Ukraine is not caught in East-West battle, says US
Source: BBC
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Ukraine is not caught in a battle between East and West.
Mr Kerry said it was not a zero-sum game and called for all nations to work together to bring stability to Ukraine.
The new administration in Kiev is facing continuing opposition from Ukraine's Russian-speaking regions.
Russia, which backed ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, has warned other states against seeking "unilateral advantages" in Ukraine.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26347042
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Russian government promoted the spread of the Russian language among the native Ukrainian population by actively refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Ukrainian language. At the same time, most Ukrainian literature was printed in Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
Alarmed by the threat of Ukrainian separatism influenced by recent demands of Polish nationalists, the Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Pyotr Valuev in 1863 issued a secret decree that banned the publication of religious texts and educational texts written in the Ukrainian language[9] as non-grammatical, but allowing all other texts, including fiction. This ban was expanded by Tsar Alexander II who issued the Ems Ukaz in 1876 (which lapsed in 1905). All Ukrainian language books and song lyrics were banned, as was the importation of such works. Furthermore, Ukrainian-language public performances, plays, and lectures were forbidden.[10] In 1881, the decree was amended to allow the publishing of lyrics and dictionaries, and the performances of some plays in the Ukrainian language with local officials' approval. Ukrainian-only troupes were, however, forbidden. Approximately 9% of population spoke Russian at the time of the Russian Census of 1897.
Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, with the termination of the policy of Ukrainianization. In December 1932, the regional party cells received a telegram signed by V. Molotov and Stalin with an order to immediately reverse the Ukrainianization policies. The telegram condemned Ukrainianization as ill-considered and harmful and demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian"
Major repression started in 1929–30, when a large group of Ukrainian intelligentsia was arrested and most were executed. In Ukrainian history, this group is often referred to as "Executed Renaissance" (Ukrainian: розстріляне відродження
. "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism" was declared to be the primary problem in Ukraine.[citation needed] The terror peaked in 1933, four to five years before the Soviet-wide "Great Purge", which, for Ukraine, was a second blow. The vast majority of leading scholars and cultural leaders of Ukraine were liquidated, as were the "Ukrainianized" and "Ukrainianizing" portions of the Communist party. Soviet Ukraine's autonomy was completely destroyed by the late 1930s
As a result of legislation entitled the 'Bill on the principles of the state language policy", which was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in August in 2012, languages spoken by at least 10% of an oblast's population were made possible to be elevated to the status of 'regional language'. Whilst Ukrainian remained the country's only 'official' language nationwide, other languages, dependent on their adoption by oblast authorities, became accepted mediums of communication in education, local government of. fices, courts and official correspondence.[6] On 23 February 2014, the law on regional languages was abolished, making Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels.
The law was so controversial that fist fights erupted in Parliament. It is widely thought to be unconstitutional. The bill also failed to obtain the support from the specialized institutions of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: Linguistics Institute, Institute of the Ukrainian Language, Institute of political and ethno-national researches, Shevchenko Institute of Literature, Institute of State and Law, Ukrainian linguistic-informational Fund, Philology Institute of Kiev University, Academy of Sciences of the High School of Ukraine.
[13]
You claim the repeal of the bill "stripping the Russian and Tatar minorities of language rights, enforcing the ethic Ukrainian language on peoples who have never had to speak it, and in areas that have never been Ukrainian." however, all the repeal of the bill did was return the language situation back to where it was since 1989. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. Also, the bill that permitted the Russian language to become the language of the local governments was only in place since August of 2012. Additionally, when the Russian language bill was passed this statement was made. Chairmen of the Supreme Council of Crimea Volodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea.[31]
So in your analysis, even though Crimea itself said the bill didn't change anything you think the repeal of the bill " stripping the Russian and Tatar minorities of language rights, enforcing the ethic Ukrainian language on peoples who have never had to speak it." You are waayy off base.
Also, Crimea is already an autonomous republic of Ukraine. And NO THE REPEAL OF THE LANGUAGE BILL PASSED IN 2012 DOES NOT FORCE ANY CRIMEAN TO USE ANY LANGUAGE. Stop believing the Putin propaganda machine.
Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)
The law was "only" passed in 2012 because the ethnic minorities had to fight Ukrainian racism and nationalism for YEARS to get it passed. The repeal was a direct slap in the face to those who were fighting for official recognition of Ukraine's ethnic minorities and has already been condemned by many European leaders.
Gay marriage has only been legal in some American states for a handful of years. If those states repealed those laws today, could we tell the gays not to complain because it "only returned the language back to where it was"? The language was changed for a REASON.
The real problem in Ukraine is that the current Ukrainian borders are largely a Russian invention. Look at the map below. The area shaded in white includes the original borders of Ukraine and the areas in which ethnic Ukrainians live. The white line shows the borders of modern Ukraine, which were drawn by the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. These borders include many areas that are not traditionally or ethnically Ukrainian and in which the Ukrainian language isn't widely used. Since 1989 the Ukrainian government has tried to make these areas more Ukrainian by limiting the public use of those areas native languages with an eye towards assimilation. The imposition of the Ukrainian language as a national language in 1989 was right wing nationalistic move that NOBODY should be supporting. Kiev has a duty to recognize their native ethnic minorities, to treat their native languages and traditions with respect, and to end any practices that try to "Ukrainianize" those people against their wills.
Traditional Ukraine:
Ukraine in 1918 before the Soviet's took it over:
The caption reads, "Hey girl. Move a little. You're oppressing me!"
Volhynia and Galicia have been pretty thoroughly Ukrainized for the last 500-600 years. Much of the east had been Ukrainian speaking until the tsars pushed for greater industrialization in the late 1800s. This kind of thinking has the same problem as, "Well, who can blame them for persecuting Russian speakers after what happened to the Ukrainian speakers under the Russians?" History justifies neither. What can justify that kind of attitude is preservation of the indigenous language--which, in this case, isn't Russian.
Note that there are some pretty hefty isoglosses between eastern and western Ukrainian and which date back quite a few centuries. Under the Soviets, there was "Ukrainian," and the official language was heavily eastern. Even Tito was less heavy handed: standard Serbian may have been ekavski/stokavski, but at least Croatian was clearly ijekavski and was a parallel, de jure and de facto standard (even if Cakavian and Kajkavian were de-emphasized).
Part of the western territory that isn't "pure" Ukrainian is Ruthenian. Nobody's keen on their language rights except the Russians, who only "came to Jesus" when Ukraine broke away from the USSR. That's a very Russian attitude--we support your inalienable rights only when they hurt those we want weakened, otherwise you ain't go no rights. Before that Rusyn was justed simply a dialect of Ukrainian except by some linguists who were anxious to have as many Slavic languages as possible (linguists are like botanists--they fall into "splitters" and "lumpers" . Actually, a number of Slavists don't think Rusyn is a language; they split it even further, with Lemko, Vojvodina, and others areas having distinct "languages." Then again, they tend to think of Bosnian and Montenegran as distinct languages. (At the other extreme I've heard people insist Slovak and Czech are the same language.)
The Rusyns got the same treatment before WWII: They were happy to be non-Ukrainian Czechoslovaks because they were worried about being submerged. The Sorbs had the same attitude towards the Czechs after WWII, so they opted for being Germans.
Ukraine's new interim government has been presented at Kiev's main protest camp, the Maidan, following last week's ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk has been nominated to become prime minister. The cabinet - due to be voted by MPs on Thursday - includes a number of Maidan activists.
It is facing daunting challenges, including fixing Ukraine's struggling economy which faces default.
Meanwhile, Mr Yanukovych has been put on the international wanted list. The fugitive president - whose whereabouts are unclear - is accused of being behind last week's deaths of more than 100 protesters at the hands of riot police at and around the Maidan.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26359150