why not if the migration is centrally (from Kremlin) steered?
>>In general, considering that Ukraine experienced net emigration throughout its Soviet history, should we now start talking of the Ukrainization of Russia?<<
Agree. We should check migration Ukrainians to Russia and Russians to Ukraine.
>>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<<
Why did/do you prefer Russian books?
>>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.<<
It is what I mean - a good description of russification. Better opportunities for somebody who speaks Russian. Russian is promoted - Ukrainian just sustained.