My view of the war

[AC]

I would've also understood the Parliament's actions to *amend* this law instead of solely repealing it for the sake of establishing Ukrainian as the state language but not eliminate bilingualism in the affected regions.

What I will NOT understand and accept is you trying to tell me red is black.

Talk about shooting from the hip!  You simply won't stop with the conspiracy theories ever.  As Stirlitz, a guy living in Ukraine but raised speaking the Russian language told you, Russian language has always been and always will be allowed (do you honestly think a Ukrainian shop owner anywhere in Ukraine would turn down business and currency from a Russian speaking customer?) as a language to do business in, and otherwise as well.

There are all sorts of laws debated in the US Congress which can be twisted and turned any way you please, if you have time for that.  Or you can just go on what is actually practiced on a day to day basis throughout the country. 

[missAmeno]

[ghost of moon goddess]

Video kindly posted by missAmeno is titled ''A solder named Luda. The story of a woman who declared war against the war in Ukraine''. It is presented by Dozhd journalists

[GQBlues]

Talk about shooting from the hip!  You simply won't stop with the conspiracy theories ever.  As Stirlitz, a guy living in Ukraine but raised speaking the Russian language told you, Russian language has always been and always will be allowed (do you honestly think a Ukrainian shop owner anywhere in Ukraine would turn down business and currency from a Russian speaking customer?) as a language to do business in, and otherwise as well.

Explain exactly how this correlates to the subject in point?

...There are all sorts of laws debated in the US Congress which can be twisted and turned any way you please, if you have time for that.  Or you can just go on what is actually practiced on a day to day basis throughout the country.

Explain again please how any of this correlates to the subject in point?

[lordtiberius]

Thank you for posting the video.  It is heartening to hear people have not lost their minds in Russia.  I interact with a lot of Russians on Twitter.  Some trolls follow me.  But a lot of Russians don't support the New Slobodan.

[Boethius]

Boethius-I understood it just fine and no, it isn't flawed.You always fall in this narrative that I either don't understand Ukraine's history to make any sensible observation of this conflict, or simply because I don't speak Ukrainian. First you tell me Ukraine is not a republic. I proved you wrong. Then, and contrary to your initial admission, that the ousting of the president was within Ukraine's constitutional script and is legal. You are also wrong.

Ukraine is not a republic.  It is an oligarchic kleptocracy.  Yanukovych would not have fled office had he retained the backing of powerful oligarchs.  Had you read some of the links I posted in the past, by Ukrainian academics, experts on Ukraine, living in Ukraine, you would have realized this.  Most of those articles discussed his falling from favour with the oligarchs who supported him, and they were written before Euromaidan.

I provided you the links to Ukraine's constitution.  The president fled office.  Once he abandoned his office, he officially resigned, then, after he fled office, revoked that resignation.  He also was in the process of being impeached, although that is more controversial.  In all 3 constitutions, Yanukovych's resignation is enough for him to be removed from office.  There is nothing which states if he revokes his resignation, he regains office. 

Unless you're trying to call red the new black, nothing in this latest debate rendered what I've been saying as erroneous. Not based on Poroshenko's interview context. Not based on those link I provided to you. Certainly not based on the reaction, not only from Russia, but from OSCE and neighboring European countries as well.

We don't actually know what Poroshenko stated.  All you have provided is a headline from an interview, which is an editor's interpretation of what Poroshenko stated.  I'd like to read his actual words.

Russian was never banned.  All that occurred was the Rada attempted to revoke its status as a regional language.  And, the reason the legislation was overturned was to ensure Ukrainian remained the sole official language of a country where over 80% of the population claims Ukrainian as its official language.

Now, you can say history doesn't matter, but it does.  On independence, less than half of Ukrainians spoke Ukrainian as their daily language, particularly in the cities.  The reason the majority of Ukrainians now can speak Ukrainian is precisely because of those language laws.  Imagine!  A country where parliamentarians wish to enact laws to ensure their native tongue is the primary language of a country which is over 80% Ukrainian.  Quelle horreur!!

We are not talking about the historical dynamics of Ukraine's language challenges. It has zero to do with this current discussion. What we were talking about is the Parliament's February 2014 adoption of a bill repealing/abolishing the 2012 language law, which was deemed not only by Poroshenko, but by the interim president, the Hungarian/Bulgarian/Romanian/Polish/Russian states, by the OSCE and those of Ukraine's minority group who were aware of the Parliament's action last February; to be a mistake.

Assuming your pronouncement is accurate, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and Russia all have minority populations meeting the 10% threshhold.  Yet none of them have more than one official language, so as far as I am concerned they can, pardon the expression, STFU. 

The issue was not Russia's regional language status.  It was that the legislation introduced would have given it official language status.  The problem with that is, as history tells us, Ukrainian would have been affected in terms of daily use.

Even Tymoshenko, the staunch *pro-west* political head voiced her support to the 2012 Language law.

She is not an ethnic Ukrainian, nor a native Ukrainian speaker.  I don't know why being "pro West" has anything to do with the language law.  It is an internal Ukrainian matter. 

BTW, if you've read my posts, you know I believe Tymoshenko is a monster who did enormous damage to Ukraine, and should have rotted in jail.

You also keep bringing and labelling anything Yanukovich to continue with your narrative of assigning everything wrong in Ukraine today to him, including this particular law. You're wrong there, too I'm sorry to say.

Uh, no, I am not, not about the language law.

The language law was a presidential promise Yanukovych made during his presidential run.  He then abandoned it, partly because his Party of Regions did not have a clear majority in the Rada, and the support of at least one other party was required for the Party of Regions to rule.  That is why the legislation was dropped.

At the time he won the presidency, Yanukovych spoke no Ukrainian.  He learned enough to get by over time.  However, when parliamentary elections arose, the Party of Regions was in peril (to the communists), so Yanukovych, as head of the party, suggesting reintroducing the legislation.  It was fractious, and numerous concessions were made by all parties to get it passed.  I don't believe the regional language issue would have been challenged by the recently dissolved Rada had it not been for the kicker on giving Russian, in particular, official language status.  And yes, the history is important, because, if you don't understand that history, you can't understand why this was such a compelling issue to many Rada members.

Because of the Association Agreement, Ukraine would have been required to adopt laws granting regional language status, with broader rights than those in the (attempted) repealed legislation, at some point.  That is an EU requirement once a certain percentage of the population speaks a language.  It is also why EU experts were consulted when the initial law was drafted and enacted (and they criticized it then).  So, it is a non issue.  Moreover, as noted, minority language rights are constitutionally protected in Ukraine.  What would not have occurred in the future, though, would have been official language status. That is what stuck in the craw of many Rada members. 

A synopsis:

Implementation

The bill was to come into force only after it was signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the Chairman of Parliament. But the Chairman of Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn tendered his resignation on 4 July 2012. However, the Verkhovna Rada twice held votes of confidence in the speaker, and did not accept his resignation. On 31 July Lytvyn signed the law. The bill was signed by President Yanukovych on 8 August 2012. The law came into force on 10 August 2012.

Since then various Ukrainian cities and regions have declared Russian a regional language in their jurisdictions, these being the municipalities of Odessa, Kharkiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia, Sevastopol, Dnipropetrovsk, Luhansk and Krasny Luch; and the Oblasts of Odessa, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk. Hungarian has been made a regional language in the town of Berehove in Zakarpattia Oblast, Moldovan in the village of Tarasivtsi (Chernivtsi Oblast), and Romanian in the village of Bila Tserkva; also in Zakarpattia Oblast. These languages will now be used in city/Oblast administrative office work and documents. As of September 2012 there were no plans for such bilingualism in Kiev.

Chairmen of the Supreme Council of Crimea Volodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea.

Proposals for Repeal and Revision

On February 23, 2014, the second day after the flight of Viktor Yanukovich, while in a parliamentary session, a deputy from the "Batkivshchina" party, Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, moved to include in the agenda a bill to repeal the 2012 law "On the principles of the state language policy". The motion was carried with 86% of the votes in favor--232 deputies in favor vs 37 opposed against the required minimum of 226 of 334 votes. The bill was included in the agenda, immediately put to a vote with no debate and approved with the same 232 voting in favor.

The bill would have made Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels.

The attempt to repeal the 2012 law "On the principles of the state language policy" was met with great disdain in Crimea and Southern and Eastern Ukraine, provoking waves of protests against the Maidan installed government ultimately culminating with the Crimean crisis.

Passage of the repeal bill was met with regret by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities expressed concern over possible further unrest. The bill was also criticized by the Ambassador for Human Rights of the Russian foreign ministry. Bulgarian and Romanian foreign ministers evaluated it as a step in the wrong direction, and the Greek foreign minister expressed disappointment.  The Hungarian foreign ministry expressed serious concerns, noting that the decision "could question the commitment of the new Ukrainian administration towards democracy". The Polish foreign minister called it a mistake.

After urgently ordering a working group to draft a replacement law on February 27, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov vetoed the repeal bill on 28 February.

On 7 April 2014 former BYuT leader Yulia Tymoshenko stated she supported the 2012 language law.

Most of the above does not contradict what I have stated all along.  What you are mistaken about is this affecting Russian, or other minority language rights.  They still had their schools, as they did before 2012, they still spoke Russian openly, as they did before 2012, they still had Russian papers (in fact, there are as many newspapers in Ukraine published in Russian as in Ukrainian), Russian television, Russian radio, Russian movies, Russian books, etc.  So, it did not have an effect them, other than in their dealings with the state.  End of story.

I can understand your aversion to anything Russian/Soviet due to your first hand experience and knowledge of it from Ukraine's lenses. I can accept your reluctance to accept any responsibility and culpability on the part of Ukraine for many of the ills it has suffered through, and is suffering upon today. I can even understand and accept your refusal to answer my previous questions dealing with this particular subject as I presume it sheds a little darker light on Ukraine's present position.

Yes, it is true, I reject most things Soviet, though not all.  I can accept for some people, life there was good.  It just wasn't for my family, or my husband's.  What I will never accept is those who I know, from their positions, were informants/made others miserable, and wish to forget who they were in the past.   

My husband's family, as I noted, came from Russia.  My MIL does not speak Ukrainian and yet somehow, has managed to navigate Ukraine since independence without being set upon by fascist Banderivtsi.  I love Russian culture, its history, its literature, its artists.  My children have Russian blood and an identifiably Russian (not Ukrainian) surname.  So no, I am not anti Russian.

As for Ukraine, I have always stated that its politicians are almost all corrupt, all are former commies who have now shown their real faces.  So, I have no hesitancy in laying the blame for Ukrainian society's ills at the feet of its leaders, both political and business.  Why do you think Maidan occurred?  While I still believe it was instigated by oligarchs for their own purposes, it spread because of the massive scale of corruption by Yanukovych and his clan.  If you recall, I did not accept this, as there was no proof of his theft.  But, there is plenty of proof now, even a number - $11 billion stolen from the Ukrainian state alone.  That is larger than any previous leader.  It makes Tymoshenko look like a piker in comparison.  That is pretty shocking.  And that is the reason why Ukrainians took to the streets.  You pro Russians can claim the U.S. instigated Maidan all you wish, but what you are basically stating with this assertion is an insult to every long suffering Ukrainian who saw that perhaps, in some way, by turning West, they may eventually have Western style government.  They have the framework, but not all the structures.  They knew it wouldn't occur if they followed the Russian model.  That is why young Ukrainians were willing to die on the streets of Kyiv. 

As for the present position, the Rada should not have attempted to repeal the law (let's not lose sight of the fact that attempt was vetoed, so the law is still in place) not because it was a bad thing to do, but because it was stupid.  They just never assumed Russia would invade them by proxy.  I don't know why they assumed that, given Ukraine's history.

I would've also understood the Parliament's actions to *amend* this law instead of solely repealing it for the sake of establishing Ukrainian as the state language but not eliminate bilingualism in the affected regions.

You keep posting this, as if posting it will somehow make it true.  It isn't true.  If you had walked down any street in Odessa, or Kherson, or Donetsk, or Dnipropetrovsk in 1991, in 1996, in 2001, in 2006, in 2011, you would have heard Russian, not Ukrainian.  Heck, if you walk down Kyiv's streets, you will hear Russian, predominantly, and in many areas, such as my MIL's neighbourhood, exclusively.  Many individuals in those areas don't speak Ukrainian at all, even today.  So, the repeal of the law would have just returned those regions to the status quo.  I keep posting this, Stirlitz, who is a Russian, not a Ukrainian speaker, has posted this, yet somehow, you believe Russian language rights are somehow threatened.  They weren't before the law was enacted, nor when it was attempted to be repealed.

What I will NOT understand and accept is you trying to tell me red is black.

What I will not accept is you telling me truths which you have gleaned from internet searches rather than real life experience.

[Muzh]

Well said Boe.


 

[Boethius]

An example of languages in Ukraine.  This occurred in Kyiv.  I can hear Russian (predominantly) surzhik, and just once, Ukrainian, in this clip.

[AC]

Ukraine is not a republic.  It is an oligarchic kleptocracy.  Yanukovych would not have fled office had he retained the backing of powerful oligarchs.  Had you read some of the links I posted in the past, by Ukrainian academics, experts on Ukraine, living in Ukraine, you would have realized this.  Most of those articles discussed his falling from favour with the oligarchs who supported him, and they were written before Euromaidan.

I provided you the links to Ukraine's constitution.  The president fled office.  Once he abandoned his office, he officially resigned, then, after he fled office, revoked that resignation.  He also was impeached, although that is more controversial.  In all 3 constitutions, Yanukovych's resignation is enough for him to be removed from office.  There is nothing which states if he revokes his resignation, he regains office. 



We don't actually know what Poroshenko stated.  All you have provided is a headline from an interview, which is an editor's interpretation of what Poroshenko stated.  I'd like to read his actual words.

Russian was never banned.  All that occurred was the Rada attempted to revoke its status as a regional language.  And, the reason the legislation was overturned was to ensure Ukrainian remained the sole official language of a country where over 80% of the population claims Ukrainian as its official language.

Now, you can say history doesn't matter, but it does.  On independence, less than half of Ukrainians spoke Ukrainian as their daily language, particularly in the cities.  The reason the majority of Ukrainians now can speak Ukrainian is precisely because of those language laws.  Imagine!  A country where parliamentarians wish to enact laws to ensure their native tongue is the primary language of a country which is over 80% Ukrainian.  Quelle horreur!!

Your entire rebuttal to his nonsense looks like it was written by a scholar and should put the entire matter to rest.  I doubt if any published scholars in the field could do better than that!  Spasibo.

Sadly wise men don't need advice and fools never heed it; so one of the village fools will likely be a long shortly to write some more inane drivel meant to distract the uneducated masses from reality.   

[calmissile]

Your entire rebuttal to his nonsense looks like it was written by a scholar and should put the entire matter to rest.  I doubt if any published scholars in the field could do better than that!  Spasibo.

Sadly wise men don't need advice and fools never heed it; so one of the village fools will likely be a long shortly to write some more inane drivel meant to distract the uneducated masses from reality.   

Agree 100%     

[Hammer2722]

Your entire rebuttal to his nonsense looks like it was written by a scholar and should put the entire matter to rest.  I doubt if any published scholars in the field could do better than that!  Spasibo.

Sadly wise men don't need advice and fools never heed it; so one of the village fools will likely be a long shortly to write some more inane drivel meant to distract the uneducated masses from reality.   

 

[Drew]

Good work and postings Boe.  You know the real facts better than most of us here.

[ghost of moon goddess]

An example of languages in Ukraine...

Lustration the Odesa way.
Right sector activists carrying a corrupted official into his new office.
(In this clip everyone with a speaking part speaks in Russian)

[ghost of moon goddess]

[GQBlues]

Your entire rebuttal to his nonsense looks like it was written by a scholar and should put the entire matter to rest.  I doubt if any published scholars in the field could do better than that!  Spasibo.

Sadly wise men don't need advice and fools never heed it; so one of the village fools will likely be a long shortly to write some more inane drivel meant to distract the uneducated masses from reality. 

 

Agree 100%     

LMAO! Sources considered.

[lordtiberius]

Keep the insults coming Mr. Popularity!

[Boethius]

Wrong. Ukraine is a republic. Look it up.

Power of the people prevails and rule both by suffrage of its elected leader and governed by its constitution. It is a unitarian republican state. The rampant corrupt practices of its elected leaders and elite may define its existence by many as kleptocratic, but it doesn't diminish the fact it is a republic. Ukraine People's Republic / Ukraine National Republic.

Two types of democracies as defined by Montesquieu, where the people have a share in rule - and/or in aristocracies/oligarchies, where only some of the people share in rule; as both republican forms of government.

Ukraine's constitution states it is a republic (Article V, I believe).  However, I am not referring to theoreticals.  I am referring to reality.  Once a leader loses the support of oligarchs, he is toast.  That happened with Kuchma, is happened with Yushchenko, and it happened with Yanukovych.  All the airy fairy stuff about the theory of rule is irrelevant.  Every prime minister, every president of Ukraine, and most ministers have become millionaires, billionaires, even, because of their control of government.  Every Ukrainian knows this.  There is no "people power" other than through their demonstrations (Orange Revolution, Euromaidan).  Activists claimed they made mistakes with the Orange Revolution, meaning, little change.  They have stated they won't make that mistake again.  However now, with the war and the fallout, whether real change will occur is up in the air.

Ukraine's Constitution had been discussed at length here way before your provision. There's nothing in Ukraine's constitution's article for removal of the president was exercised legally in Yanu's ousting.



He didn't resign, he was framed. The state displayed a blatant lack of rule of law in the coup and it issued a warrant of arrest for allegations he had nothing to do with - the Kiev massacre. Your denial doesn't alter this reality. Kiev, or any democratic state, had an obligation to protect it's statesman until and unless proven guilty of criminalities. Kiev didn't do that, so they are far more culpable to illegal activity than the accused. Such are norm protocol of illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL takeovers.

When you have a law degree from the Mohyla Academy, I will take your pronouncement as definitive.

I do. You read the same thing I did. Unless you'd like to state Le Figaro is heavily involved in silly propaganda. There hasn't been any ounce of refraction from the printed publication. It highlighted what was supposed to be the core issue.

No, we never read what Poroshenko actually stated.  All we read was an editorial headline of snippets of the interview. 

It would have been had the president signed the bill and turned it into law. It would've removed/banned all minority regional languages in all state levels and replaces it with Ukrainian. You can argue that all you want, that's exactly what it is.

No, it would not be banned.  It would just mean that in dealing with functions of government, Ukrainian would be the official language of the Ukraine.  So, if you wanted a driver's licence or passport, it would be printed in Ukrainian.  If you wanted to sell a property, the transaction would be printed in Ukrainian.  Education, which is supplied by the state, could still be in Russian, as it has been since the collapse of the USSR.  Therefore "banning" is too strong an adjective.  The language has not been banned.  It just is not recognized in the supply of government services.  I suspect in reality, when a Russian speaker in Odessa, or Kherson, showed up at a government office speaking Russian, he/she was always answered in Russian, both before the 2012 law and now.  That's just the way Ukraine has always functioned.

If you were referring to the 2014 bill, then you're wrong. The bill was to make Ukrainian as a sole language in all levels of state. Period. As far as I can tell, there had been no attempt for bilingualism in the affected regions in that bill.

Russians (and other ethnic minorities) have always had the right to access information in their languages.  And the bill was not to make Ukrainian the "sole language in all levels of state".  Had you been arrested in Lugansk in 2010, your interrogation would have been held in Russian, not Ukrainian.  Were you a student in Donetsk, you could attend a Russian language, rather than a Ukrainian language school.  These were services provided by the Ukrainian state.  Yet, they were not provided exclusively in Ukrainian.

Tymoshenko was a major component to the Association Agreement. Many even wrote this stipulation (her release from prison) played a major role to Yanu's reluctance to sign the agreement.   

Irrelevant to me.

Me, too. But Tymoshenko was the US's pm (puppet master). The State thought, even back in 2006, Poroshenko was a shady character - which is hyterical in itself knowing they're decking their cards on Tymoshenko. That's why they wanted her released from prison so she would have plenty of time to get tuned in in time for the 2015 election campaign. But...the rest if history and she wound up with what, less than 2% off the early election?

I don't believe that (in terms of the US wanting her in power).  Further, Tymoshenko was not a U.S. puppet.  Do you think the U.S. would have approved of her negotiating a long term lease for the Black Sea were she a U.S. puppet?

BTW, I'm actually beginning to like Petro myself.

For an oligarch, he has surprised me. 

Exactly. The 2012 Language law was well received by the EU's purview and preference. It had great implication in EU's economic proposal to Ukraine as it was widely viewed as democratic thing to do. So you can cite that Yanu's had other personal/internal/political interest in drafting of that law, you can. But the bottom line is, it was reviewed, discussed, debated, wrestled and punched each other for but eventually passed.

No, it wasn't.  The EU representatives who advised Ukraine believed it was not balanced.  But, it was a compromise.  Again, know your history!

Welcomed and praised not only by Russia, but Ukraine's new landlord. Which is why the 2014 Parliament's decision to pass a bill to repeal this particular law became a major cause of instability, or as Poroshenko said - caused a huge resonance.
I am not mistaken of anything.

See above.  Why is Russian views relevant, other than due to the threat of invasion? 


I don't disagree that the law caused a resonance.  However, it was vetoed five days after the Rada vote.  So, one can't blame the attempt to revoke the legislation for what occurred in Eastern Ukraine.  The pro Russian separatists had already been trained, and paid by that time.

That's what you're having a difficult time comprehending. The genesis of this subject was brought up due to the context of Poroshenko's interview. The fact of the matter is, REGARDLESS of the details of the Parliament's abolition bill, and what it ultimately will or will not do to the 2012 language law; the very act of passing to abolish the 2012 language law was DEEMED by all parties previously mentioned as a mistake and largely delegated as the focal point of the Crimean crisis and the present separatists' conflict. It did, as Poroshenko exclaimed, caused a huge resonance. Just as the Security Council of Europe, the interim president and the European states including Russia cited.

It was not the focal point of the Crimean crisis.  Crimea was an autonomous region, and would not have been affected had the legislation been passed in any event.  It was the the Reichstag fire.

What's on Russian TV have *ZERO* significance in this particular discussion.

Uh, yes, it does, because you keep claiming Russian was banned.  It wasn't.

You keep infusing your own little bit of irrelevant factoids in an attempt to cloud the issue. Nice try. That may work with the board's chihuahuas, doesn't work with me.

No, I am trying to give you a dose of reality.

I do believe and convinced, based on previously *classified* cables between Ukraine, the Ukrainian US Embassy and the State Department; that there had been planning going on in the ultimate inclusion of Ukraine's eventual NATO membership. Which, considering the implied consequence of such from happening, is a serious mistake, period. Russia, as the US is, also have a right to determine what event represents a threat to their national security. 

That would not have happened.  Until the invasion by Russia, Ukrainians were overwhelmingly against joining NATO.  That has been consistent since the collapse of the USSR.

Your *real life experience* living in Canada while all those things were going on in Ukraine? Yeah right. Unless you'd like to convince us all you were present and central to the passing of the bill earlier this year and was there in its' aftermath. If you cannot say this, then counselor you're gleaning the net as much as I. At least I was able to offer you Le Figaro. You couldn't even find it. Heck, there's a darn good chance you didn't even know this bill passing occurred in the Parliament early this year (since you never made mention of it), likely even Strlitz, and 'gleaned' the internet for it yourself only after I mentioned it.

So no, I maintain red ain't black, baby.

My "real life" is walking the streets and hearing what language is spoken.  Same with the Ukrainians here.  The idea that Russian is in any way threatened in Ukraine is ludicrous.

[lordtiberius]

Hey baby!  I just got rhetorical ass kicked by a girl.

[LiveFromUkraine]

My "real life" is walking the streets and hearing what language is spoken.  Same with the Ukrainians here.  The idea that Russian is in any way threatened in Ukraine is ludicrous.

Bo, just to add my own experience into this mix...


 there was a time while I was there that people were very angry at the thought of the government trying to make them speak Ukrainian.  My brother in law being one of them.   Not that Russian stopped being spoken, but there was some that did think they were being threatened when it came to speaking Russian. 


I'm speaking years ago of course.

[Boethius]

Bo, just to add my own experience into this mix...


 there was a time while I was there that people were very angry at the thought of the government trying to make them speak Ukrainian.  My brother in law being one of them.   Not that Russian stopped being spoken, but there was some that did think they were being threatened when it came to speaking Russian. 


I'm speaking years ago of course.

That doesn't surprise me.  However, there was never any forcing to speak Ukrainian, although I can appreciate that some would have that perception, particularly if they had any recollection of the Soviet period.

[LiveFromUkraine]

That doesn't surprise me.  However, there was never any forcing to speak Ukrainian, although I can appreciate that some would have that perception, particularly if they had any recollection of the Soviet period.

That was why I brought it up, I didn't know if some still had that perception even today. 


I'm going based on memory, which fails me from time to time haha, but wasn't all television shows required to be in Ukrainian? 


I also thought grade schools were supposedly going to all Ukrainian, at one time, which was on of the reasons my brother in law was mad (or maybe I misunderstood him).


My ex's family was from Russia.  My ex was actually the only person born in Ukraine so her brother was very pro-Russian.  I couldn't tell you if he still is or not of course.


It was and is interesting to watch Ukraine trying to create it's own identity among the world.  The perception of losing the Russian language would be warranted if they kept chipping away where you could use the Russian language.

[alex330]

I also thought grade schools were supposedly going to all Ukrainian, at one time, which was on of the reasons my brother in law was mad (or maybe I misunderstood him).

Yes, this happened to my wife while she was in grade school. She complained about having to be forced to learn a new language as a child. This did annoy a number of people who were Russian speakers I suppose but is the only inconvenience she has ever mentioned and has never been discriminated against for being a Russian speaker. I have personally never to my knowledge even heard Ukrainian spoken while visiting the country.

[GQBlues]

I do hope Poroshenko represents, and hold if so, what should be a great thing for Ukraine and exactly what that country needs...

"...KIEV, UKRAINE — President Petro Poroshenko on Monday proposed a series of major concessions to end the uprising by pro-Russian rebels in restive eastern Ukraine, offering the separatists a broad amnesty and special self-governance status for territories they occupy.

The proposal also includes protections for the Russian language and would allow the separatist-controlled regions to elect their own judges, create their own police forces and cultivate deeper ties to Russia — while remaining part of Ukraine."

Article here

[lordtiberius]

irrelevant crap . . . pro-Russia propo . . . Putin  . . . Yanukovich is a hero . . . blah blah insult, insult, insult

[AC]

LMAO! Sources considered.

This, from the village idiot.  Hey pal, do you think if Mexicans in Texas suddenly claimed they were being discriminated against and forced to speak English, and then Mexico decided to provide them with heavy arms to rape, pillage and plunder -- do you think that the US government would negotiate with them and give them some sort of autonomy and not lock them up for life as terrorists?

You truly are a complete moron. 

Do you also think that Ukrainians living in Russia have a right to demand that the Russian government operate services, etc for them in Ukrainian, and that if they don't Ukraine has a right to send heavy weapons into Russia, and demand NuevoUkraina or some such similar nonsense?

Moron.  *speak* *write* *leave no doubt*