"You posted Sergei Markov's theory because you do not like "conspiracy theory"? Correct me if I am wrong." -- I posted it as an illustration to the previous post. Without any comment on my part, I should add.
"Please explain what criteria do you use to classify some theory as "conspiracy"?" -- it's very simple: a theory that is based not on evidence, but usually on a consideration of "who would profit from this" and some clandestine activities thrown in.
"So where did you find it? Guardian?" -- I already told you who to ask. Reading's not one of your strong skills?
"Thanks for link but unfortunately it is in Ukrainian/Russian I prefer English." -- the link's in Russian, and your inability to read it is not exactly my problem. Just an illustration that you are arguing about a topic where you can't even read the most important sources (i.e. Ukrainian).
"There is no need to classify each other." -- sorry, I have to. You're practically begging for it.
"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.>>" -- there is no logical connection here. Being too lazy to provide information that you could've found on your own is not equivalent to not knowing that information. Especially considering that I told you the newspaper, the date, and the article's author. Sufficient to look it up, isn't it? Unless you're thick and uninquisitive.
"Facts are important for me." -- haven't noticed.
"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." -- you are clueless. The Supreme Court ruled that CEC resolutions 1264 and 1265 were invalid based on procedural violations during voting (the court did not care in whose favor the violations were). The court rejected all other claims by Yuschenko (such as the claim that he be declared the winner). In any case, how is this of any relevance to the topic being discussed?
"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"." -- eh? The claim "Yuschenko is a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that this particular reporter regards him as such. The claim that "Yuschenko is regarded as a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that everybody regards him as such, but the reporter does not want to make any claims in his own name. Which does not contradict my point that western agitprop presents Yuschenko to be something that he might not be.
"Really? Try to prove it. It will be nice conspiracy theory." -- if a theory is proven, it's not a theory anymore, much less a conspiracy theory. Just helping you with your semantic difficulties.
As to proof, I can tell you the methodology, you can work it out yourself. The methodology is to read the damn media in all its variety before coming here with your silly claims. I have. You clearly haven't. Over 90% of the western coverage of the Ukrainian election crisis that I've seen make exactly same claims. Actually, it would be somewhat silly of you to argue against that, considering that you haven't managed to find a single mention of complaints filed by Yanukovich people about electoral violations, or any other alternative views. You are a walking proof of my theory.
"It looks like another conspiracy but obviously you do not accept them. So please explain it more thoroughly." -- why should I waste my time explaining what you can read on your own? Chomsky analyzed the media coverage of some foreign policy issues and noted that it exhibits bizarre uniformity of opinion that flies in the face of facts. Of course, you might say he went on building his own conspiracy theory to explain that, but it's irrelevant for the present discussion. I just want you to be aware of that FACT that such uniformity exists.
"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." -- have I mentioned OSCE? Why are you attributing to me things I didn't say, and then try to disprove them? What you should attempt to disprove is what I actually have said.
"What convinces you that Ian Traynor's statement is true?" -- if Traynor was, let's say Chinese, nothing. But coming from a western journalist, it sounds more credible. Especially considering that Traynor's point was that such "support" is beneficial.
In reality, this has been discussed for the past year if not more. These things weren't revealed just in time for elections.
"Really? It is from BBC. Maybe source close to Kremlin sounds better for you." -- gee, BBC. Should I be impressed? How are unsubstantiated claims from the BBC better than unsubstantiated claims from you?
"I am following what Putin is saying. Try to listen to Putin and sources close to Kremlin." -- don't change the subject. You were talking about the coverage on Russian TV (which I expanded to Russian media in general), now you're talking about Putin's own statements. What exactly are you attempting to attack here?
"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." -- this statement is entirely valid. However, we are discussing motivations of "the west" here, not of Russia. So, based on that, do you admit that "the west's" goal is not to promote democracy?
"Everybody in the west (or more precisely - Solana, Kwasniewski, Adamkus) called for election without fraud. On what basis do you built your theory?" -- it's not a theory, it's what's been reported in the media, which obviously you haven't read, seeing how you're thick and uninquisitive.
"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." -- don't grasp at straws here. Obviously, my opinion is based on personal observations rather than statistical studies. For more on my reasons, see
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=116312&messageid=1101963341
"Where is a reason for being embarrassed? What is incorrect? 17% or even more who does not speak Ukrainian?" -- attempt to read a paragraph to the end before typing your reply. The answer to this was provided immediately following the cutoff point.
>>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." -- utterly idiotic statement. But highly indicative of your ability to comprehend what I am telling you. And I already told you, most Ukrainians have NEVER spoken the literary Ukrainian. Russification refers to a POLICY of FORCEFUL converstion to the use of the Russian language. Voluntary choice to speak Russian, especially considering that you live in territory that has been Russian (as in "not Ukrainian) from the start, has nothing to do with "Russification". Get that through your thick skull, and do not misuse terminology.
"How many hours of Russian in comparison to Ukrainian they had? There was any difference between Russian language and Ukrainian language schools?" -- varied by period and region, research it yourself.
"I did not say that "Eastern Ukrainians are all mostly Yanukovich supporters"." -- I am simply taking your point to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity (about "Kremlin control"). However, East Ukrainians mostly supporting Yanukovich is a FACT.
"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." -- saying "Russification/Sovietization" is now supposed to be "clearly differentiating" between the two? Are you joking?
And you still don't get a simple point -- Russians and Ukrainians were one people who gradually became differentiated, but in the borderlands this differentiation never really occurred. Russian borderlands were populated by Russians, as well as Ukrainians fleeing from Polish oppression. This area, known as Slobozhanschina, was incorporated into UkrSSR only during the Civil War. Russians and Ukrainians there are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and all speak either surzhik or Russian with a heavy Ukrainian accent. What is going on there is interassimilation, not "Russification". The south of modern Ukraine was historically unpopulated by settled populations until it was conquered by Catherine II, who started its colonization by using both Russians and Ukrainians. This wasn't a historical part of Ukraine either. The entire south and east of Ukraine are a shared homeland for Russians and Ukrainians, and people there have a perfect right to speak any language they please. When some wannabe Ukrainian nationalist, who's not even Ukrainian and doesn't know any Ukrainian history at all, starts expounding on how they are being "russified" or how they are "diseased", the sight is pathetic.
"Why not if the migration is centrally (from Kremlin) steered?" -- ridiculous. It's one country, and if the government offers people to relocate because your skills are needed in another area, what's wrong with it? Especially considering that no one forced you to go (besided that Stalin era deportations, but that's another story).
"Agree. We should check migration Ukrainians to Russia and Russians to Ukraine." -- no, we shouldn't. Because it's irrelevant, and you're grasping at straws here.
"Why did/do you prefer Russian books?" -- because Russian is a better developed language. SIGNIFICANTLY better developed. Because Ukrainian literary tradition is not as extensive, and obviously I want to read Russian books in Russian, not their translations to Ukrainian (although I was forced to read Ukrainian translations pretty often due to limited availability of original Russian works). And because it's my first language, despite my Ukrainian heritage.
"It is what I mean - a good description of russification. Better opportunities for somebody who speaks Russian. Russian is promoted - Ukrainian just sustained." -- that's because you don't know the definition of the term "Russification". It is up to Ukrainians to secure their language, and the Union government gave Ukrainians every opportunity to do so. Which they did use, considering that I learned Ukrainian in school. In my case, it was Ukrainization that I had to undergo.
Basically, I can understand your need to prove that "evil Russians" are to blame for everything, but I have to point out that your attempts are beyond pathetic when you are reduced to arguing with who you allege to be a victim of Russians (me, that is), about how evil the Russians are, and I'm forced to defend them. In short, stick to history, not propaganda.