17 Mindblowing facts about Russia

[AC]

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-mind-blowing-facts-about-russia-2014-3?op=1

My favorite one was this one (which illustrates pretty succinctly the level of corruption in Russia):

The Adler–Krasnaya Polyana road would have cost less to build if it was paved entirely with foie gras.

Then there's this peach, proving that when you make it hard enough at home for people to succeed, they will vote with their feet:

Russia's population has fallen by 6.6 million since 1993. That's the equivalent of Massachusetts.

[Boethius]

Ukraine's population in that same period has dropped 6.8 million.

[AC]

Ukraine's population in that same period has dropped 6.8 million.

And considering the fact that Ukraine has been a de-facto vassal state of Moscow, are you surprised?

[Boethius]

I don't think Russia is to blame for all Ukraine's problems, nor even most of its problems pre the war.

Ukraine has been plagued with corruption, particularly among its politicians and their "clans".  Kuchma and his family built a billion dollar plus fortune during his years in office.  Tymoshenko, of course, got rich stealing state gas and developing schemes while in power, including manipulating the currency.  Yushchenko and his friends stole Russian gas, and he personally built a world class private art collection by plundering Ukraine's museums.  Yanukovych and his clan also got rich stealing state funds.  None of this can be blamed on Russia, it is the fault of Ukrainian leaders.

Western Ukraine is not ruled by Russia, yet corruption there is endemic.  It is far worse than in most parts of Central Ukraine.

[Chicagoguy]

I am only responsible for pirating 1 person from among the 6.6 million. 

[BillyB]

I don't think Russia is to blame for all Ukraine's problems, nor even most of its problems pre the war.

Prior to the Soviet Union bringing Ukraine into their fold, was Ukraine traditionally corrupt throughout history? Is it ingrained in their genes? Sometimes when a nation is influenced by it's masters so long, it takes years, maybe decades to recover once they pull free from their masters.


Some of the most decent, honest people I've met were Ukrainians. I'm sure their are much more in Ukraine but usually the honest guys have a difficult time winning elections when corruption is the norm for getting things done and stepping up in the world.

I am only responsible for pirating 1 person from among the 6.6 million. 

I've stolen too....but only my fair share)))

[calmissile]

Prior to the Soviet Union bringing Ukraine into their fold, was Ukraine traditionally corrupt throughout history? Is it ingrained in their genes? Sometimes when a nation is influenced by it's masters so long, it takes years, maybe decades to recover once they pull free from their masters.


Some of the most decent, honest people I've met were Ukrainians. I'm sure their are much more in Ukraine but usually the honest guys have a difficult time winning elections when corruption is the norm for getting things done and stepping up in the world.



I've stolen too....but only my fair share)))

Billy, I think you are talking about two different levels of corruption, although both are government related.  At the level of the ordinary citizen, the most common  corrupt activities I have seen is bribing cops to get out of a ticket and the other common practice, to expedite a government decision or paperwork.  I.E. to get to the head of the line.

The higher level of corruption is what I think really set off the masses..... the gangster and criminal activity that resulted in businesses being closed and taken over by the thugs supporting corrupt leaders.  Also, the amount of government money stolen by the dictators for their own benefit.  When Yanukovich had his lavish holdings exposed is when it really hit the fan.     

I think your right about the low level of corruption.  It might take a generation to get it out of the culture.  One way to help it along is to pay the cops enough to make a living without bribes.  The 'bribes' to expedite government processing of forms, etc might be more difficult.  It is pretty much a common practice in many parts of the world.  The difference is that it is not called a bribe, it is called a 'fee to expedite'.  I can't put my finger on it, but I recall in the past couple of years paying special fees to expedite processing of government processes (in the USA).  There are also government processes that are set up to give advantages to lawyers and businesses for processing paperwork.  The DMV is one example.

If Ukraine works the corruption problem from the top-down it will serve them well.  Rome wasn't built in a day,  and I suspect it will take some time.  Paying the civic servants a salary that allows them to survive will help expedite the process.

[Boethius]

The Tsarist Empire had a high level of corruption, so much so it was mocked by its writers (Gogol, for example).

The Austro-Hungarian Empire, at least in Ukraine, had less corruption than the Russian Empire in its bureaucracy.  However, the landowners (aristocracy) were incredibly corrupt, and were also brutal to the peasants, significantly more so than in Central/Eastern Ukraine.

[AC]

I don't think Russia is to blame for all Ukraine's problems, nor even most of its problems pre the war.

Ukraine has been plagued with corruption, particularly among its politicians and their "clans".  Kuchma and his family built a billion dollar plus fortune during his years in office.  Tymoshenko, of course, got rich stealing state gas and developing schemes while in power, including manipulating the currency.  Yushchenko and his friends stole Russian gas, and he personally built a world class private art collection by plundering Ukraine's museums.  Yanukovych and his clan also got rich stealing state funds.  None of this can be blamed on Russia, it is the fault of Ukrainian leaders.

Western Ukraine is not ruled by Russia, yet corruption there is endemic.  It is far worse than in most parts of Central Ukraine.

Your statements seem to support my argument that Ukraine was a de-facto vassal state of Moscow, at least until the protests at Maidan seem to finally have changed the mindset of Ukrainians forever.  Putin's current meddling in the affairs of Ukraine have cemented their determination to move closer to the EU and away from Moscow's orbit; after all the definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over and expect different results.

All the leaders you mentioned were born before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, were they not?  Russia was always the dominant leader of the Soviet Union -- this is clear from Stalin to Brezhnev, and now Putin with his attempt to recreate the FSU. 

Ukraine was for the most part under the control of Moscow since the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Corruption has always been a part of the Slavic mindset going back to the Tsars.  Although not unique to Slavs; many other parts of the World have endemic corruption as well.  It's just that Western Europe has had a longer period of time without it. 

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to claim that all or most of the problems in Ukraine are the sole responsibility of Ukraine when one considers the historical relationship with Moscow. 

[Boethius]

Your statements seem to support my argument that Ukraine was a de-facto vassal state of Moscow, at least until the protests at Maidan seem to finally have changed the mindset of Ukrainians forever.  Putin's current meddling in the affairs of Ukraine have cemented their determination to move closer to the EU and away from Moscow's orbit; after all the definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over and expect different results.

All the leaders you mentioned were born before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, were they not?  Russia was always the dominant leader of the Soviet Union -- this is clear from Stalin to Brezhnev, and now Putin with his attempt to recreate the FSU. 

Stalin wasn't Russian.

All the current leaders of Ukraine were born before the dissolution of the USSR as well.  Almost all of them were Soviet nomenklatura, or come from nomenklatura families.  Yet, these are the leaders who it is assumed will turn the country from corruption.

You are wrong to assume Euromaidan had anything to do with Russia.  It did not.  It initially was a way for one set of thieves to oust another.  But, it really all was about Ukraine's internal politics, and its culture of corruption.  Euromaidan activists were not anti Russian.

Ukraine was for the most part under the control of Moscow since the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Corruption has always been a part of the Slavic mindset going back to the Tsars.  Although not unique to Slavs; many other parts of the World have endemic corruption as well.  It's just that Western Europe has had a longer period of time without it. 

I disagree that corruption is part of the Slavic mindset.  Were that true, then countries with significant Slavic populations (such as the Canadian prairies, where I grew up) would have had that corruption at some level.  They never did, and don't. 

I believe corruption is tied to the development of the state.  Tsarist Russia was an underdeveloped state, vis a vis Western Europe.  It made great strides in the 20th century, but not enough, and WWI was probably the death knell of the country.  Then, it was replaced by rulers who were ruthless, uncultured boors.  Most anyone with culture, knowledge, or a brain, was killed.  The state was a means of oppression.  So of course, in such a system, corruption flourished.

I think a common Western misperception is equating the communists (or, more accurately, Bolsheviks) with "Russians".  They were distinct.  Russian culture, and the Russian people, suffered just as much as anyone under communist rule.  Although Russification was the norm, particularly vis a vis Ukraine, really, Bolsheviks were not "pro Russian".  Nationalism, and national identity, was viewed as archaic and belonging to the bourgeois past.

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to claim that all or most of the problems in Ukraine are the sole responsibility of Ukraine when one considers the historical relationship with Moscow.

It is the result of an underdeveloped state, with no real institutions functioning at a state level.  It may be the fault, partly, of Moscow, but it is also the fault of all those Ukrainian bureaucrats who were not banned from holding office after the collapse of the USSR, who turned overnight from committed communists, informing on others left and right, to the most cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country and society.  They had a choice.  That is not Moscow's fault.

My better half used to joke "Is it time to call the Germans in?" (for both Russia and Ukraine).  It may actually have been a very good idea.

[AC]

Stalin wasn't Russian.

All the current leaders of Ukraine were born before the dissolution of the USSR as well.  Almost all of them were Soviet nomenklatura, or come from nomenklatura families.  Yet, these are the leaders who it is assumed will turn the country from corruption.

You are wrong to assume Euromaidan had anything to do with Russia.  It did not.  It initially was a way for one set of thieves to oust another.  But, it really all was about Ukraine's internal politics, and its culture of corruption.  Euromaidan activists were not anti Russian.

I disagree that corruption is part of the Slavic mindset.  Were that true, then countries with significant Slavic populations (such as the Canadian prairies, where I grew up) would have had that corruption at some level.  They never did, and don't. 

I believe corruption is tied to the development of the state.  Tsarist Russia was an underdeveloped state, vis a vis Western Europe.  It made great strides in the 20th century, but not enough, and WWI was probably the death knell of the country.  Then, it was replaced by rulers who were ruthless, uncultured boors.  Most anyone with culture, knowledge, or a brain, was killed.  The state was a means of oppression.  So of course, in such a system, corruption flourished.

I think a common Western misperception is equating the communists (or, more accurately, Bolsheviks) with "Russians".  They were distinct.  Russian culture, and the Russian people, suffered just as much as anyone under communist rule.  Although Russification was the norm, particularly vis a vis Ukraine, really, Bolsheviks were not "pro Russian".  Nationalism, and national identity, was viewed as archaic and belonging to the bourgeois past.

It is the result of an underdeveloped state, with no real institutions functioning at a state level.  Is may be the fault, partly, of Moscow, but it is also the fault of all those Ukrainian bureaucrats who were not banned from holding office after the collapse of the USSR, who turned overnight from committed communists, informing on others left and right, to the most cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country and society.  They had a choice.  That is not Moscow's fault.

My better half used to joke "Is it time to call the Germans in?" (for both Russia and Ukraine).  It may actually have been a very good idea.

Yes I know Stalin was not Russian, although he Russified his name to fit in; and therefore in essence he became Russian (A Georgian; a bank robber, etc originally named Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili).

Yes, I know that the current leaders were born before the dissolution of the USSR (I am assuming you are referring to Poroshenko, etc and not the ones you originally mentioned) yet it seems they understand more clearly that Ukrainians want the country to move away from business of the past (enriching ones self similar to Putin's siloveki) and move towards the EU and whilst it may be a long path there seems far more determination in that regard.

I simply do not agree with you that Maidan was not about Russia -- it was in essence about rejecting Yanukoyich, a puppet of Russia who enriched himself; who originally agreed to move towards the EU but last minute decided instead to become a part of Putins' trading system -- something the younger generation of Ukraine are clearly against -- they've seen the past and want a better future.  Certainly there may have been elements of what you are saying -- but in essence it was a struggle against Yanukovych/Putin and a desire to move towards the EU.

As far as the Ukrainians where you grew up -- well they left Ukraine for a better life in the West and one must assume they knew that meant lack of, or far less, corruption.  Corruption in the Soviet Union was the norm and corruption in Tsarist Russia was most definitely the norm -- we seem to agree on that.  I would simply not call the Slavs in Canada true Slavs anymore as they've left that system.  Those living there who need to survive understand the system well -- as Calmissile pointed out they do what they must to survive.  Those elites who are Millionaires and Billionaires seem to function to enrich themselves only -- yes I do believe it's a Slavic mindset.

I also disagree with your opinion that Russians in general suffered under the Soviets.  I maintain that they were the dominant force; the leaders of the Empire as it were.  This is evident in Putin's assertions that he must "protect" ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, etc, and Putin is clearly a throwback to the Soviet Union.  Certainly "bourgeois" elements of Russian society were eliminated, and in theory it should have been egalitarian, but in practice the Russians from Moscow were and are still considered the political elite and on down the pecking order.

[AC]

This is what Putin is banking on:


"Russia has 87 billion barrels of proven oil reserves; enough to last it another 75 years.
REUTERS/Ilya Naymushin
Russia consumed about 3.2 million barrels of oil per day in 2012. At that pace it would take another 75 years to exhaust its reserves."

Source: British Petroleum


And this is how his system rewards those at the top:


"Russia's 20 richest people have a combined net worth of over $227 billion, which is larger than Pakistan's GDP."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/17-mind-blowing-facts-about-russia-2014-3?op=1#ixzz3FUpojoIf

[Anotherkiwi]

I believe corruption is tied to the development of the state.  Tsarist Russia was an underdeveloped state, vis a vis Western Europe.  It made great strides in the 20th century, but not enough, and WWI was probably the death knell of the country. Then, it was replaced by rulers who were ruthless, uncultured boors.  Most anyone with culture, knowledge, or a brain, was killed.  The state was a means of oppression.  So of course, in such a system, corruption flourished.

Which makes it obvious whence the Khmer Rouge gained their ideas, and what nearly caused the death of Cambodia as a country.

[Gator]

This is what Putin is banking on:


"Russia has 87 billion barrels of proven oil reserves; enough to last it another 75 years.

On further analysis, this is not what it seems.

I read somewhere that the Russian budget is based on an oil price of $100/bbl.  American oil (WTI) is now selling for less than $90/bbl, dropping from $102/bbl in only two months.   See the chart below for the price s over the past year.

Four factors at work:

1.  America is producing more oil (i. e. importing less) and is expected to be  net exporter in not many years.  Oil imports accounted for 67% of the US trade deficit in 2011, and today only 40% and still dropping. 

2.  Demand for oil is slowing in Europe and Asia as the global economy slows, and Russian aggression in Ukraine is not helping.

3.  Saudi Arabia is pumping more oil to keep revenues up with a declining price, and other OPEC members such as Iran are planning to produce more crude oil. 

4.  The dollar is strengthening. 

The end result is that while Russia has much oil, the revenue will decline for years to come.  Because its economy depends so much on oil, the future does not look good for Russia's economy, especially with the EU and US sanctions continuing against Russia. 

Russians may take pride in Putin's aggression against a weak Ukraine, yet they should prepare for a reduced lifestyle.  I wonder if they too will start calling Putin a dickhead. 

[Boethius]

Yes I know Stalin was not Russian, although he Russified his name to fit in; and therefore in essence he became Russian (A Georgian; a bank robber, etc originally named Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili).

No, it was a party "nickname".  They were all part of a conspiracy, and needed to hide their identities.  Ulyanov did not become Lenin in order to be more Russified.  Other party names - Baumann, nicknamed Grach, Bukharin, Sladky.  While in exile, Stalin was known as "Molochny".

Yes, I know that the current leaders were born before the dissolution of the USSR (I am assuming you are referring to Poroshenko, etc and not the ones you originally mentioned) yet it seems they understand more clearly that Ukrainians want the country to move away from business of the past (enriching ones self similar to Putin's siloveki) and move towards the EU and whilst it may be a long path there seems far more determination in that regard.

Not all Ukraine's politicians are devoted to ending corruption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/opinion/in-war-time-corruption-in-ukraine-can-be-deadly.html?_r=0

I simply do not agree with you that Maidan was not about Russia -- it was in essence about rejecting Yanukoyich, a puppet of Russia who enriched himself; who originally agreed to move towards the EU but last minute decided instead to become a part of Putins' trading system -- something the younger generation of Ukraine are clearly against -- they've seen the past and want a better future.  Certainly there may have been elements of what you are saying -- but in essence it was a struggle against Yanukovych/Putin and a desire to move towards the EU.

At its height, Euromaidan never had the support of more than 48% of the Ukrainian population.   

As far as the Ukrainians where you grew up -- well they left Ukraine for a better life in the West and one must assume they knew that meant lack of, or far less, corruption.

It is true, they left for a better life, but it had nothing to do with corruption, but rather, with poverty.  They came to Canada because they received 160 acres of land.  Whole villages, or almost a whole village, settled in rural Canada.  It was not unusual to have entire communities where no one spoke English.  Even children didn't speak English until they started school. 

Corruption in the Soviet Union was the norm and corruption in Tsarist Russia was most definitely the norm -- we seem to agree on that.  I would simply not call the Slavs in Canada true Slavs anymore as they've left that system. 

What is a "true Slav"?  Does someone who moves his village from Western Ukraine to the Canadian prairies, including not only his neighbours, but his priest, his traditions, the way he builds his home, the manner in which he dresses, what he eats, etc., no longer a Slav?   

I find it insulting to suggest that a "true Slav" is corrupt.  That simply is not true.

Those living there who need to survive understand the system well -- as Calmissile pointed out they do what they must to survive.  Those elites who are Millionaires and Billionaires seem to function to enrich themselves only -- yes I do believe it's a Slavic mindset.

Wall Street, anyone?

I also disagree with your opinion that Russians in general suffered under the Soviets.

Then you don't know history.  Look at the mass execution of the officer corps, the Orthodox priests in gulags, the thousands of churches destroyed.  In the Volga, as in Ukraine, grain was confiscated, called "prodrazvyorstka" (in the case of the Volga, to feed the Red Army), and lands were littered with bodies.  Robert Conquest traced this, noting it was started in lands occupied by Russians and Ukrainians.  To this day, only estimates of the numbers of dead can be made, as the Bolsheviks confiscated all records of births and marriages in the region, in order to hide the numbers of dead.  This was repeated in 1948-1947.  More died of starvation at that time in the Volga than during WWII.  Whole villages disappeared.  Two million Russians died during the Great Terror and party purges alone.

I maintain that they were the dominant force; the leaders of the Empire as it were.

There are just more of them.  The Bolsheviks did not care about ethnic identity. 

This is evident in Putin's assertions that he must "protect" ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, etc, and Putin is clearly a throwback to the Soviet Union.

It is a way to protect what he views as Russia's interests.  I doubt he really believes it.

Certainly "bourgeois" elements of Russian society were eliminated, and in theory it should have been egalitarian, but in practice the Russians from Moscow were and are still considered the political elite and on down the pecking order.

After the collapse of the USSR, I recall reading that one in seven members of Russia's political elite were from Ukraine.  So, no, I don't accept this assertion.  You also misunderstood what I meant by bourgeois.  What I meant was that national identity, and nationalism, was viewed as a bourgeois concept.  It had no place in Soviet society.  The Bolsheviks were attempting to build a new man, free from the constraints of the past.  They believed they would move beyond such bourgeois concepts as nationalism.  I believe a significant number of problems emanate from the fact nationalism was suppressed by the Bolsheviks.  Anything suppressed will reappear, often in unhealthy forms. 

[JayH]

I simply do not agree with you that Maidan was not about Russia -- it was in essence about rejecting Yanukoyich, a puppet of Russia who enriched himself; who originally agreed to move towards the EU but last minute decided instead to become a part of Putins' trading system -- something the younger generation of Ukraine are clearly against -- they've seen the past and want a better future.  Certainly there may have been elements of what you are saying -- but in essence it was a struggle against Yanukovych/Putin and a desire to move towards the EU.

AC-- I think Mrs B has it basically right in her summary.If you commented that it was a move away from corruption and the old ways-- that would be a comment I would agree with. But it was only about Russia as a by-product of  more positive aspirations to change  a direction  for the whole country.
Mrs B uses the 48% stat--  while that may be accurate--it did not take into account the large  % hoping for change.No one could have anticipated such an overwhelming change in such a short time. It was in fact far More than expected-- and only the Russian invasion spoiling the party.
Many in Ukraine were slow on understanding the magnitude of the Maidan struggle ( and some here on the forum of course!!) and were sceptical of any and all politicians. That is still a big factor today-- this group and the next government MUST govern for all Ukrainians and be realistic in what is achievable and can be delivered . The distraction of the Russian invasion has united the country magnificently-- and any government with half a brain will seek to capitalise on that and be inclusive of all interests. It is a huge task-- and the world owes Ukraine the help it will need .

[AC]

It is true, they left for a better life, but it had nothing to do with corruption, but rather, with poverty.  They came to Canada because they received 160 acres of land.  Whole villages, or almost a whole village, settled in rural Canada.  It was not unusual to have entire communities where no one spoke English.  Even children didn't speak English until they started school. 

What is a "true Slav"?  Does someone who moves his village from Western Ukraine to the Canadian prairies, including not only his neighbours, but his priest, his traditions, the way he builds his home, the manner in which he dresses, what he eats, etc., no longer a Slav?   

I find it insulting to suggest that a "true Slav" is corrupt.  That simply is not true.

I simply don't have time right now to respond to all of your interesting points so will focus on this one.  I had to Google "Ukrainians who moved to Canada given 160 acres of land" to find out what you were talking about.  I would say clearly that since this happened more than 100 years ago, most people who once considered themselves to be Ukrainian, over time considered themselves Ukrainian-Canadians, and ultimately just Canadians. 

If you find it insulting; well that was not my intention as I'm sure there are variations within any given group -- yet it is what it is.  Ukrainians and Russians still living in either Ukraine or Russia are by nature far more corrupt and out for themselves then the average bear from Canada, the USA or most of the West.

This is an excerpt from an article I found -- I find it illuminating that most were from an area formerly under Austrian rule:

"Although eighty percent of the Ukraine’s land was part of the Russian empire, most Ukrainians that landed on Canada’s shores during this period were from the western portion, then under Austrian rule. The first immigration consisted almost entirely of land-hungry peasants from the provinces of Galicia and Bukovina.

Denied any opportunities to improve their lot in their homeland, they were attracted to Canada by its policy of granting virtually free lands or "homesteads" to settlers.

Wasyl Eleniak and Ivan Pillipiw are commonly considered to be the first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada.

Wasyl Eleniak, one of the first Ukrainian settlers to make Canada his home, was born on 22 December 1859 at Nebyliv, district Kalush in Western Ukraine. In 1883 he married a local Nebyliv girl named Anna Roszko.During his early married life Wasyl was employed in the lumbering industry, driving rafts down the river Limnytsia. He had heard tales of Canada from some of the German colonists who had relatives in Canada, a land, it was reported, "where the settlers received 160 acres of land for nothing." His parents owned only three morgen of land (1 morgen is equal to approximately 2/3 of an acre) and, therefore, he decided to emigrate to Canada.

Determined to make a better life in Canada, he was joined by two fellow villagers, Ivan Pylypow (Pylypivsky) and Yurko Panischak. At the end of the summer of 1891, they left their native village and proceeded to Hamburg where they were to board a ship and sail to Canada. Yurko Panischak, short of money, was turned back by officials; but Wasyl Eleniak and Ivan Pylypow paid the fare of 100 golden each for the passage and began their journey for Canada on the S.S. OREGON. They arrived in Quebec 7 September 1891 and proceeded to Winnipeg. Prior to settling on their own homesteads, the two new Ukrainian settlers went to work on Mennonite community farms in Gretna, Manitoba. After two years, Wasyl Eleniak had saved enough money to afford a return trip to Nebyliv, where he intended to gather his family and a few friends and bring them back to Canada with him. He obtained a regular passport from the district office in Kalush (dated 26 February 1894) and together with six other Nebyliv families proceeded to Hamburg. He found himself short of money to pay the passage for all members of the family and was forced to return to Nebyliv to work for another month driving rafts on the Limnytsia river. Once he had saved enough money for his passage he left again for Hamburg, where he boarded the S.S. MONGOLIAN which arrived at Quebec on 25 June 1894.

Early life for Eleniak on the prairies was not easy and required a lot of hard work. For the first four years in Canada he worked as a herdsman in Manitoba before he took his family to Alberta in 1898 where they settled on a homestead within the Edna-Star district (later became Chipman, Alberta). There, his family prospered. He became a successful farmer, raised a large family and on January 3rd, 1947 was chosen by the Canadian Government to be one of the honorary recipients of Canadian Citizenship Certificate during the First Citizenship Ceremony held at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was the first recipient."



Then there's this quotation, from you (see above):



"It is the result of an underdeveloped state, with no real institutions functioning at a state level.  It may be the fault, partly, of Moscow, but it is also the fault of all those Ukrainian bureaucrats who were not banned from holding office after the collapse of the USSR, who turned overnight from committed communists, informing on others left and right, to the most cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country and society.  They had a choice.  That is not Moscow's fault.

My better half used to joke "Is it time to call the Germans in?" (for both Russia and Ukraine).  It may actually have been a very good idea."



Should the Germans be called (according to your better half) because they are more honest, and simply do not have corruption so deeply entrenched into their nature?


And, perhaps you are correct.  They did not have a choice in the matter of turning into "cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country"; because after all they are indeed "true Slavs". 

[cc3]

I don't think Russia is to blame for all Ukraine's problems, nor even most of its problems pre the war.

Ukraine has been plagued with corruption, particularly among its politicians and their "clans".  Kuchma and his family built a billion dollar plus fortune during his years in office.  Tymoshenko, of course, got rich stealing state gas and developing schemes while in power, including manipulating the currency.  Yushchenko and his friends stole Russian gas, and he personally built a world class private art collection by plundering Ukraine's museums.  Yanukovych and his clan also got rich stealing state funds.  None of this can be blamed on Russia, it is the fault of Ukrainian leaders.

Western Ukraine is not ruled by Russia, yet corruption there is endemic.  It is far worse than in most parts of Central Ukraine.

Oh, don't tell me that. I just moved to Lviv!

[Boethius]

I simply don't have time right now to respond to all of your interesting points so will focus on this one.  I had to Google "Ukrainians who moved to Canada given 160 acres of land" to find out what you were talking about.  I would say clearly that since this happened more than 100 years ago, most people who once considered themselves to be Ukrainian, over time considered themselves Ukrainian-Canadians, and ultimately just Canadians. 

If you find it insulting; well that was not my intention as I'm sure there are variations within any given group -- yet it is what it is.  Ukrainians and Russians still living in either Ukraine or Russia are by nature far more corrupt and out for themselves then the average bear from Canada, the USA or most of the West.

This is an excerpt from an article I found -- I find it illuminating that most were from an area formerly under Austrian rule:

"Although eighty percent of the Ukraine’s land was part of the Russian empire, most Ukrainians that landed on Canada’s shores during this period were from the western portion, then under Austrian rule. The first immigration consisted almost entirely of land-hungry peasants from the provinces of Galicia and Bukovina.

Denied any opportunities to improve their lot in their homeland, they were attracted to Canada by its policy of granting virtually free lands or "homesteads" to settlers.

Wasyl Eleniak and Ivan Pillipiw are commonly considered to be the first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada.

Wasyl Eleniak, one of the first Ukrainian settlers to make Canada his home, was born on 22 December 1859 at Nebyliv, district Kalush in Western Ukraine. In 1883 he married a local Nebyliv girl named Anna Roszko.During his early married life Wasyl was employed in the lumbering industry, driving rafts down the river Limnytsia. He had heard tales of Canada from some of the German colonists who had relatives in Canada, a land, it was reported, "where the settlers received 160 acres of land for nothing." His parents owned only three morgen of land (1 morgen is equal to approximately 2/3 of an acre) and, therefore, he decided to emigrate to Canada.

Determined to make a better life in Canada, he was joined by two fellow villagers, Ivan Pylypow (Pylypivsky) and Yurko Panischak. At the end of the summer of 1891, they left their native village and proceeded to Hamburg where they were to board a ship and sail to Canada. Yurko Panischak, short of money, was turned back by officials; but Wasyl Eleniak and Ivan Pylypow paid the fare of 100 golden each for the passage and began their journey for Canada on the S.S. OREGON. They arrived in Quebec 7 September 1891 and proceeded to Winnipeg. Prior to settling on their own homesteads, the two new Ukrainian settlers went to work on Mennonite community farms in Gretna, Manitoba. After two years, Wasyl Eleniak had saved enough money to afford a return trip to Nebyliv, where he intended to gather his family and a few friends and bring them back to Canada with him. He obtained a regular passport from the district office in Kalush (dated 26 February 1894) and together with six other Nebyliv families proceeded to Hamburg. He found himself short of money to pay the passage for all members of the family and was forced to return to Nebyliv to work for another month driving rafts on the Limnytsia river. Once he had saved enough money for his passage he left again for Hamburg, where he boarded the S.S. MONGOLIAN which arrived at Quebec on 25 June 1894.

Early life for Eleniak on the prairies was not easy and required a lot of hard work. For the first four years in Canada he worked as a herdsman in Manitoba before he took his family to Alberta in 1898 where they settled on a homestead within the Edna-Star district (later became Chipman, Alberta). There, his family prospered. He became a successful farmer, raised a large family and on January 3rd, 1947 was chosen by the Canadian Government to be one of the honorary recipients of Canadian Citizenship Certificate during the First Citizenship Ceremony held at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was the first recipient."



Then there's this quotation, from you (see above):



"It is the result of an underdeveloped state, with no real institutions functioning at a state level.  It may be the fault, partly, of Moscow, but it is also the fault of all those Ukrainian bureaucrats who were not banned from holding office after the collapse of the USSR, who turned overnight from committed communists, informing on others left and right, to the most cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country and society.  They had a choice.  That is not Moscow's fault.

My better half used to joke "Is it time to call the Germans in?" (for both Russia and Ukraine).  It may actually have been a very good idea."



Should the Germans be called (according to your better half) because they are more honest, and simply do not have corruption so deeply entrenched into their nature?


And, perhaps you are correct.  They did not have a choice in the matter of turning into "cut throat ruthless capitalists, with zero regard for the good of their own country"; because after all they are indeed "true Slavs".

Your excerpt is inaccurate.  Eleniak worked for Pylypiw, IIRC.


There have been four waves of Ukrainian emigration to Canada - late 19th/early 20th century, 1920's, DP's after WWII, and the post Soviet collapse.  In the first, whole villages moved. 


As for calling in the Germans, it is about efficiency.  If one wanted a rule of law and good governance, the Brits would be called in.   However, the Germans have a history in the region that the Brits, largely, do not.

[Boethius]

Oh, don't tell me that. I just moved to Lviv!

Do you like it there?

[AC]

Then you don't know history.  Look at the mass execution of the officer corps, the Orthodox priests in gulags, the thousands of churches destroyed.  In the Volga, as in Ukraine, grain was confiscated, called "prodrazvyorstka" (in the case of the Volga, to feed the Red Army), and lands were littered with bodies.  Robert Conquest traced this, noting it was started in lands occupied by Russians and Ukrainians.  To this day, only estimates of the numbers of dead can be made, as the Bolsheviks confiscated all records of births and marriages in the region, in order to hide the numbers of dead.  This was repeated in 1948-1947.  More died of starvation at that time in the Volga than during WWII.  Whole villages disappeared.  Two million Russians died during the Great Terror and party purges alone.

I stated that "in general" I disagreed with your opinion that Russians suffered under the Soviet Union.  Perhaps I should have qualified that by stating "those Russians, who got with the program" did not suffer. 

Above you state:  "This was repeated in 1948-1947."  I am going to guess that was a typo.  No one knows for sure how many died during purges, because as you claim birth records and marriage records were confiscated; yet there is another possibility, and that is that the numbers have been exaggerated by Western propaganda.  I am no real big fan of communism, however Russian communism never became the nightmare for all that happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge; so regardless of theory -- in practice there was always a Russian element to their version of communism -- which was far more humane and livable than what happened in Cambodia or even China for that matter.

here are some population figures:
 

Soviet Republic
 

Population as of
1979 Census
 

Population as of
1989 Census[4]
 

Change
 

Percent
 change
 

1  Russian SFSR 137,551,000 147,400,537 Increase 9,849,537 Increase 7.2%
2  Ukrainian SSR 49,755,000 51,706,742 Increase 1,951,742 Increase 3.9%
3  Uzbek SSR 15,391,000 19,905,158 Increase 4,514,158 Increase 29.3%
4  Kazakh SSR 14,684,000 16,536,511 Increase 1,852,511 Increase 12.6%
5  Byelorussian SSR 9,560,000 10,199,709 Increase 639,709 Increase 6.7%
6  Azerbaijan SSR 6,028,000 7,037,867 Increase 1,009,867 Increase 16.8%
7  Georgian SSR 5,015,000 5,443,359 Increase 428,359 Increase 8.5%
8  Tajik SSR 3,801,000 5,108,576 Increase 1,307,576 Increase 34.4%
9  Moldavian SSR 3,947,000 4,337,592 Increase 390,592 Increase 9.9%
10  Kirghiz SSR 3,529,000 4,290,442 Increase 761,442 Increase 21.6%
11 Lithuanian Soviet Socialist RepublicLithuania Lithuanian SSR 3,398,000 3,689,779 Increase 291,779 Increase 8.6%
12  Turkmen SSR 2,759,000 3,533,925 Increase 774,925 Increase 28.1%
13  Armenian SSR 3,031,000 3,287,677 Increase 256,677 Increase 8.5%
14  Latvian SSR 2,521,000 2,680,029 Increase 159,029 Increase 6.3%
15  Estonian SSR 1,466,000 1,572,916 Increase 106,916 Increase 7.3%
   Soviet Union 262,436,000 286,730,819 24,294,819 9.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1989)

Notice that both Russia and Ukraine had population increases from 1979 to 1989; so your assertion that all or most Russians were killed or suffered is misleading, and furthermore those countries were not declining, they were gaining in population, as were all the other countries of the USSR listed.

[AC]

It is a way to protect what he views as Russia's interests.  I doubt he really believes it.

As far as Putin saying that he believes he has a right to protect ethnic Russians living outside of Russia but within countries which were part of the FSU, you can doubt he really believes it all you want to; I prefer to believe that he is telling the truth here and his actions prove it.

[AC]

On further analysis, this is not what it seems.

I read somewhere that the Russian budget is based on an oil price of $100/bbl.  American oil (WTI) is now selling for less than $90/bbl, dropping from $102/bbl in only two months.   See the chart below for the price s over the past year.

Four factors at work:

1.  America is producing more oil (i. e. importing less) and is expected to be  net exporter in not many years.  Oil imports accounted for 67% of the US trade deficit in 2011, and today only 40% and still dropping. 

2.  Demand for oil is slowing in Europe and Asia as the global economy slows, and Russian aggression in Ukraine is not helping.

3.  Saudi Arabia is pumping more oil to keep revenues up with a declining price, and other OPEC members such as Iran are planning to produce more crude oil. 

4.  The dollar is strengthening. 

The end result is that while Russia has much oil, the revenue will decline for years to come.  Because its economy depends so much on oil, the future does not look good for Russia's economy, especially with the EU and US sanctions continuing against Russia. 

Russians may take pride in Putin's aggression against a weak Ukraine, yet they should prepare for a reduced lifestyle.  I wonder if they too will start calling Putin a dickhead.

Well if you can accurately predict the price of oil than you are a wiser man than I am.  There are so many variables that go into the price; yet all that you wrote is true, providing that some other variables don't also come into play.   


http://useconomy.about.com/od/supply/f/crude_oil_price.htm

[Boethius]

I stated that "in general" I disagreed with your opinion that Russians suffered under the Soviet Union.  Perhaps I should have qualified that by stating "those Russians, who got with the program" did not suffer. 

Above you state:  "This was repeated in 1948-1947."  I am going to guess that was a typo.  No one knows for sure how many died during purges, because as you claim birth records and marriage records were confiscated; yet there is another possibility, and that is that the numbers have been exaggerated by Western propaganda.  I am no real big fan of communism, however Russian communism never became the nightmare for all that happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge; so regardless of theory -- in practice there was always a Russian element to their version of communism -- which was far more humane and livable than what happened in Cambodia or even China for that matter.

here are some population figures:
 

Soviet Republic
 

Population as of
1979 Census
 
Population as of
1989 Census[4]

Change

Percent
 change
 

1  Russian SFSR 137,551,000 147,400,537 Increase 9,849,537 Increase 7.2%
2  Ukrainian SSR 49,755,000 51,706,742 Increase 1,951,742 Increase 3.9%
3  Uzbek SSR 15,391,000 19,905,158 Increase 4,514,158 Increase 29.3%
4  Kazakh SSR 14,684,000 16,536,511 Increase 1,852,511 Increase 12.6%
5  Byelorussian SSR 9,560,000 10,199,709 Increase 639,709 Increase 6.7%
6  Azerbaijan SSR 6,028,000 7,037,867 Increase 1,009,867 Increase 16.8%
7  Georgian SSR 5,015,000 5,443,359 Increase 428,359 Increase 8.5%
8  Tajik SSR 3,801,000 5,108,576 Increase 1,307,576 Increase 34.4%
9  Moldavian SSR 3,947,000 4,337,592 Increase 390,592 Increase 9.9%
10  Kirghiz SSR 3,529,000 4,290,442 Increase 761,442 Increase 21.6%
11 Lithuanian Soviet Socialist RepublicLithuania Lithuanian SSR 3,398,000 3,689,779 Increase 291,779 Increase 8.6%
12  Turkmen SSR 2,759,000 3,533,925 Increase 774,925 Increase 28.1%
13  Armenian SSR 3,031,000 3,287,677 Increase 256,677 Increase 8.5%
14  Latvian SSR 2,521,000 2,680,029 Increase 159,029 Increase 6.3%
15  Estonian SSR 1,466,000 1,572,916 Increase 106,916 Increase 7.3%
   Soviet Union 262,436,000 286,730,819 24,294,819 9.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1989)

Notice that both Russia and Ukraine had population increases from 1979 to 1989; so your assertion that all or most Russians were killed or suffered is misleading, and furthermore those countries were not declining, they were gaining in population, as were all the other countries of the USSR listed.

Far more humane? 

Whole ethnic groups were deported from their native lands at whim.  Whole villages were wiped out because some official was afraid someone may spill the truth about him.

Both my husband's grandfathers kept a suitcase packed behind the door, in case a Chaika came in the middle of the night.  Both, until the mid 1970's.  In one Grandfather's family, every member in Russia was slaughtered by the Bolsheviks, including babies.  One woman was hunted and shot on her way into her house.  Grandfather and his brother survived because they were in Ukraine, not Russia, and their surname had been changed to their maternal name when their father was banished by Nicholas II.  In the other family, again, Grandfather's name had been changed.  Only he, a brother who was a specialist in a field the commies needed, and a sister who was married and had another surname survived.  Again, they were hunted.  Eventually with Grandfather, they found the connection, and he was arrested and was to be sent to a gulag and shot.  However, Stalin died, so he was released.  However, he was hunted to his dying day, as were his sons, and his grandson.

The last prisoner to die in a gulag died in 1984.

After the collapse of the USSR, there was a short period (a number of years) during which all its archives were available.  During that time, a few Western scholars had access to those archives.   Their access proved that Robert Conquest's numbers in Harvest of Sorrow were under, not overreported.

More Chinese died not because Russian communists were kinder, but because there were more Chinese.  However, there weren't whole communities being killed in the 1960's and beyond in the USSR.

[AC]

Far more humane? 

Whole ethnic groups were deported from their native lands at whim.  Whole villages were wiped out because some official was afraid someone may spill the truth about him.

Both my husband's grandfathers kept a suitcase packed behind the door, in case a Chaika came in the middle of the night.  Both, until the mid 1970's.  In one Grandfather's family, every member in Russia was slaughtered by the Bolsheviks, including babies.  One woman was hunted and shot on her way into her house.  Grandfather and his brother survived because they were in Ukraine, not Russia, and their surname had been changed to their maternal name when their father was banished by Nicholas II.  In the other family, again, Grandfather's name had been changed.  Only he, a brother who was a specialist in a field the commies needed, and a sister who was married and had another surname survived.  Again, they were hunted.  Eventually with Grandfather, they found the connection, and he was arrested and was to be sent to a gulag and shot.  However, Stalin died, so he was released.  However, he was hunted to his dying day, as were his sons, and his grandson.

The last prisoner to die in a gulag died in 1984.

After the collapse of the USSR, there was a short period (a number of years) during which all its archives were available.  During that time, a few Western scholars had access to those archives.   Their access proved that Robert Conquest's numbers in Harvest of Sorrow were under, not overreported.

More Chinese died not because Russian communists were kinder, but because there were more Chinese.  However, there weren't whole communities being killed in the 1960's and beyond in the USSR.

Yes, definitely more humane than the Khmer Rouge.  China's numbers were likely mostly because of overpopulation, but also because of their zeal.  Each communist country may claim to want to do away with nationalism, but it never works. 

I maintain my opinion that Russians were the rulers of the Empire of the Soviet Union; the favored ones.  Putin clearly does not care that he has made enemies of ethnic Ukrainians, he favors the ethnic Russians.

I also qualified my statement to be those who "got with the program". 

Considering that the population of both Russia and Ukraine were growing, but are now declining, it would seem that in many some ways life was better for the average person in the FSU.  They had guaranteed employment, healthcare benefits, vacation benefits and retirement benefits.  Do you dispute that?