Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Good read:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/...ng-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/

"Kievan Roots


Aside from its cultural proximity, Ukraine�s sentimental and spiritual appeal to many Russians derives from the fact that the Kievan Rus� � a medieval state that came into existence in the 9th century and was centred around present-day Kiev � is regarded as a joint ancestral homeland that laid the foundations for both modern Russia and Ukraine. But from the time of its foundation to its conquest by the Mongols in the 13th century, the Rus� was an increasingly fragmented federation of principalities. Its south-western territories, including Kiev, were conquered by Poland and Lithuania in the early 14th century. For roughly four hundred years, these territories, encompassing most of present-day Ukraine, were formally ruled by Poland-Lithuania, which left a deep cultural imprint on them. During these four centuries, the Orthodox East Slavic population of these lands gradually developed an identity distinct from that of the East Slavs remaining in the territories under Mongol and later Muscovite rule. A distinct Ukrainian language had already begun to emerge in the dying days of the Kievan Rus� (notwithstanding Vladimir Putin�s factually incorrect claim that �the first linguistic differences [between Ukrainians and Russians] appeared only around the 16th century�). Following the incorporation of present-day Ukraine into Poland-Lithuania, the Ukrainian language evolved in relative isolation from the Russian language. At the same time, religious divisions developed within Eastern Orthodoxy. From the mid-15th to the late 17th centuries, the Orthodox Churches in Moscow and in Kiev developed as separate entities, initiating a division that eventually resurfaced in later schisms.


Most of what is now Ukraine was formally governed by Polish-Lithuanian nobility prior to the 18th century, but these lands were predominantly inhabited by Orthodox East Slavs who began to form semi-autonomous hosts of peasant warriors � the Cossacks. Most of them felt a cultural affinity for Muscovite Russia but had no particular desire to be a part of the Muscovite state. In the 16th through 18th centuries, the Cossacks in present-day Ukraine began to form their own de facto statelets, the �Zaporizhian Sich� and later the Cossack �Hetmanate�. They staged a major uprising against their Polish overlords in 1648. Six years later, the expanding Tsardom of Russia signed a treaty of alliance with the Zaporizhian Cossacks. Notwithstanding this temporary turn towards Moscow, the Cossacks also explored other options: In the Treaty of Hadiach with Poland in 1658, they were on the verge of becoming a fully-fledged constituent member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Had this treaty been successfully implemented, it would likely have tied the Cossacks� quasi-state firmly to its western neighbours for the foreseeable future.


The treaty failed, however, and the Cossacks remained divided in their loyalties. Internal disagreements about whether to side with Poland or Russia contributed to a series of civil wars among them in the late 1600s. In a foreshadowing of Ukraine�s present-day dilemma, the Cossacks shifted their allegiance more than once with the ultimate aim of gaining autonomy from both sides. (...)"

Putin is stressing the same kind of things....part of the problem is that people are still revering to cradle Kiev for the Rus etc. This obviously gives a legitimation to brutal attacks, because in fact it's not a external but internal affair. Ukrainians don't exist as population they are part of Rus etc....

So are you legitimizing Putin Tomenable?
 
^^^
I'm not, please read more carefully, the article rather debunks Putin's claims.

BTW:

FMrBOiNWUAEL8Nu
 
^^^
I'm not, please read more carefully, the article rather debunks Putin's claims.

BTW:

Not really the mindset is the same (ethnicity, same roots etc) only different outcomes.

2022 and things based on cossacks huhuh
 
Germans are obviously one nation, but as we have seen, there can be breakaways for a variety of reasons in history.

The point is it has never been so. They made it to a kind of nation but it has ever been a bunch of diversity.
 
Russians claimed that Ukrainians have no history of their own and are part of Russia.


But apparently Ukrainians will have a history very soon, they are building it now.

The hammer on the head there is a sense of national unity, pushed forth by such a brutal attack.
 
The point is it has never been so. They made it to a kind of nation but it has ever been a bunch of diversity.

There are like always lumpers and splitters, but Germans were always one nation, but before the unification just in different states. There is some diversity everywhere, even within the smaller units of e.g. Bavaria are big cultural, dialectal and even genetic differences. So what, if what unites is more than what splits. People in Germany used to "Deutsch" quite specifically for people of the same ethnicity. I did read it in many Medieval sources and people knew perfectly well whether someone was German or not, usually.
The main problem of the Ukrainians, to come back to that topic, is that they were split at various times from the Russians, which gave them their own trajectory. Similar to first Dutch, then Swiss, latest Austrians and Southern Tyrolese in the German case. For the Ukrainians, Bolshevism/Stalinism was one very big moment of their more recent history. This was something which was never forgotten, which is in itself a tragedy, if you think about the fact that these were crimes done by non-Russians in charge of the Russian state, not even by actual ethnic Russians. But like so often in such cases, once it happened, it can't be made undone and casts a big shadow on everything that follows.
 
There are like always lumpers and splitters, but Germans were always one nation, but before the unification just in different states. There is some diversity everywhere, even within the smaller units of e.g. Bavaria are big cultural, dialectal and even genetic differences. So what, if what unites is more than what splits. People in Germany used to "Deutsch" quite specifically for people of the same ethnicity. I did read it in many Medieval sources and people knew perfectly well whether someone was German or not, usually.
The main problem of the Ukrainians, to come back to that topic, is that they were split at various times from the Russians, which gave them their own trajectory. Similar to first Dutch, then Swiss, latest Austrians and Southern Tyrolese in the German case. For the Ukrainians, Bolshevism/Stalinism was one very big moment of their more recent history. This was something which was never forgotten, which is in itself a tragedy, if you think about the fact that these were crimes done by non-Russians in charge of the Russian state, not even by actual ethnic Russians. But like so often in such cases, once it happened, it can't be made undone and casts a big shadow on everything that follows.

In national sense no way! Take East-Frisia and Bayern...what did they have in common? Yes after the unification of Germany a kind common language (for official use). But this was a proces after unification not before. Before that they had even less in common..... So don't try to put it reverse: retrospect project an unity (fata morgana). This is an outcome and not an input and has been an arbitrary proces (the provinz of Limburg in the Netherlands could have been part of the Rhineland, no problem).
 
In national sense no way! Take East-Frisia and Bayern...what did they have in common? Yes after the unification of Germany a kind common language (for official use). But this was a proces after unification not before. Before that they had even less in common..... So don't try to put it reverse: retrospect project an unity (fata morgana). The his is an outcome and not an input and has been an arbitrary proces (the provinz of Limburg in the Netherlands could have been part of the Rhineland, no problem).

We see it in areas in which colonists from various German areas came together, they usually distinguished more clearly between German and non-German settlers, like French-Walloon vs. Dutch-Flemish-Frisian and general German. Usually, the settlers developed pretty fast a united sense of being German, you see in in the names of persons and villages, as well as how they referred to each other. French-Walloon ("Welsche") was kept longer alive, than any other distinction. Of course, they did differentiate too, between a Bavarian and a Saxon, no doubt about that, but they still were considered more similar/same as well, especially in the face of people with greater differences, which is the main thing about ethnic identity. Because even village groups can have their own identity, and can fight, but they still know whether the neighbours belogn to a similar/same ethnicity or not.

Obviously the ethnic differences between Russians and Ukrainians are very small, but its more about historical incidents and cultural differences, similar to the German breakaways.
 
There are like always lumpers and splitters, but Germans were always one nation, but before the unification just in different states. There is some diversity everywhere, even within the smaller units of e.g. Bavaria are big cultural, dialectal and even genetic differences. So what, if what unites is more than what splits. People in Germany used to "Deutsch" quite specifically for people of the same ethnicity. I did read it in many Medieval sources and people knew perfectly well whether someone was German or not, usually.
The main problem of the Ukrainians, to come back to that topic, is that they were split at various times from the Russians, which gave them their own trajectory. Similar to first Dutch, then Swiss, latest Austrians and Southern Tyrolese in the German case. For the Ukrainians, Bolshevism/Stalinism was one very big moment of their more recent history. This was something which was never forgotten, which is in itself a tragedy, if you think about the fact that these were crimes done by non-Russians in charge of the Russian state, not even by actual ethnic Russians. But like so often in such cases, once it happened, it can't be made undone and casts a big shadow on everything that follows.

Imo you are reasoning close to the "identitierian movement" that is not essential different from the Putin/Dugin kind of reasoning.
I know that is way you understand or better legitimize Putin than I do....I'm too seafaring ;)
 
We see it in areas in which colonists from various German areas came together, they usually distinguished more clearly between German and non-German settlers, like French-Walloon vs. Dutch-Flemish-Frisian and general German. Usually, the settlers developed pretty fast a united sense of being German, you see in in the names of persons and villages, as well as how they referred to each other. French-Walloon ("Welsche") was kept longer alive, than any other distinction. Of course, they did differentiate too, between a Bavarian and a Saxon, no doubt about that, but they still were considered more similar/same as well, especially in the face of people with greater differences, which is the main thing about ethnic identity. Because even village groups can have their own identity, and can fight, but they still know whether the neighbours belogn to a similar/same ethnicity or not.

Obviously the ethnic differences between Russians and Ukrainians are very small, but its more about historical incidents and cultural differences, similar to the German breakaways.

You still didn't answer the question what bound the East-Frisian and the Bavarian together before they were in a nation unity......Same for the Dutch may be my identity comes closer to the the East-Frisian one than that from North-Brabant or Limburg. Still Noord-Brabant en Groningen are in one nation ;) So nation building is not pre fixed, is not given and is fluid.

And that's in the Ukraine also the case see the remark of Tomenable.
 
You still didn't answer the question what bound the East-Frisian and the Bavarian together before they were in a nation unity......Same for the Dutch may be my identity comes closer to the the East-Frisian one than that from North-Brabant or Limburg. Still Noord-Brabant en Groningen are in one nation ;) So nation building is not pre fixed, is not given and is fluid.

And that's in the Ukraine also the case see the remark of Tomenable.

They had an ethnic and cultural identity. Well, Frisians are an extreme case, probably, not even comparable to neighbouring Saxons, people from Hamburg etc. But otherwise, like I said, if they settled somewhere else or met each other, they knew they were different, but also what they had in common.

Everything is kind of fluid in this respect, especially if its about states and ideology. Even ethnic identities can shift and being seen differently in conflicts and war in particular. But there was a common German identity, which dates back to a much earlier time than the German political unification under Prussia. It was present in the people's minds long before Prussia as a state existed.
 
They had an ethnic and cultural identity. Well, Frisians are an extreme case, probably, not even comparable to neighbouring Saxons, people from Hamburg etc. But otherwise, like I said, if they settled somewhere else or met each other, they knew they were different, but also what they had in common.

Everything is kind of fluid in this respect, especially if its about states and ideology. Even ethnic identities can shift and being seen differently in conflicts and war in particular. But there was a common German identity, which dates back to a much earlier time than the German political unification under Prussia. It was present in the people's minds long before Prussia as a state existed.


Yes they had, but the East-Frisian had a very differentiated one from the Bavarian. So there was no 'underlying unity'.

That settlement in new colonies like the US were based on things as same religion, heritage, may be language (even the non national ones!) etc is also true, but that is no answer on a a presumed unity before the building of a nation.

Everything is kind of fluid in this respect, especially if its about states and ideology. Even ethnic identities can shift and being seen differently in conflicts and war in particular. But there was a common German identity, which dates back to a much earlier time than the German political unification under Prussia. It was present in the people's minds long before Prussia as a state existed.

Agree, that's past a pre-fixed essential or nucleus. That is an idee fixe.
 
I was previously Dominique_Nuit. Ask Jovialis. He reYmembered me. Not that I wish to draw him into such silliness. If you want to call me a sock account, then fine. It makes no difference to the merits of the argument.

And before that you were someone else. How many accounts, how many nationality claims have you made? Don't bother to answer. That's a rhetorical question.

You may not have heard this before, but once you catch people lying, all trust about anything they say goes out the window.

As for this grand theory that Germany and Russia are natural allies, I'd say they're natural enemies for control of Europe. That's certainly been the case throughout history and I would bet both countries are quite aware of it.

Especially after the events of the last month why on earth would any German head of state ally with Russia? Why would they ever trust any Russian ruler's promises or treaties.

I'm sure you don't like to have it pointed out, and you never address it, but in 1994 Russia solemnly promised in a treaty that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons it, along with the U.S. and the U.K. GUARANTEED UKRAINE'S SOVREIGNTY. Whatever happened to that promise? If I were a Ukrainian I'd be pissed as hell at both the U.K and the U.K. for not coming to its aid more quickly.

As for any hopes that through trade Russia would be tamed and ultimately democratize, Germany has, I think, seen quite enough to know that was a vain hope.

Plus, what could Germany possibly get from Russia other than energy. It's been said Russia is a third world country with nukes. They probably don't even work if the state of their army is any judge.

Many of these think tank talking heads are incredibly naive, and their theories take no account of the long memories of Europeans, and their sense of their own nationhood.

Speaking of which, in this grand alliance I suppose all the countries of the former Eastern Bloc are just expendable, as they were expendable when many of them were divided up between Germany and Russia.

I guess none of these "theorists" give a damn about them and so they never bothered to even ask them what they thought.

Have you ever heard the term cognitive dissonance.

After praising the German policy of seeking through trade and closer ties to Russia a gradual change in Russia itself you write this? You have got to be kidding!

"To the extent it was not determined by the duplicity of certain elite groups, our policy toward China post-1989 was a reflection of the sheer naivete of our elites, their foolish notion that a liberal trading order would lead by certain benign laws of history to the relaxed & friendly comity of liberal democratic states, a world without military competition, spiritual tension or strife. Too foolish for me to waste words on."
 
That's a crucial debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9f5VuAe9c

If the Russians don't even have popular support in the majority Russian Eastern regions, outside of the Donbas, they have a general problem. Its a very important question and this reporter claims that people changed their attitude in the recent years, which is what I asked before, whether the attitude has changed in the East also in very recent times.
Let's hope for the negotiations and that Ukraine doesn't stick to Crimea and NATO membership, which is, quite obviously, the most important part for a potential compromise. Because if they don't give in on those two matters, we have to expect a much worse escalation, whether the Ukrainians win or lose, it will become devastating and globally dangerous.

Well, those are the dangers of believing things coming out of the mouths of autocrats; you often find out they're not true.
 
there was a common German identity, which dates back to a much earlier time than the German political unification under Prussia. It was present in the people's minds long before Prussia as a state existed.

I do agree, however it was not as universal as you are implying. There were people who did not share that common identity. For example German 19th century writer Heinrich von Kleist described such a confrontation between a son and a father:


"The romantic writer Heinrich von Kleist, although himself a nationalist, acknowledged the contradictions of identity found in 19th century Germany, imagining a young nationalist confronting his father with an assertion of German nationality, and the father's indignant reply that the son was born in Meissen and is therefore a Saxon, tartly observing that this mythical land of 'Germany' can be found on no map, and its people in no census."


^^^
And e.g. people of Danzig in early 1800s (Napoleonic times) were like that father. They hated Prussia and had a nostalgia for Polish-Lithuanian times.


Pan-German attitudes became very widespread / nearly universal only later, after Napoleonic times.
 
Well, those are the dangers of believing things coming out of the mouths of autocrats; you often find out they're not true.

You have to consider that the Ukrainians being under the influence of propaganda as much as the Russians are. Ukraine being largely controlled by a handful of oligarchs and the current president being pushed by the media of his country, after being the actor of a series in which he played a president...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9smD823aE0

The common people on both sides of the border being manipulated.

I do agree, however it was not as universal as you are implying. There were people who did not share that common identity. For example German 19th century writer Heinrich von Kleist described such a confrontation between a son and a father:


"The romantic writer Heinrich von Kleist, although himself a nationalist, acknowledged the contradictions of identity found in 19th century Germany, imagining a young nationalist confronting his father with an assertion of German nationality, and the father's indignant reply that the son was born in Meissen and is therefore a Saxon, tartly observing that this mythical land of 'Germany' can be found on no map, and its people in no census."


^^^
And e.g. people of Danzig in early 1800s (Napoleonic times) were like that father. They hated Prussia and had a nostalgia for Polish-Lithuanian times.


Pan-German attitudes became very widespread / nearly universal only later, after Napoleonic times.

These are different things, because if you don't like Prussian rule, it doesn't mean you don't identify as a German. Or if you say your are a Saxon, it doesn't mean you don't also realise that you are a German. States, rulers, ideology can often conflict with ethnic identity. The Swiss e.g. didn't depart from Germany because they generally didn't felt German, but because they had a conflict with its system and rulers, a different kind of political struggle.

I think we shouldn't compare apples with oranges. There can be even ethnic Russians, obviously, which hate Putin more than many ethnic Ukrainians and might prefer any sort of independence and freedom from his and his party rule. Doesn't mean they don't know that they still are Russians. Same with the example you used.
 
^^^
OK but H. von Kleist's character said: "mythical land of 'Germany' can be found on no map, and its people [= Germans] in no census".

So, that was clearly about Germany. I'm sure that he did believe in the existence of Prussians, just not in the existence of Germans.
 
^^^
OK but H. von Kleist's character said: "mythical land of 'Germany' can be found on no map, and its people [= Germans] in no census".

So, that was clearly about Germany. I'm sure that he did believe in the existence of Prussians, just not in the existence of Germans.

That's of course referring to the fact that, at that point, there was no German state, but many German states - still this were German states. And it was even wrong at Kleist times, if he really said that, because some states already differentiated by ethnicity/mother tongue in their countries. However, its details and doesn't change the basic fact of a German identity which can traced back at least to Medieval times, potentially much earlier. That there were different tribes and regional states doesn't change that, because these were subordinate divisions.
 
Zelensky was an actor and a comedian before, while Putin was a spy. But Putin also has a good sense of humor and acting skills.
 

This thread has been viewed 303192 times.

Back
Top