The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
The Ukraine Elections 2019
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

So it’s pretty clear from the exit polls that Zelensky and Poroshenko are going to be the ones duking it out in the second round.

It’s also very likely that the next Ukrainian President is almost certainly going to be Zelensky.

The former might have had a chance if there was only 5% separating Poroshenko (19%) from Zelensky (31%), but a ten percent gap – one that is getting confirmed by incoming results – is too high a hurdle to clear, no matter the “administrative resources” at his disposal. This is especially important as almost all Boyko supporters (10%) and most Tymoshenko (14%) supporters will go over to Zelensky.

The only regions where Poroshenko won – according to the exit polls – is in the west and in Kiev. Incidentally, these are also the only regions that voted to exit the USSR.

Turnout has fallen massively in the west and center, a stark change from the elections in 2014, when the buoyant Maidanist regions had much higher turnout than the east. Now turnout has largely equalized. It is especially low in Zakarpattia oblast, which would seem to confirm some of what Beckow has been saying about the political apathy of people from that region.

Poroshenko’s platform is, in a nutshell, patriotic: “Army. Language. Faith.” Ironically, for this former functionary in the Party of Regions, he has become the candidate of the more svidomy regions. But it is neither very plausible at a personal level, nor has it been competently realized to any major extent, plus it takes a back seat to issues such as higher utilities bills so far as most people are concerned. So, just as pre-elections polls predicted, Poroshenko bombed.

Zelensky’s program consists of cool, hip liberal rhetoric: Streamlining bureaucracy, voting online, EU and NATO accession. The kind of program that appeals more to people outside Kiev and Galicia. As a comedian with no previous experience with politics, it also makes him part of the general populist wave sweeping the world, in which “outsiders” from Trump to Macron have been sweeping elections in the West in the past few years.

He has also said he wants to wind down the war in the Donbass; a position that has the support of an absolute majority of Ukrainians, according to other opinion polls. This does not mean he is any kind of “Russophile”, as some of Poroshenko’s partisans have ludicrously claimed – he is just more realistic. He contributed a lot of his own money to the ATO.

He is not an oligarch like Poroshenko or Tymoshenko (both of whom have also been implicated in corruption schemes over the years). However, it is openly known that Kolomoysky stands behind Zelensky, the Dnepropetrovsk honcho evidently having decided that he would be better suited for the Presidency than Tymoshenko, with whom he was previously allied. The stories of how Western educated technocrats and reformists have become disillusioned with the course of the Ukraine after 2014, and gradually abandoned or jumped ship, has become almost a trope of the more insightful Western reporting about that country. With Zelensky surrounded by oligarchs; financed and heavily shilled by one of them; and without the initial promise of the Euromaidan attracting human capital, his chances of success – transforming the Ukraine from an oligarchy into a “normal” country – don’t appear to be bright.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Elections, Ukraine 
Hide 584 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Porky’s strategy was to keep digging and pretend it is not a hole. Porky will pull all stops now, as his choice is bleak: either a “win”, or a hasty flight, or a lengthy jail term (if he avoids gallows, which is a big if, considering how much he deserves it). Zelensky (i.e., Kolomoysky), if he is allowed to win, might stop digging. Considering where Ukraine is heading, that would be progress. It remains to be seen whether Washington politburo allows its vassal to ditch Porky. Then again, as far as masters are concerned, scum like Porky is as disposable as condoms.

  2. AP says:

    Agree with your article. Zelensky is the most likely winner. But I suspect the result will be closer than you think.

    Devil’s advocate for possible Poroshenko win:

    as almost all Boyko supporters (10%) and most Tymoshenko (14%) supporters will go over to Zelensky.

    1. As a pro-EU, pro-NATO guy Zelensky will not get a all of the first-round Boyko votes. He will get the ones who go to vote because he is is less anti-Russian than the alternative, but many Boyko voters will just stay home rather than vote for one of two pro-NATO pro-EU candidates and turnout will decrease.

    2. Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%), Smeshko votes (6%) and Lyashko votes (5%). These combined beat Tymoshenko.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword – her support will tarnish Zelensky’s anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky.

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky’s first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president? Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”

    We also do not know what if any dirt Poroshenko may have but is holding onto about Zelensky.

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.

    Anyways, here is Bershidsky’s article:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-29/slovakia-and-ukraine-election-populists-aren-t-like-the-others

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%)
     
    Grytsenko this morning....." I will not , in any circumstances, support or vote for Petro Poroshenko as President"
    ....... "I won't say if my supporters should or should not vote for Zelensky"

    That's pretty much a guarantee of most of his voters not going over to Poroshenko you idiot


    and Lyashko votes (5%).
     
    ...LOL - did you listen you ANY ( of course not, you don't know anything, nor live/visited the place or speak Ukrop/Russian) of his campaign you cretin. No way are he/majority of his supporters switching to Poroshenko

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky’s first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president?
     
    LOL.....a "protest vote" in between rounds? A political phenomenon invented by a random imbecile troll on the UNZ comment boards. Any example of this BS occurring on 50% majority/2 round Presidential vote ? Of course not you fantasist.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword – her support will tarnish Zelensky’s anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky
     
    as if nobody already knows this.........support will likely be done in the same non-enthusiastic way Yushchenko endorsed Yanukovich in 2nd round 2010

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.
     
    going to get annihilated in the east, south, Kiev, North, most of central.........except in Lvov, Tsernopil - he's 50/50 at best in most of the western oblasts - that's no chance....and an endorsement of what a catastrophic failure for the whole country the last 5 years have been. Valtsman is now outside of range of the , at maxiumum, 1.5 million extra voters who are going to vote in the second round and which he would have relied on falsification of this number + switched votes to give him majority
    , @Mr. Hack

    Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”
     
    Poroshenko's promises to curb corruption after he hypothetically gains a second term are total nonsense. If he felt no compunction to do so during his first term, knowing that the nation would be holding him accountable after the Maidan, why would anyone believe him now/, being a sitting duck president? He had his chance to fight corruption after the Maidan and did nothing, why would he do so now and gain powerful enemies?
  3. Piggybacking on my comments on Anatoly’s post on Russia-Ukraine relations (linked at the bottom), it looks like Ukraine is settling into a similar pattern as Georgia, with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People’s Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream).

    If the pattern holds, expect that Zelensky will follow the same pattern that Ivanishvili did when his party took power in 2012: relations with Russia will improve somewhat, nationalist rhetoric will be ratcheted back, there will be some surface reforms in the civil service/social services etc., but there will be no fundamental changes from the previous administration, and definitely no territorial changes (Zelensky’s talk of solving the Donbass crisis is a pipe dream, and Georgia will be sending the tanks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia the minute the Russians are no longer able to defend either).

    Russian nationalists will have to accept that, for the moment, Ukraine is now in the West’s orbit, and barring a black swan event that fundamentally alters E.U./U.S. influence, this will not change. To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable.

    With regards to Zakarpattia Oblast, I’ve been there. It’s considerably different than the rest of Western Ukraine, having been historically been part of Hungary (and Czechoslovakia between the World Wars), and a lot of the “Ukrainians” there are Ukrainianized Rusyns or Stalin-era transplants. There’s also still a small minority of Hungarians, particularly around Berehovo (one of Fidesz’s MEPs is from Zakarpattia), as well as some Romanians and a ton of Gypsies (there’s one particularly annoying Gypsy woman who hangs around the Chop train station begging for money). The region in general is separated from the rest of the country by the Carpathian Mountains, with terrible roads and trains and no air links (the closest airports with scheduled flights are in Košice, Slovakia and Debrecen, Hungary), so the overall attitude there is less nationalistic than the rest of Western Ukraine.

    Here’s something I wrote about visiting Mukachevo last summer: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-69029-post-1815629.html

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-russia-ukraine/

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, Aedib
    • Replies: @AP
    Generally agree. There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.
    , @Beckow
    It is about what people will settle for, not about what they want or their dreams. Uprisings against geography usually end that way.

    What is missing is the EU side. Zelensky wants EU. Well, so do: Algeria, Bangladesh, Serbia, Vietnam, .... and 100 additional countries. Vermont and Ocasio-Cortez would probably also vote to 'be in EU'. Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia, they both would prefer to be in EU.

    How realistic is it in the next 25 years? (not in next century) EU has stopped its expansion and is internally weak - they can't override opposition from strong countries or a combination of smaller ones. Economically there is little benefit to adding a very poor Ukraine with 35-40 million hungry people who would have to be subsidised. All the benefits for EU are in the Association: access to Ukraine's market and cheap labor. Why would EU take on the costs? I have never heard anyone answer that question.

    Western strategy in 2014 was to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and to get access to the Russian markets through Ukraine. Putin stopped both, it was predictable and easy. I sometimes speculate about Maidan that would be smarter and would manage to prevent it. But maybe it was never in the cards - even timing with the Sochi Olympics didn't help. So much planning, 5-star hotels, charts - and all for almost nothing. That's what happens when people decide to pee into a hurricane to reverse its course. It is another Western specialty: revolutions against physics. One has to seriously wonder about the quality of Western 'elite' education.

    , @Gerard2

    with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People’s Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream)
     
    That is Poland right now.

    For the majority of their journey to the EU, they were lead by relatively leftist and relatively russophile people..not the morons of now and the last decade+

    To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable
     
    Total nonsense. Is Russia being taken over by Kavkaz? These aren't particularly high birth rates there in western Ukraine.....and owe more to the fact that it is simply a much less developed area of the country, less urbanised and poorer.....and much less populated.
    , @Anon
    Zakarpattia was not part of Hungary. Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago. Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that. When Hungary eventually became a country, Zakarpattia ended up in Czechoslovakia.

    Also, I can't understand the Hungary fanboi. Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria. Anything Austrians built there, and could be described as noteworthy, has a counterpart, 100 times better, in Czechia or Slovenia. (And of course, Austria.) Anything Turks built there has an equivalent, 100 times more impressive, in Bulgaria. (Not to mention Turkey.) Russians and Jews essentially left nothing. What gives?

  4. Do elections mean anything? Cuckraine is a total US puppet (and by extension a jewish one), so whoever wins it won’t mean anything, they won’t have any real power. Having said that, they want Poroshenko to win because he is a predictable puppet, which means he has already won.

  5. E says:

    Which Ukrainian citizens were banned from voting, and would it have affected the outcome?

    You mentioned on your Twitter account that Ukrainians currently working or living in Russia were forbidden from voting. I haven’t been closely following this. How many people is that, and who would they have voted for? Was it just Russia, or other countries too?

    I don’t see a category for expat votes in that chart you posted. In places like Moldova, the expat vote has been a significant influence (their current president came close to not winning because he had almost no support among expats). Is Ukraine similar?

    • Replies: @AP

    Which Ukrainian citizens were banned from voting, and would it have affected the outcome?
     
    AFAIK expats in Russia could come back to Ukraine to vote but couldn't vote in Russia. This probably hurt the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc which didn't have much of a chance anyways (as it is they got about 10% of the vote).
  6. AP says:
    @E
    Which Ukrainian citizens were banned from voting, and would it have affected the outcome?

    You mentioned on your Twitter account that Ukrainians currently working or living in Russia were forbidden from voting. I haven't been closely following this. How many people is that, and who would they have voted for? Was it just Russia, or other countries too?

    I don't see a category for expat votes in that chart you posted. In places like Moldova, the expat vote has been a significant influence (their current president came close to not winning because he had almost no support among expats). Is Ukraine similar?

    Which Ukrainian citizens were banned from voting, and would it have affected the outcome?

    AFAIK expats in Russia could come back to Ukraine to vote but couldn’t vote in Russia. This probably hurt the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc which didn’t have much of a chance anyways (as it is they got about 10% of the vote).

  7. AP says:
    @Matt Forney
    Piggybacking on my comments on Anatoly's post on Russia-Ukraine relations (linked at the bottom), it looks like Ukraine is settling into a similar pattern as Georgia, with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People's Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream).

    If the pattern holds, expect that Zelensky will follow the same pattern that Ivanishvili did when his party took power in 2012: relations with Russia will improve somewhat, nationalist rhetoric will be ratcheted back, there will be some surface reforms in the civil service/social services etc., but there will be no fundamental changes from the previous administration, and definitely no territorial changes (Zelensky's talk of solving the Donbass crisis is a pipe dream, and Georgia will be sending the tanks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia the minute the Russians are no longer able to defend either).

    Russian nationalists will have to accept that, for the moment, Ukraine is now in the West's orbit, and barring a black swan event that fundamentally alters E.U./U.S. influence, this will not change. To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable.

    With regards to Zakarpattia Oblast, I've been there. It's considerably different than the rest of Western Ukraine, having been historically been part of Hungary (and Czechoslovakia between the World Wars), and a lot of the "Ukrainians" there are Ukrainianized Rusyns or Stalin-era transplants. There's also still a small minority of Hungarians, particularly around Berehovo (one of Fidesz's MEPs is from Zakarpattia), as well as some Romanians and a ton of Gypsies (there's one particularly annoying Gypsy woman who hangs around the Chop train station begging for money). The region in general is separated from the rest of the country by the Carpathian Mountains, with terrible roads and trains and no air links (the closest airports with scheduled flights are in Košice, Slovakia and Debrecen, Hungary), so the overall attitude there is less nationalistic than the rest of Western Ukraine.

    Here's something I wrote about visiting Mukachevo last summer: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-69029-post-1815629.html

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-russia-ukraine/

    Generally agree. There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.
     

    Except that in those polls, support for EU integration is around 45%, and support for integration with neither EU or Customs Union is around 40%. Only a 3-1 pro-EU advantage, not 6-1. And if those in the "neither" category lean significantly either way, it's more likely toward the Customs Union, since when you offer Ukrainians a simple yes/no choice on CU membership, the ratio against it falls to 2-1.

    So for whatever reason, the pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).

  8. @AP
    Agree with your article. Zelensky is the most likely winner. But I suspect the result will be closer than you think.

    Devil's advocate for possible Poroshenko win:

    as almost all Boyko supporters (10%) and most Tymoshenko (14%) supporters will go over to Zelensky.
     
    1. As a pro-EU, pro-NATO guy Zelensky will not get a all of the first-round Boyko votes. He will get the ones who go to vote because he is is less anti-Russian than the alternative, but many Boyko voters will just stay home rather than vote for one of two pro-NATO pro-EU candidates and turnout will decrease.

    2. Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%), Smeshko votes (6%) and Lyashko votes (5%). These combined beat Tymoshenko.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword - her support will tarnish Zelensky's anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky.

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky's first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president? Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially "I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption."

    We also do not know what if any dirt Poroshenko may have but is holding onto about Zelensky.

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.

    Anyways, here is Bershidsky's article:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-29/slovakia-and-ukraine-election-populists-aren-t-like-the-others

    Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%)

    Grytsenko this morning…..” I will not , in any circumstances, support or vote for Petro Poroshenko as President”
    ……. “I won’t say if my supporters should or should not vote for Zelensky”

    That’s pretty much a guarantee of most of his voters not going over to Poroshenko you idiot

    [MORE]

    and Lyashko votes (5%).

    …LOL – did you listen you ANY ( of course not, you don’t know anything, nor live/visited the place or speak Ukrop/Russian) of his campaign you cretin. No way are he/majority of his supporters switching to Poroshenko

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky’s first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president?

    LOL…..a “protest vote” in between rounds? A political phenomenon invented by a random imbecile troll on the UNZ comment boards. Any example of this BS occurring on 50% majority/2 round Presidential vote ? Of course not you fantasist.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword – her support will tarnish Zelensky’s anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky

    as if nobody already knows this………support will likely be done in the same non-enthusiastic way Yushchenko endorsed Yanukovich in 2nd round 2010

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.

    going to get annihilated in the east, south, Kiev, North, most of central………except in Lvov, Tsernopil – he’s 50/50 at best in most of the western oblasts – that’s no chance….and an endorsement of what a catastrophic failure for the whole country the last 5 years have been. Valtsman is now outside of range of the , at maxiumum, 1.5 million extra voters who are going to vote in the second round and which he would have relied on falsification of this number + switched votes to give him majority

    • Replies: @AP

    Grytsenko this morning…..” I will not , in any circumstances, support or vote for Petro Poroshenko as President”
    ……. “I won’t say if my supporters should or should not vote for Zelensky”
     
    He is a pro-army statist whose voters are mostly in Galicia (where Poroshenko did best) but wouldn't vote for Poroshenko in the first round due to corruption but who wanted a nationalistic candidate with relevant experience. Poroshenko will probably get 80% of Hrytsenko's votes in the next round.

    He will probably also get most of Smeshko's votes.
  9. Russia could probably swallow Ukraine in the EU, but NATO membership might be a redline.

  10. @AP
    Agree with your article. Zelensky is the most likely winner. But I suspect the result will be closer than you think.

    Devil's advocate for possible Poroshenko win:

    as almost all Boyko supporters (10%) and most Tymoshenko (14%) supporters will go over to Zelensky.
     
    1. As a pro-EU, pro-NATO guy Zelensky will not get a all of the first-round Boyko votes. He will get the ones who go to vote because he is is less anti-Russian than the alternative, but many Boyko voters will just stay home rather than vote for one of two pro-NATO pro-EU candidates and turnout will decrease.

    2. Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%), Smeshko votes (6%) and Lyashko votes (5%). These combined beat Tymoshenko.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword - her support will tarnish Zelensky's anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky.

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky's first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president? Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially "I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption."

    We also do not know what if any dirt Poroshenko may have but is holding onto about Zelensky.

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.

    Anyways, here is Bershidsky's article:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-29/slovakia-and-ukraine-election-populists-aren-t-like-the-others

    Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”

    Poroshenko’s promises to curb corruption after he hypothetically gains a second term are total nonsense. If he felt no compunction to do so during his first term, knowing that the nation would be holding him accountable after the Maidan, why would anyone believe him now/, being a sitting duck president? He had his chance to fight corruption after the Maidan and did nothing, why would he do so now and gain powerful enemies?

    • Agree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    If he had fought corruption during his first term, he wouldn't be in the hole that he's in today. People would trust him more, otherwise he's seen as just another corrupt oligarch himself.
    , @reiner Tor
    It took time to build up his base. Would he win, he’d now have way more political capital than he had back then.

    But I agree that the more likely explanation is that he’s just a corrupt hack himself anyway.
    , @AP
    I agree, it cost him dearly. Meanwhile, some people from central Ukraine (Hrytsenko supporters) posted this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3AgbWwXcAE1Qo_.jpg
  11. @Mr. Hack

    Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”
     
    Poroshenko's promises to curb corruption after he hypothetically gains a second term are total nonsense. If he felt no compunction to do so during his first term, knowing that the nation would be holding him accountable after the Maidan, why would anyone believe him now/, being a sitting duck president? He had his chance to fight corruption after the Maidan and did nothing, why would he do so now and gain powerful enemies?

    If he had fought corruption during his first term, he wouldn’t be in the hole that he’s in today. People would trust him more, otherwise he’s seen as just another corrupt oligarch himself.

  12. @Mr. Hack

    Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”
     
    Poroshenko's promises to curb corruption after he hypothetically gains a second term are total nonsense. If he felt no compunction to do so during his first term, knowing that the nation would be holding him accountable after the Maidan, why would anyone believe him now/, being a sitting duck president? He had his chance to fight corruption after the Maidan and did nothing, why would he do so now and gain powerful enemies?

    It took time to build up his base. Would he win, he’d now have way more political capital than he had back then.

    But I agree that the more likely explanation is that he’s just a corrupt hack himself anyway.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Where's his base today? He won what, only two oblasts in the whole country? Once Zelensky's team offers Tymoshenko some juicy post in the new government, it's lights out for Poroshenko. He should have foreseen all of this much sooner, prepared more seriously. I actually prefer him to Zelensky, but....
  13. @reiner Tor
    It took time to build up his base. Would he win, he’d now have way more political capital than he had back then.

    But I agree that the more likely explanation is that he’s just a corrupt hack himself anyway.

    Where’s his base today? He won what, only two oblasts in the whole country? Once Zelensky’s team offers Tymoshenko some juicy post in the new government, it’s lights out for Poroshenko. He should have foreseen all of this much sooner, prepared more seriously. I actually prefer him to Zelensky, but….

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    I actually prefer him to Zelensky, but….
     
    When the country is a circus, the most appropriate president is a clown. Kolomoysky placed his bets right, although he is an even dirtier scum than Porky (if that is possible).
  14. Why Novoazovsk is depicted as a part of Ukraine? It belongs to the DPR.

  15. @Mr. Hack
    Where's his base today? He won what, only two oblasts in the whole country? Once Zelensky's team offers Tymoshenko some juicy post in the new government, it's lights out for Poroshenko. He should have foreseen all of this much sooner, prepared more seriously. I actually prefer him to Zelensky, but....

    I actually prefer him to Zelensky, but….

    When the country is a circus, the most appropriate president is a clown. Kolomoysky placed his bets right, although he is an even dirtier scum than Porky (if that is possible).

  16. I have an ignorant question

    What is the history, etymology, and meaning of the word “svidomy”?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    “Svidomy” (свідомий in Ukrainian) originally meant “conscientious” or “aware/conscious” (don’t trust google translate – it’s crap). After 2014 Ukies started using the word for the people who subscribe to their version of nationalism, which boils down to anti-Russian Nazi. Then in Russian it became a derogatory term, used to mock Ukie Nazis. Hence Russian phrase that “svidomism is a mental disorder”.
  17. @Matt Forney
    Piggybacking on my comments on Anatoly's post on Russia-Ukraine relations (linked at the bottom), it looks like Ukraine is settling into a similar pattern as Georgia, with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People's Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream).

    If the pattern holds, expect that Zelensky will follow the same pattern that Ivanishvili did when his party took power in 2012: relations with Russia will improve somewhat, nationalist rhetoric will be ratcheted back, there will be some surface reforms in the civil service/social services etc., but there will be no fundamental changes from the previous administration, and definitely no territorial changes (Zelensky's talk of solving the Donbass crisis is a pipe dream, and Georgia will be sending the tanks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia the minute the Russians are no longer able to defend either).

    Russian nationalists will have to accept that, for the moment, Ukraine is now in the West's orbit, and barring a black swan event that fundamentally alters E.U./U.S. influence, this will not change. To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable.

    With regards to Zakarpattia Oblast, I've been there. It's considerably different than the rest of Western Ukraine, having been historically been part of Hungary (and Czechoslovakia between the World Wars), and a lot of the "Ukrainians" there are Ukrainianized Rusyns or Stalin-era transplants. There's also still a small minority of Hungarians, particularly around Berehovo (one of Fidesz's MEPs is from Zakarpattia), as well as some Romanians and a ton of Gypsies (there's one particularly annoying Gypsy woman who hangs around the Chop train station begging for money). The region in general is separated from the rest of the country by the Carpathian Mountains, with terrible roads and trains and no air links (the closest airports with scheduled flights are in Košice, Slovakia and Debrecen, Hungary), so the overall attitude there is less nationalistic than the rest of Western Ukraine.

    Here's something I wrote about visiting Mukachevo last summer: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-69029-post-1815629.html

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-russia-ukraine/

    It is about what people will settle for, not about what they want or their dreams. Uprisings against geography usually end that way.

    What is missing is the EU side. Zelensky wants EU. Well, so do: Algeria, Bangladesh, Serbia, Vietnam, …. and 100 additional countries. Vermont and Ocasio-Cortez would probably also vote to ‘be in EU‘. Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia, they both would prefer to be in EU.

    How realistic is it in the next 25 years? (not in next century) EU has stopped its expansion and is internally weak – they can’t override opposition from strong countries or a combination of smaller ones. Economically there is little benefit to adding a very poor Ukraine with 35-40 million hungry people who would have to be subsidised. All the benefits for EU are in the Association: access to Ukraine’s market and cheap labor. Why would EU take on the costs? I have never heard anyone answer that question.

    Western strategy in 2014 was to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and to get access to the Russian markets through Ukraine. Putin stopped both, it was predictable and easy. I sometimes speculate about Maidan that would be smarter and would manage to prevent it. But maybe it was never in the cards – even timing with the Sochi Olympics didn’t help. So much planning, 5-star hotels, charts – and all for almost nothing. That’s what happens when people decide to pee into a hurricane to reverse its course. It is another Western specialty: revolutions against physics. One has to seriously wonder about the quality of Western ‘elite‘ education.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    I’d wonder more about the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie and keep worshipping this pipe dream. As the saying goes, “fool me once – shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me”.
    , @Anonymous

    Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia
     
    Look at a map? One of the two countries is kind of closer to Russia, a perennial target of neocons who drive US foreign policy. Also, Ukraine is going to have a Jewish president in a month, something's not possible in Tunisia.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU, though?

    Also, one would think that European nationalists would support Ukraine's EU accession if it will ever clean up its act in regards to corruption due to the fact that this would mean much more White people inside of the EU.
  18. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I have an ignorant question

    What is the history, etymology, and meaning of the word "svidomy"?

    “Svidomy” (свідомий in Ukrainian) originally meant “conscientious” or “aware/conscious” (don’t trust google translate – it’s crap). After 2014 Ukies started using the word for the people who subscribe to their version of nationalism, which boils down to anti-Russian Nazi. Then in Russian it became a derogatory term, used to mock Ukie Nazis. Hence Russian phrase that “svidomism is a mental disorder”.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Much obliged.
  19. @Beckow
    It is about what people will settle for, not about what they want or their dreams. Uprisings against geography usually end that way.

    What is missing is the EU side. Zelensky wants EU. Well, so do: Algeria, Bangladesh, Serbia, Vietnam, .... and 100 additional countries. Vermont and Ocasio-Cortez would probably also vote to 'be in EU'. Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia, they both would prefer to be in EU.

    How realistic is it in the next 25 years? (not in next century) EU has stopped its expansion and is internally weak - they can't override opposition from strong countries or a combination of smaller ones. Economically there is little benefit to adding a very poor Ukraine with 35-40 million hungry people who would have to be subsidised. All the benefits for EU are in the Association: access to Ukraine's market and cheap labor. Why would EU take on the costs? I have never heard anyone answer that question.

    Western strategy in 2014 was to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and to get access to the Russian markets through Ukraine. Putin stopped both, it was predictable and easy. I sometimes speculate about Maidan that would be smarter and would manage to prevent it. But maybe it was never in the cards - even timing with the Sochi Olympics didn't help. So much planning, 5-star hotels, charts - and all for almost nothing. That's what happens when people decide to pee into a hurricane to reverse its course. It is another Western specialty: revolutions against physics. One has to seriously wonder about the quality of Western 'elite' education.

    I’d wonder more about the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie and keep worshipping this pipe dream. As the saying goes, “fool me once – shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me”.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie
     
    They live on hope. Hope is the worst thing in the world, that’s what you have when you have nothing else...
  20. @AP
    Generally agree. There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.

    There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.

    Except that in those polls, support for EU integration is around 45%, and support for integration with neither EU or Customs Union is around 40%. Only a 3-1 pro-EU advantage, not 6-1. And if those in the “neither” category lean significantly either way, it’s more likely toward the Customs Union, since when you offer Ukrainians a simple yes/no choice on CU membership, the ratio against it falls to 2-1.

    So for whatever reason, the pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).
     
    That’s the immediate reason. But quite a few Ukrainian oligarchs, including those who financed Maidan, realized that it was a flop and seriously damaged not only the country (which they don’t give a hoot about), but their own pockets. There are other reasons. One, some political parties in Ukraine are simply banned, and therefore did not have candidates in these “elections”. Two, even by official numbers at least a third of the population refused to participate in this farce: voter participation was just a tad over 60%. Three, several million Ukrainians working in Russia were denied their right to vote. The field was far from level, and will be until a significant fraction of the population comes back to its senses. And I don’t mean joining Russia. Too many Ukrainians expect somebody else to solve their problems, some pinning their hopes on the US/EU, some on Russia. They must realize that they will have to solve their problems themselves. Until that time the country is going to remain in deep shit.
    , @Beckow
    Pro-EU, pro-globalism, pro-LBGT, anti-nationalism, etc... those are consensus Western elite positions. Aspiring elites in other countries will naturally embrace them - if they plan to stay in the elite.

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can't be mutually exclusive in the long run - it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.

    A better survey question would be how many people absolutely oppose either EU or Russia, to the point of having an open conflict or even a war. I suspect that in both cases the number would be in single digits. Why is then Kiev acting as if it is who-whom, winner take all? That is madness. I still think it is driven by the irrational failed dream among some in the elite of pushing Russia out of Crimea and moving NATO there. It was such a great goal, so bold, so daring, and if it had worked it would be right up there with 1991 as a crowning achievement. Well, it didn't work - and the bitterness will last for generations, on both sides.

  21. @Matt Forney
    Piggybacking on my comments on Anatoly's post on Russia-Ukraine relations (linked at the bottom), it looks like Ukraine is settling into a similar pattern as Georgia, with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People's Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream).

    If the pattern holds, expect that Zelensky will follow the same pattern that Ivanishvili did when his party took power in 2012: relations with Russia will improve somewhat, nationalist rhetoric will be ratcheted back, there will be some surface reforms in the civil service/social services etc., but there will be no fundamental changes from the previous administration, and definitely no territorial changes (Zelensky's talk of solving the Donbass crisis is a pipe dream, and Georgia will be sending the tanks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia the minute the Russians are no longer able to defend either).

    Russian nationalists will have to accept that, for the moment, Ukraine is now in the West's orbit, and barring a black swan event that fundamentally alters E.U./U.S. influence, this will not change. To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable.

    With regards to Zakarpattia Oblast, I've been there. It's considerably different than the rest of Western Ukraine, having been historically been part of Hungary (and Czechoslovakia between the World Wars), and a lot of the "Ukrainians" there are Ukrainianized Rusyns or Stalin-era transplants. There's also still a small minority of Hungarians, particularly around Berehovo (one of Fidesz's MEPs is from Zakarpattia), as well as some Romanians and a ton of Gypsies (there's one particularly annoying Gypsy woman who hangs around the Chop train station begging for money). The region in general is separated from the rest of the country by the Carpathian Mountains, with terrible roads and trains and no air links (the closest airports with scheduled flights are in Košice, Slovakia and Debrecen, Hungary), so the overall attitude there is less nationalistic than the rest of Western Ukraine.

    Here's something I wrote about visiting Mukachevo last summer: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-69029-post-1815629.html

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-russia-ukraine/

    with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People’s Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream)

    That is Poland right now.

    For the majority of their journey to the EU, they were lead by relatively leftist and relatively russophile people..not the morons of now and the last decade+

    To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable

    Total nonsense. Is Russia being taken over by Kavkaz? These aren’t particularly high birth rates there in western Ukraine…..and owe more to the fact that it is simply a much less developed area of the country, less urbanised and poorer…..and much less populated.

  22. @Jon0815

    There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.
     

    Except that in those polls, support for EU integration is around 45%, and support for integration with neither EU or Customs Union is around 40%. Only a 3-1 pro-EU advantage, not 6-1. And if those in the "neither" category lean significantly either way, it's more likely toward the Customs Union, since when you offer Ukrainians a simple yes/no choice on CU membership, the ratio against it falls to 2-1.

    So for whatever reason, the pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).

    pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).

    That’s the immediate reason. But quite a few Ukrainian oligarchs, including those who financed Maidan, realized that it was a flop and seriously damaged not only the country (which they don’t give a hoot about), but their own pockets. There are other reasons. One, some political parties in Ukraine are simply banned, and therefore did not have candidates in these “elections”. Two, even by official numbers at least a third of the population refused to participate in this farce: voter participation was just a tad over 60%. Three, several million Ukrainians working in Russia were denied their right to vote. The field was far from level, and will be until a significant fraction of the population comes back to its senses. And I don’t mean joining Russia. Too many Ukrainians expect somebody else to solve their problems, some pinning their hopes on the US/EU, some on Russia. They must realize that they will have to solve their problems themselves. Until that time the country is going to remain in deep shit.

    • Agree: Mikhail
  23. @AnonFromTN
    I’d wonder more about the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie and keep worshipping this pipe dream. As the saying goes, “fool me once – shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me”.

    …the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie

    They live on hope. Hope is the worst thing in the world, that’s what you have when you have nothing else…

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Hopes could be reasonable and unreasonable. I hope that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that’s a reasonable hope. Now, if I hoped that I win a few million in lottery soon, that would be an unreasonable hope. If I acted based on the first hope (I do so, setting my alarm), that would be prudent and justified. If I acted based on the second hope, I’d be either mad, or a fool.
  24. @Beckow

    ...the quality of the people who bought into an obvious lie
     
    They live on hope. Hope is the worst thing in the world, that’s what you have when you have nothing else...

    Hopes could be reasonable and unreasonable. I hope that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that’s a reasonable hope. Now, if I hoped that I win a few million in lottery soon, that would be an unreasonable hope. If I acted based on the first hope (I do so, setting my alarm), that would be prudent and justified. If I acted based on the second hope, I’d be either mad, or a fool.

  25. I forgot to ask, is Zelensky a jew?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Of course, he is. That’s Ukraine after 2014 – very loud nationalistic propaganda and very few Ukrainians in positions of influence.
    , @reiner Tor
    According to Wikipedia:

    “Zelensky was born 25 January 1978 in Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine) to Jewish parents.[6][7][8][9][10]”
     
  26. @Jon0815

    There were only two pro-Russian candidates, Boyko and Vilkul, got about 11% and 4% of the vote, respectively. The others were different flavors of pro-EU.

    *This actually matches past opinion polls in which about 15% of Ukrainians prefer integration with Russia vs. integration with the EU if forced to choose between the two.
     

    Except that in those polls, support for EU integration is around 45%, and support for integration with neither EU or Customs Union is around 40%. Only a 3-1 pro-EU advantage, not 6-1. And if those in the "neither" category lean significantly either way, it's more likely toward the Customs Union, since when you offer Ukrainians a simple yes/no choice on CU membership, the ratio against it falls to 2-1.

    So for whatever reason, the pro-EU position is greatly over-represented among Ukrainian presidential candidates (perhaps due to it being over-represented among the oligarchs?).

    Pro-EU, pro-globalism, pro-LBGT, anti-nationalism, etc… those are consensus Western elite positions. Aspiring elites in other countries will naturally embrace them – if they plan to stay in the elite.

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can’t be mutually exclusive in the long run – it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.

    A better survey question would be how many people absolutely oppose either EU or Russia, to the point of having an open conflict or even a war. I suspect that in both cases the number would be in single digits. Why is then Kiev acting as if it is who-whom, winner take all? That is madness. I still think it is driven by the irrational failed dream among some in the elite of pushing Russia out of Crimea and moving NATO there. It was such a great goal, so bold, so daring, and if it had worked it would be right up there with 1991 as a crowning achievement. Well, it didn’t work – and the bitterness will last for generations, on both sides.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can’t be mutually exclusive in the long run – it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.
     
    It's a very good point.

    You can see this simply in old discussion of "customs union" led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).

    Then the politicians and media was saying that Ukraine had to choose between free-trade zone with the Customs Union , or free-trade zone with EU.

    Yet at the same time, were some countries like Turkey, South Africa, Japan and Israel who did not have this choice forced to them, but already have free trade with EU, and are planning free trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

    Also note, Japan is beginning its trade agreement with the EU this year. And I'm not sure there is any statement (unlike with Ukraine), that this will prevent it eventually entering free-trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

  27. @neutral
    I forgot to ask, is Zelensky a jew?

    Of course, he is. That’s Ukraine after 2014 – very loud nationalistic propaganda and very few Ukrainians in positions of influence.

  28. @neutral
    I forgot to ask, is Zelensky a jew?

    According to Wikipedia:

    “Zelensky was born 25 January 1978 in Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine) to Jewish parents.[6][7][8][9][10]”

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Little Russians confirmed biggest Philosemites of Europe?

    First they get a Jewish head of government, then a plurality votes for a Jewish-backed Jew as president.

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russians-are-the-philosemites-of-eastern-europe/
  29. @reiner Tor
    According to Wikipedia:

    “Zelensky was born 25 January 1978 in Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine) to Jewish parents.[6][7][8][9][10]”
     

    Little Russians confirmed biggest Philosemites of Europe?

    First they get a Jewish head of government, then a plurality votes for a Jewish-backed Jew as president.


    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russians-are-the-philosemites-of-eastern-europe/

    • Replies: @neutral
    Truly the Cuckraine.
    , @Dmitry
    Ukraine is more pro-Israel. While Russian government is more philosemitic (pro-Jewish religion), on the state level.

    In Russian federal media, they invite rabbis on to explain about every Jewish religious holiday. While Ukrainian media, you can see more anti-Jewish content (independently of their other political radicalization).

    Also it is widely known Ukraine has a lot of antisemitism, including in USSR times. This is independent of their recent rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators.

    However, pro-Israel is something different. Russia is not so pro-Israel. While Ukraine has the second highest number of tourists per capita to Israel, of any country in the world, after Lithuania.

    Part of the high antisemitism in Ukraine, could be because there's a lot more Jews per capita in Ukraine than in Russia, even if the total number is higher in Russia. Although there are historically quite highly Jewish areas in the USSR, like Siberia and the Far East, where you can read Jews say there was very little antisemitism (So probably the high antisemitism quite endogenous to Ukraine) .

  30. There is an undeniable innovation on the election: This is a usual Ukrainian exchange of oligarchic ruling clans but Kolomoysky will rule the country via his puppet. And this opens the window for unexpected events. Even the Jew Bershidsky in his Bloomberg article acknowledges this. It seems also that the star of Princess Yulia is irreversibly fading.
    Also an interesting quation: Will Kolomoysky (figuratively) slit Porky?

  31. Do it fagt.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.
  32. Made $16 making a symbolic bet vs. Tymoshenko.

  33. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beckow
    It is about what people will settle for, not about what they want or their dreams. Uprisings against geography usually end that way.

    What is missing is the EU side. Zelensky wants EU. Well, so do: Algeria, Bangladesh, Serbia, Vietnam, .... and 100 additional countries. Vermont and Ocasio-Cortez would probably also vote to 'be in EU'. Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia, they both would prefer to be in EU.

    How realistic is it in the next 25 years? (not in next century) EU has stopped its expansion and is internally weak - they can't override opposition from strong countries or a combination of smaller ones. Economically there is little benefit to adding a very poor Ukraine with 35-40 million hungry people who would have to be subsidised. All the benefits for EU are in the Association: access to Ukraine's market and cheap labor. Why would EU take on the costs? I have never heard anyone answer that question.

    Western strategy in 2014 was to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and to get access to the Russian markets through Ukraine. Putin stopped both, it was predictable and easy. I sometimes speculate about Maidan that would be smarter and would manage to prevent it. But maybe it was never in the cards - even timing with the Sochi Olympics didn't help. So much planning, 5-star hotels, charts - and all for almost nothing. That's what happens when people decide to pee into a hurricane to reverse its course. It is another Western specialty: revolutions against physics. One has to seriously wonder about the quality of Western 'elite' education.

    Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia

    Look at a map? One of the two countries is kind of closer to Russia, a perennial target of neocons who drive US foreign policy. Also, Ukraine is going to have a Jewish president in a month, something’s not possible in Tunisia.

  34. @Mitleser
    Little Russians confirmed biggest Philosemites of Europe?

    First they get a Jewish head of government, then a plurality votes for a Jewish-backed Jew as president.

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russians-are-the-philosemites-of-eastern-europe/

    Truly the Cuckraine.

  35. @Anatoly Karlin
    Do it fagt.

    https://twitter.com/TheBankova/status/1112616466120101889

    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Denis
    Alternatively, Poroshenko could steal the election really blatantly, achieving a similar result as C.
    , @Beckow
    C) is unlikely. The best result for Russia is mayhem and chaos all over Ukraine. And also further West, the Atlantic crowd is not paranoid when they claim that - but it is ALWAYS that way, so screaming about it is very childish. Divide at impera! Always.

    If Porky and Zelinsky were 50-50 and comedians would start rioting in Kiev, that would be something for Russia. Either one winning decisively, not that good. In any case I just checked and both Donetsk and Lugansk regions voted for Boiko, with Porky doing particularly badly there. How does that square with the West claiming that Porky is 'liberating the east from Moscow invaders'?
    , @Jon0815

    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator
     
    D) Contested outcome in which Poroshenko nominally wins by tiny margin, then Zelensky triumphs in Maidan 2.0, then Poroshenko-supporting Galicia does reverse Donbass and leaves Ukraine.

    In terms of what is realistic, I suppose B (I don't think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C).

    But if you assume that Zelensky will also fail to significantly reduce corruption and generate strong economic growth (likely), then the answer might be A, since the failure of two consecutive pro-Western presidents will discredit Western orientation, more than the failure of a single pro-Western president.
    , @inertial
    I don't understand why you think (C) is the best outcome for Russia. Or I guess I understand but disagree.

    Right now, the best plausible outcome for Russia would be Ukrainian regime easing up on its relentless, preposterous anti-Russian propaganda. Poroshenko won't do it but Zelensky might.

    So I'll go with (A).
  36. What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    One should ask what is best for Ukraine? And I am talking long term best, the next 50, 100, 200 years. What it absolutely does not need is cucking to America, it will be mean that whites there will be doomed. Perhaps the best for it now is for Yanukovych become president again.

  37. Don’t forget the oligarch part of the story.

    Zelensky is employee for years of, and now promoted by, 1+1, which is Kolomoisky’s television channel.

    Kolomoisky and Poroshenko have been at war against each other since 2015.

    Kiev was also able to nationalize Kolomoisky’s bank (PrivatBank), although reportedly Kolomoisky was able to move a lot of money out of the bank, into some oversea account, just before it was nationalized.

    Kolomoisky’s motive now of course is just remove Poroshenko.

    Success of Zelensky, then looks like some kind of genius result of Kolomoisky. However, more likely there is just opportunism. Zelensky was popular for years before he ever was near politics.

    It’s good to remember almost all the oligarchs were a lot richer before Euromaidan. They were more successful, when Yanukovich was still President.

    Yanukovich was obviously quite problematic for oligarchs, however, as he was like an old fashioned gangster, who demanded money from them and used to enter offices, and start arresting employees, of oligarchs which were not friendly to him.

  38. @Mitleser
    Little Russians confirmed biggest Philosemites of Europe?

    First they get a Jewish head of government, then a plurality votes for a Jewish-backed Jew as president.

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russians-are-the-philosemites-of-eastern-europe/

    Ukraine is more pro-Israel. While Russian government is more philosemitic (pro-Jewish religion), on the state level.

    In Russian federal media, they invite rabbis on to explain about every Jewish religious holiday. While Ukrainian media, you can see more anti-Jewish content (independently of their other political radicalization).

    Also it is widely known Ukraine has a lot of antisemitism, including in USSR times. This is independent of their recent rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators.

    However, pro-Israel is something different. Russia is not so pro-Israel. While Ukraine has the second highest number of tourists per capita to Israel, of any country in the world, after Lithuania.

    Part of the high antisemitism in Ukraine, could be because there’s a lot more Jews per capita in Ukraine than in Russia, even if the total number is higher in Russia. Although there are historically quite highly Jewish areas in the USSR, like Siberia and the Far East, where you can read Jews say there was very little antisemitism (So probably the high antisemitism quite endogenous to Ukraine) .

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Antisemitism in Ukraine is traditional, going back centuries. The best known example internationally is Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”). In view of that, it looks comic when self-proclaimed Ukrainian “patriots” after 2014 placed Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and other non-Ukrainians into virtually all positions of power. The speaker of Rada (Ukrainian parliament) Parubiy is one of very few Ukrainians with ostensible power in post-Maidan Ukraine. He was diagnosed with mild mental retardation in his school years. Goes well with his political leanings.
  39. @reiner Tor
    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.

    Alternatively, Poroshenko could steal the election really blatantly, achieving a similar result as C.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    It almost certainly won't work.

    Electoral fraud is easiest when the incumbent already has a dominating advantage, because the bureaucrats who run the Central Electoral Commissions and the teachers/government workers manning the counting booths are not going to stick their necks out for people who appear they might lose (e.g. Poroshenko).
  40. @Beckow
    Pro-EU, pro-globalism, pro-LBGT, anti-nationalism, etc... those are consensus Western elite positions. Aspiring elites in other countries will naturally embrace them - if they plan to stay in the elite.

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can't be mutually exclusive in the long run - it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.

    A better survey question would be how many people absolutely oppose either EU or Russia, to the point of having an open conflict or even a war. I suspect that in both cases the number would be in single digits. Why is then Kiev acting as if it is who-whom, winner take all? That is madness. I still think it is driven by the irrational failed dream among some in the elite of pushing Russia out of Crimea and moving NATO there. It was such a great goal, so bold, so daring, and if it had worked it would be right up there with 1991 as a crowning achievement. Well, it didn't work - and the bitterness will last for generations, on both sides.

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can’t be mutually exclusive in the long run – it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.

    It’s a very good point.

    You can see this simply in old discussion of “customs union” led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).

    Then the politicians and media was saying that Ukraine had to choose between free-trade zone with the Customs Union , or free-trade zone with EU.

    Yet at the same time, were some countries like Turkey, South Africa, Japan and Israel who did not have this choice forced to them, but already have free trade with EU, and are planning free trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

    Also note, Japan is beginning its trade agreement with the EU this year. And I’m not sure there is any statement (unlike with Ukraine), that this will prevent it eventually entering free-trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    You can see this simply in old discussion of “customs union” led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).
     
    You would be surprised by how many cretins were unaware of this. One of the main reasons the Eurasian Union became a bigger idea after 2012 was merely a common sense idea of formalising and thus making easier, what was already an objective reality in trade, migration, investment, culture, infrastructure and technical standards between many ex Soviet countries....and to countries that by then were in no way being considered for EU membership ( to this day, nobody can say how the EU AA to ukrop "coincided" with Russia's efforts to set up the EEA, when nobody can say what differently did Yanukovich do , to what Yushchenko did in his 5 years where even the EU AA was nowhere on offer to Ukraine)

    It's a simple fact that a Customs Union with Russia , would have raised Ukrainian, standards, GDP, infrastructure to the point of making EU membership as more realistic possibiity (should they have wanted)...compared to the garbage position they are in now.

    It should be remembered that if anything , since the coup , EU trade with Ukraine is much less (% bigger only because the "pie" is extremely smaller - and only that due to Poland), but EU trade with Russia is significantly larger than in 2013

    Western investment in Russia is garbage....but in'western supported" ukropia...it's even worse!
    Significantly more big , major foreign companies or operating, selling,manufacturing in Russia than in Ukraine

    Way significantly higher standards in manufacturing, QC, QA and in protection are done in Russia than in Ukraine

    the corruption is Russia is FAR, far less than in Ukraine........and the judiciary is about a million times better


    all rankings since 2014 like Ease of Doing business &WEF- Russia has outperformed Banderastan

    So other than gay parades and the odd joint military exercise, and some back-slapping garbage with some western leaders.....what exactly is the "western orbit" of Ukraine?
  41. @Denis
    Alternatively, Poroshenko could steal the election really blatantly, achieving a similar result as C.

    It almost certainly won’t work.

    Electoral fraud is easiest when the incumbent already has a dominating advantage, because the bureaucrats who run the Central Electoral Commissions and the teachers/government workers manning the counting booths are not going to stick their necks out for people who appear they might lose (e.g. Poroshenko).

    • Replies: @Denis
    You're probably right, I'm just throwing things out there, but there is a precedent for this in Ukraine, isn't there? The 2004 elections for example. Granted, the 2 leading contestants had much closer results (basically dead heat) in the first round of the 2004 elections than Zelensky and Poroshenko did in this one, but I still wouldn't put it past Poroshenko to try fraud, even if it's unlikely to work. I'd also think that he'd prefer to rig the election rather than just cancel it, though reiner tor probably wasn't being too serious with that suggestion.

    If Poroshenko were to win the second round, I'd bet that there was some fraud involved.

    , @AP
    Not you, but some of Ukraine's Russian "well-wishers" were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he's gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.

    Or maybe, he is actually being democratic, with mere low level shenanigans typical of any democracy (is denying expats in Russia the vote in Russia any worse than gerrymandering in the USA) that will give him a couple % advantage at most.
  42. @Matt Forney
    Piggybacking on my comments on Anatoly's post on Russia-Ukraine relations (linked at the bottom), it looks like Ukraine is settling into a similar pattern as Georgia, with the two main political blocs being radical pro-West nationalists (Poroshenko/Saakashvili, Poroshenko Bloc-People's Front/United National Movement) and moderate pro-West nationalists (Zelensky/Ivanishvili, Servant of the People/Georgian Dream).

    If the pattern holds, expect that Zelensky will follow the same pattern that Ivanishvili did when his party took power in 2012: relations with Russia will improve somewhat, nationalist rhetoric will be ratcheted back, there will be some surface reforms in the civil service/social services etc., but there will be no fundamental changes from the previous administration, and definitely no territorial changes (Zelensky's talk of solving the Donbass crisis is a pipe dream, and Georgia will be sending the tanks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia the minute the Russians are no longer able to defend either).

    Russian nationalists will have to accept that, for the moment, Ukraine is now in the West's orbit, and barring a black swan event that fundamentally alters E.U./U.S. influence, this will not change. To be honest, given the consistently higher birthrates in Western Ukraine, Euromaidan (or something like it) was probably inevitable.

    With regards to Zakarpattia Oblast, I've been there. It's considerably different than the rest of Western Ukraine, having been historically been part of Hungary (and Czechoslovakia between the World Wars), and a lot of the "Ukrainians" there are Ukrainianized Rusyns or Stalin-era transplants. There's also still a small minority of Hungarians, particularly around Berehovo (one of Fidesz's MEPs is from Zakarpattia), as well as some Romanians and a ton of Gypsies (there's one particularly annoying Gypsy woman who hangs around the Chop train station begging for money). The region in general is separated from the rest of the country by the Carpathian Mountains, with terrible roads and trains and no air links (the closest airports with scheduled flights are in Košice, Slovakia and Debrecen, Hungary), so the overall attitude there is less nationalistic than the rest of Western Ukraine.

    Here's something I wrote about visiting Mukachevo last summer: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-69029-post-1815629.html

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-russia-ukraine/

    Zakarpattia was not part of Hungary. Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago. Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that. When Hungary eventually became a country, Zakarpattia ended up in Czechoslovakia.

    Also, I can’t understand the Hungary fanboi. Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria. Anything Austrians built there, and could be described as noteworthy, has a counterpart, 100 times better, in Czechia or Slovenia. (And of course, Austria.) Anything Turks built there has an equivalent, 100 times more impressive, in Bulgaria. (Not to mention Turkey.) Russians and Jews essentially left nothing. What gives?

    • Replies: @Epigon
    You’re an ignorant fool.
    Habsburgs were crowned as kings of Hungary on separate occasions historically.
    More importantly, Hungarians conquered the area in early medieval period, and even expanded to Galicia in 13th century.

    Talking about more recent history, in 1867 Austro-Hungary came into existence, and the Hungarian part functioned practically as a state inside a federation.
    , @Other Side
    Not sure if trolling or stupid ... ( or simply an American ) .
    , @reiner Tor

    Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago.
     
    Depends on your definition of a country. Hungary had its own diets, as a result its own laws, there were customs to be paid on the border between Hungary and other parts of the Habsburg Empire, etc. It even had its own army until 1848, although the Hungarian units were often stationed in places like Italy, while Austrian etc. troops were often stationed in Hungary.

    Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that.
     
    "Turkey" (the Ottoman Empire) never even managed to conquer the whole of the Kingdom of Hungary. Though after the defeat in 1526 the Hungarian king died, and a civil war resulted, with part of the country (the later Principality of Transylvania) becoming an Ottoman tributary vassal state. (It joined the Habsburgs twice during the Ottoman times in the 16th century, both with disastrous results, and both times reverted to being an Ottoman vassal. Its autonomy was greatly reduced in the late 17th century, fortunately shortly afterwards Ottoman power collapsed in Hungary.)

    Anyway, both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania continued to have its own laws (most of them common, since the Transylvanian state also derived from the Kingdom of Hungary following the civil war), so the Ottomans only ruled the middle part of the country, roughly one third of the area known as "Hungary" in the Middle Ages and Early Modern and Modern periods up until 1918.

    Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria.
     
    What does it even mean? After the destruction of the Turkish Wars, the country had a very low population density, and was primarily an agricultural land. The biggest concentration of industry was in Silesia, and also other provinces of Czechia (Bohemia proper and Moravia), with Silesia lost after 1740.
  43. @Dmitry
    Ukraine is more pro-Israel. While Russian government is more philosemitic (pro-Jewish religion), on the state level.

    In Russian federal media, they invite rabbis on to explain about every Jewish religious holiday. While Ukrainian media, you can see more anti-Jewish content (independently of their other political radicalization).

    Also it is widely known Ukraine has a lot of antisemitism, including in USSR times. This is independent of their recent rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators.

    However, pro-Israel is something different. Russia is not so pro-Israel. While Ukraine has the second highest number of tourists per capita to Israel, of any country in the world, after Lithuania.

    Part of the high antisemitism in Ukraine, could be because there's a lot more Jews per capita in Ukraine than in Russia, even if the total number is higher in Russia. Although there are historically quite highly Jewish areas in the USSR, like Siberia and the Far East, where you can read Jews say there was very little antisemitism (So probably the high antisemitism quite endogenous to Ukraine) .

    Antisemitism in Ukraine is traditional, going back centuries. The best known example internationally is Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”). In view of that, it looks comic when self-proclaimed Ukrainian “patriots” after 2014 placed Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and other non-Ukrainians into virtually all positions of power. The speaker of Rada (Ukrainian parliament) Parubiy is one of very few Ukrainians with ostensible power in post-Maidan Ukraine. He was diagnosed with mild mental retardation in his school years. Goes well with his political leanings.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Maria Gaidar was the most bizarre.

    First they gave her Ukrainian citizenship, then they made her remove her Russian citizenship for her job with the Saakashvili team in Odessa.

    So now she just has a Ukrainian citizenship - but then Saakashvili team has resigned, and Maria Gaidar says she is some kind of advisor to Poroshenko,

    Apparently Maria Gaidar is now lost in obscurity, abandoned all her social media last year, and bought a house in a village outside Odessa.

    Her last Instagram was updated in 2017:
    https://www.instagram.com/maria.gaidar/

    No updates on Facebook for more than 1 year as well.
    https://www.facebook.com/gaidarmaria

    So it's generally a mystery what she is doing...

    , @AP

    Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”)
     
    It featured a guy murdering his own children because they were half-Polish. How was that whitewashing?
  44. @Anon
    Zakarpattia was not part of Hungary. Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago. Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that. When Hungary eventually became a country, Zakarpattia ended up in Czechoslovakia.

    Also, I can't understand the Hungary fanboi. Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria. Anything Austrians built there, and could be described as noteworthy, has a counterpart, 100 times better, in Czechia or Slovenia. (And of course, Austria.) Anything Turks built there has an equivalent, 100 times more impressive, in Bulgaria. (Not to mention Turkey.) Russians and Jews essentially left nothing. What gives?

    You’re an ignorant fool.
    Habsburgs were crowned as kings of Hungary on separate occasions historically.
    More importantly, Hungarians conquered the area in early medieval period, and even expanded to Galicia in 13th century.

    Talking about more recent history, in 1867 Austro-Hungary came into existence, and the Hungarian part functioned practically as a state inside a federation.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs 'independent'? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that - more than anything else - destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn't explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    , @Anon
    So what you are saying is that, in Zappa's words, Austrian "Hungary" had its own airline and its own beer? Who cared if, starting with 1867, a bunch of autists pretended to run "Hungary"? (Also, congrats on pushing that number up by 50 years. That is guaranteed to wipe the centuries of Turkish rule.)

    For example, the Budapest autists claimed to enforce Hungarian language in schools, but did not provide schools for 80% of the people in "Hungary". Even in the Hungarian-speaking plurality, more than 50% were illiterate.

    Another example: Budapest autists wanted to separate "Hungarian" regiments. Franz Joseph offered them a re-branding. From 1905, the army would be renamed, from "Imperial Army", to "Imperial-Royal Army".

    Tbh, Hungary is more gay than Ukraine. At least Ukrainians speak languages similar to their rulers, and may get to some positions of power in those empires (see Khrushchev). But when was a Hungarian Sultan or Emperor? Hungary is almost always, in its history, a border county in someone else's empire. "The Hungary", lol.
  45. @Epigon
    You’re an ignorant fool.
    Habsburgs were crowned as kings of Hungary on separate occasions historically.
    More importantly, Hungarians conquered the area in early medieval period, and even expanded to Galicia in 13th century.

    Talking about more recent history, in 1867 Austro-Hungary came into existence, and the Hungarian part functioned practically as a state inside a federation.

    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs ‘independent‘? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that – more than anything else – destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    The people in Subcarpathian Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued up to the present-day and had the CPs won WWI, no?
    , @AP

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants (in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic - city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages). At that time fervently nationalistic German-speaking Hungarians taught themselves and their children the Hungarian language.

    Its interesting that only under the Hapsburgs (due to policy) and Romanovs (due to policy in the Baltic, neglect in Ukraine) did these rural languages survive in mass form. Gaelic disappeared n Britain, France lost its languages, Sorbian or whatever are basically gone in Germany. If the Hapsburgs were like Western rulers, Czechs and Hungarians might at most have been German-speaking, like English-speaking Irish nationalists. Or they might have simply become Germans of Czech or whatever descent, as utu stated.

    That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    Here we go again. Zakarpattiya's eastern Slavs are no more averse to Ukrainian nationalists than are places like Zhytomir or Poltava. They is not nearly as extreme as Galicians on the other side of the Carpathians but they are in the nationalist camp. With respect to nationalism they are like central Ukrainians but in the far west.

    Wikipedia has a nice map of election results (Green Zelensky, Grey Poroshenko, Red Tymoshenko, Blue Boyko):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg/1024px-%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg.png
    , @reiner Tor

    Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs ‘independent‘?
     
    No one talked about independence, but Hungary was clearly a separate country. The Kingdom of Bohemia (including the lands of the Bohemian Crown Moravia and Silesia) was pretty much a separate country until roughly 1620, when it was thoroughly defeated (never to rebel again until 1918) and incorporated into the lands of the Austrian provinces. Especially after 1806 it was just a bunch of provinces of the Austrian Empire.

    While Hungary kept being a separate country until 1848. Then in 1867 it became a somewhat separate country, although not fully separate. For example many parts of the Compromise with Austria had to be renewed at certain periods, so at least theoretically it was still a separate country and Austria-Hungary was just a temporary measure. (Albeit it was possible to renew it, and they did it whenever the issue came up.)

    They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that – more than anything else – destroyed the Habsburg Empire.
     
    The Habsburg Empire was inherently unstable anyway. Local national elites wanted their own countries, it was inevitable. In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German. I remember a few months (a year?) ago you wrote that Czechs were heroically fighting for the survival of their language... far from it, they actually had all the advantages in Czechia. Yet they it didn't stop them from wanting their own country.

    Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary
     
    The Ruthenians received autonomy in Hungary 1939-44, a reason why for some Hungary was preferable to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was also only rich because of Czechia, Slovakia was dirt poor even relative to Hungary, so I don't think that played a role.

    However, I assert that the majority of Subcarpathia wants to be in Ukraine.
    , @reiner Tor

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Where do you get this?

    First, most densely populated areas were roughly the areas which have been inhabited by an ethnically Hungarian population in 1910. The major exceptions are parts of Transylvania, on which later. Most of present day Slovakia, as well as Subcarpathia and large parts of Transylvania were all parts of the so-called gyepű area, which is an ancient Hungarian word for uninhabited border regions (no tax income from that area, no nobles were given to titles to these lands, etc.) This is one reason why Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.

    There are a few more reasons to think that.

    One is that already in the 11th century occasionally we find names of lowly servants in the sources. Those are invariably Magyar names.

    Second, the earliest (Latin language) sources often contain Hungarian words or sentences, never Slavic words or sentences - so the monks or scribes were likely ethnically Hungarian.

    Third, and this doesn't apply to Slovaks, the Christian churches around 1000 were predominantly Western Rite, but there were many Eastern Rite churches, too. However, after 1001 each of these were incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, and especially after 1054 - before that the difference was not that important - the eastern rite churches were slowly converted to Western Rite. Then around 1200 Eastern Christians started to appear in the sources slowly, the Vlachs or Olachs in the South Carpathian and later other Transylvanian mountains, and the Ruthenians. Then the Turkish Wars, especially in the 1660s destroyed much of the ethnically Hungarian population in the Transylvanian valleys, and after that the nobles invited Romanians to their estates. It is usually thought that Transylvania had a Hungarian ethnic majority well into the 17th century.

    Fourth, the Magyar graves in the early 10th century contain a predominantly Eastern European population (though sample sizes are still small) with the elite showing heavy signs of East Asian (Mongoloid) admixture (roughly one third Asian / two thirds European), however, by the 11th century the signs of Asian admixture basically disappear from the elite, and from that time the elites are European. The only Turkish presence are the Kuns, settled after the Mongol invasion by King Béla IV, but they were a relatively small population, in a limited part of the country, and they were not heavily elite, though their nobles were given Hungarian nobility. They are also more Hungarian ethnically.

    Anyway, the nobility and aristocracy undoubtedly spoke Hungarian throughout the Middle Ages, and they also had a Hungarian noble/aristocrat identity. In some parts of the country (mostly Slovakia, as far as I know) in the 19th century the nobles often spoke the local language at home (that was definitely untrue of Transylvania's Romanian areas), I don't know if that had been the case earlier. Also, the area currently in Serbia (the province Vojvodina) has been mostly inhabited by Serbs since the Early Modern period and possibly earlier (it's unclear how much the ethnic border moved to the north after the Ottoman Wars, when much of the area became fully uninhabited; anyway, the Serbs were given the area with privileges as Border Guards by the Habsburg kings; what's clear is that the northernmost part, including the city Szabadka or Subotica was ethnically Hungarian until at least 1944).

    In short, there are reasons to think that Hungary was more ethnically Magyar before 1526 than ever since, because the wars 1526-1711 (yes I know 1703-11 was at least partly our fault) mostly destroyed the Hungarian areas. The low point was in the late 18th century (when Hungary was perhaps a little over one third Magyar), and then it slowly increased to roughly 50% by 1910.
  46. @AnonFromTN
    Antisemitism in Ukraine is traditional, going back centuries. The best known example internationally is Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”). In view of that, it looks comic when self-proclaimed Ukrainian “patriots” after 2014 placed Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and other non-Ukrainians into virtually all positions of power. The speaker of Rada (Ukrainian parliament) Parubiy is one of very few Ukrainians with ostensible power in post-Maidan Ukraine. He was diagnosed with mild mental retardation in his school years. Goes well with his political leanings.

    Maria Gaidar was the most bizarre.

    First they gave her Ukrainian citizenship, then they made her remove her Russian citizenship for her job with the Saakashvili team in Odessa.

    So now she just has a Ukrainian citizenship – but then Saakashvili team has resigned, and Maria Gaidar says she is some kind of advisor to Poroshenko,

    Apparently Maria Gaidar is now lost in obscurity, abandoned all her social media last year, and bought a house in a village outside Odessa.

    Her last Instagram was updated in 2017:
    https://www.instagram.com/maria.gaidar/

    No updates on Facebook for more than 1 year as well.
    https://www.facebook.com/gaidarmaria

    So it’s generally a mystery what she is doing…

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Guy Laliberté
    reminds me of some "Snatch" classics:
    Bessarabian Brick Top: You're always gonna have problems lifting a body in one piece. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a corpse into six pieces and pile it all together.
    Maria Gaidar: Would someone mind telling me, who are you?
    Bessarabian Brick Top: And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig."
    , @AnonFromTN
    I wouldn’t shed any tears for Maria Gaidar. There is enough shit in Russia without her. It would be better for Russia to export all of it to Ukraine, but only a few left. Too bad.
  47. @Anatoly Karlin
    It almost certainly won't work.

    Electoral fraud is easiest when the incumbent already has a dominating advantage, because the bureaucrats who run the Central Electoral Commissions and the teachers/government workers manning the counting booths are not going to stick their necks out for people who appear they might lose (e.g. Poroshenko).

    You’re probably right, I’m just throwing things out there, but there is a precedent for this in Ukraine, isn’t there? The 2004 elections for example. Granted, the 2 leading contestants had much closer results (basically dead heat) in the first round of the 2004 elections than Zelensky and Poroshenko did in this one, but I still wouldn’t put it past Poroshenko to try fraud, even if it’s unlikely to work. I’d also think that he’d prefer to rig the election rather than just cancel it, though reiner tor probably wasn’t being too serious with that suggestion.

    If Poroshenko were to win the second round, I’d bet that there was some fraud involved.

  48. @Dmitry
    Maria Gaidar was the most bizarre.

    First they gave her Ukrainian citizenship, then they made her remove her Russian citizenship for her job with the Saakashvili team in Odessa.

    So now she just has a Ukrainian citizenship - but then Saakashvili team has resigned, and Maria Gaidar says she is some kind of advisor to Poroshenko,

    Apparently Maria Gaidar is now lost in obscurity, abandoned all her social media last year, and bought a house in a village outside Odessa.

    Her last Instagram was updated in 2017:
    https://www.instagram.com/maria.gaidar/

    No updates on Facebook for more than 1 year as well.
    https://www.facebook.com/gaidarmaria

    So it's generally a mystery what she is doing...

    reminds me of some “Snatch” classics:
    Bessarabian Brick Top: You’re always gonna have problems lifting a body in one piece. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a corpse into six pieces and pile it all together.
    Maria Gaidar: Would someone mind telling me, who are you?
    Bessarabian Brick Top: And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it’s no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies’ digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don’t want to go sievin’ through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, “as greedy as a pig.”

  49. @Beckow
    It is about what people will settle for, not about what they want or their dreams. Uprisings against geography usually end that way.

    What is missing is the EU side. Zelensky wants EU. Well, so do: Algeria, Bangladesh, Serbia, Vietnam, .... and 100 additional countries. Vermont and Ocasio-Cortez would probably also vote to 'be in EU'. Nothing distinguishes Ukraine from Tunisia, they both would prefer to be in EU.

    How realistic is it in the next 25 years? (not in next century) EU has stopped its expansion and is internally weak - they can't override opposition from strong countries or a combination of smaller ones. Economically there is little benefit to adding a very poor Ukraine with 35-40 million hungry people who would have to be subsidised. All the benefits for EU are in the Association: access to Ukraine's market and cheap labor. Why would EU take on the costs? I have never heard anyone answer that question.

    Western strategy in 2014 was to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and to get access to the Russian markets through Ukraine. Putin stopped both, it was predictable and easy. I sometimes speculate about Maidan that would be smarter and would manage to prevent it. But maybe it was never in the cards - even timing with the Sochi Olympics didn't help. So much planning, 5-star hotels, charts - and all for almost nothing. That's what happens when people decide to pee into a hurricane to reverse its course. It is another Western specialty: revolutions against physics. One has to seriously wonder about the quality of Western 'elite' education.

    Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU, though?

    Also, one would think that European nationalists would support Ukraine’s EU accession if it will ever clean up its act in regards to corruption due to the fact that this would mean much more White people inside of the EU.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU?
     
    First of they were smaller, closer geographically (you can't really have a EU if Prague or Budapest are not in it). But the most important factor was timing: they all joined during the massive optimistic wave of the late 90's to 2010. EU was richer then.

    The subsidy game is very different now, with all the poorer eastern countries joining there are more takers and fewer givers. Once UK is gone (a huge giver), it will get worse. The aid-receiving countries (looking at you, Poland) have zero incentive to bring in a large, poor country like Ukraine that would displace them as a primary aid recipient.

    Many in EU also think that allowing Romania-Bulgaria was a mistake, a costly one. They are not allowed in the Schengen free travel zone even today. I don't see how Ukraine would overcome the combined resistance of aid givers and receivers who primarily look out for their own interests. Ukraine is just too big and too poor.

  50. “his chances of success – transforming the Ukraine from an oligarchy into a “normal” country – don’t appear to be bright.”

    But aren’t “normal” countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is. When did the popular vote ever last have any real effect on fundamental policy?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, but the US isn't captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves) to the same extent as in the Ukraine. It's a place where the Russian 1990s never really ended.
    , @Jon0815

    But aren’t “normal” countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is.
     
    It's a matter of degree. Also, the USA has a two-party political system (a consequence of its winner-take-all, no-runoff electoral process) that naturally tends toward oligarchic control: When there are only two parties, it's easy to form a cartel to deny voters any real choice on those issues (immigration, foreign interventionism, fealty to Israel, etc.) where major donors to both parties agree.

    Whereas, Ukraine's multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn't).

  51. @Mr. XYZ
    Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU, though?

    Also, one would think that European nationalists would support Ukraine's EU accession if it will ever clean up its act in regards to corruption due to the fact that this would mean much more White people inside of the EU.

    …Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU?

    First of they were smaller, closer geographically (you can’t really have a EU if Prague or Budapest are not in it). But the most important factor was timing: they all joined during the massive optimistic wave of the late 90’s to 2010. EU was richer then.

    The subsidy game is very different now, with all the poorer eastern countries joining there are more takers and fewer givers. Once UK is gone (a huge giver), it will get worse. The aid-receiving countries (looking at you, Poland) have zero incentive to bring in a large, poor country like Ukraine that would displace them as a primary aid recipient.

    Many in EU also think that allowing Romania-Bulgaria was a mistake, a costly one. They are not allowed in the Schengen free travel zone even today. I don’t see how Ukraine would overcome the combined resistance of aid givers and receivers who primarily look out for their own interests. Ukraine is just too big and too poor.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though? Some of the Balkan countries are very poor just like Ukraine is and Turkey, while being relatively well-off, is overwhelmingly Muslim.
  52. @reiner Tor
    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.

    C) is unlikely. The best result for Russia is mayhem and chaos all over Ukraine. And also further West, the Atlantic crowd is not paranoid when they claim that – but it is ALWAYS that way, so screaming about it is very childish. Divide at impera! Always.

    If Porky and Zelinsky were 50-50 and comedians would start rioting in Kiev, that would be something for Russia. Either one winning decisively, not that good. In any case I just checked and both Donetsk and Lugansk regions voted for Boiko, with Porky doing particularly badly there. How does that square with the West claiming that Porky is ‘liberating the east from Moscow invaders’?

  53. AP says:
    @Gerard2

    Poroshenko will get most of the Hrytsenko votes (7%)
     
    Grytsenko this morning....." I will not , in any circumstances, support or vote for Petro Poroshenko as President"
    ....... "I won't say if my supporters should or should not vote for Zelensky"

    That's pretty much a guarantee of most of his voters not going over to Poroshenko you idiot


    and Lyashko votes (5%).
     
    ...LOL - did you listen you ANY ( of course not, you don't know anything, nor live/visited the place or speak Ukrop/Russian) of his campaign you cretin. No way are he/majority of his supporters switching to Poroshenko

    It is possible that some significant number of Zelensky’s first round votes were a protest vote that people made to send a message, after which they will be more cautious when choosing the actual president?
     
    LOL.....a "protest vote" in between rounds? A political phenomenon invented by a random imbecile troll on the UNZ comment boards. Any example of this BS occurring on 50% majority/2 round Presidential vote ? Of course not you fantasist.

    3. Tymoshenko may be a double-edged sword – her support will tarnish Zelensky’s anti-oligarch image and highlight his links to the Dnipropetrovsk clan of Kolomoysky
     
    as if nobody already knows this.........support will likely be done in the same non-enthusiastic way Yushchenko endorsed Yanukovich in 2nd round 2010

    Altogether these factors are probably not enough to close the 10% gap but as I said the election may be closer than you assume.
     
    going to get annihilated in the east, south, Kiev, North, most of central.........except in Lvov, Tsernopil - he's 50/50 at best in most of the western oblasts - that's no chance....and an endorsement of what a catastrophic failure for the whole country the last 5 years have been. Valtsman is now outside of range of the , at maxiumum, 1.5 million extra voters who are going to vote in the second round and which he would have relied on falsification of this number + switched votes to give him majority

    Grytsenko this morning…..” I will not , in any circumstances, support or vote for Petro Poroshenko as President”
    ……. “I won’t say if my supporters should or should not vote for Zelensky”

    He is a pro-army statist whose voters are mostly in Galicia (where Poroshenko did best) but wouldn’t vote for Poroshenko in the first round due to corruption but who wanted a nationalistic candidate with relevant experience. Poroshenko will probably get 80% of Hrytsenko’s votes in the next round.

    He will probably also get most of Smeshko’s votes.

  54. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    It almost certainly won't work.

    Electoral fraud is easiest when the incumbent already has a dominating advantage, because the bureaucrats who run the Central Electoral Commissions and the teachers/government workers manning the counting booths are not going to stick their necks out for people who appear they might lose (e.g. Poroshenko).

    Not you, but some of Ukraine’s Russian “well-wishers” were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he’s gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.

    Or maybe, he is actually being democratic, with mere low level shenanigans typical of any democracy (is denying expats in Russia the vote in Russia any worse than gerrymandering in the USA) that will give him a couple % advantage at most.

    • Replies: @Denis

    ...but some of Ukraine’s Russian “well-wishers” were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he’s gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.
     
    Well, is that kind of cynicism really so unwarranted in this situation? Of the 2 remaining contestants, the incumbent is perceived as being rather corrupt, or at least soft on corruption, and was trailing in the polls. His declaration of martial law so close to the election didn't look entirely innocent in light of that. Meanwhile, Zelensky is seen as being in the pocket of a criminal oligarch. With these 2 competing for the presidency, it will honestly be rather surprising if the elections turn out to be relatively clean.
    , @Gerard2
    AK: Only leaving this comment as there's a reply to it.
  55. @Mr. Hack

    Poroshenko has made a speech to Zelensky voters saying essentially “I heard you and I will now make sure to fix corruption.”
     
    Poroshenko's promises to curb corruption after he hypothetically gains a second term are total nonsense. If he felt no compunction to do so during his first term, knowing that the nation would be holding him accountable after the Maidan, why would anyone believe him now/, being a sitting duck president? He had his chance to fight corruption after the Maidan and did nothing, why would he do so now and gain powerful enemies?

    I agree, it cost him dearly. Meanwhile, some people from central Ukraine (Hrytsenko supporters) posted this:

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Look, if he would have only gone after one big fish, and maybe 2 -3 smaller ones, he could have made a case that he was fighting corruption - but he really did nothing at all. The cartoon is accurate - Zelinsky does seem to be Kolomoisky's ass, and Ukraine deserves much better. With Kolomoisky adopting Zelensky as his 'clown' instead of Tymoshenko, perhaps she could shift her support to Poroshenko? I've never heard of any real hardcore hate between the two? I'm thinking that with Tymoshenko in 3rd place, she could end up being the 'kingmaker' in this race....
  56. @AP
    I agree, it cost him dearly. Meanwhile, some people from central Ukraine (Hrytsenko supporters) posted this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3AgbWwXcAE1Qo_.jpg

    Look, if he would have only gone after one big fish, and maybe 2 -3 smaller ones, he could have made a case that he was fighting corruption – but he really did nothing at all. The cartoon is accurate – Zelinsky does seem to be Kolomoisky’s ass, and Ukraine deserves much better. With Kolomoisky adopting Zelensky as his ‘clown’ instead of Tymoshenko, perhaps she could shift her support to Poroshenko? I’ve never heard of any real hardcore hate between the two? I’m thinking that with Tymoshenko in 3rd place, she could end up being the ‘kingmaker’ in this race….

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Zelinsky does seem to be Kolomoisky’s ass, and Ukraine deserves much better. With Kolomoisky adopting Zelensky as his ‘clown’ instead of Tymoshenko, perhaps she could shift her support to Poroshenko?
     
    It has been said that Tymoshenko is more likely to go with Zelensky.

    On the Kolomoisky's ass characterization, I'm reminded of Putin being KGB (Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and Berezovsky) supported/approved in the beginning of his presidential role. Putin was able to change that situation for (in overall terms) the better.

    I'm sure that the political novice Zelensky can do such with Kolomoisky, which leads to this video on the outcome of the preliminary round of the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election.

    http://theduran.com/ukraine-elections-the-chocolate-king-the-gas-princess-and-the-comedian-video/

    I was half asleep when listening to this video. Without checking back, if I'm not mistaken, it's suggested that Kolomoisky has a business interest for improved Russian-Ukrainian relations. Not noted (if I correctly recall) is his support for some of the Ukrainian far right.

    Medvedchuk's take:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/454959-medvedchuk-ukrainian-presidential-elections/

  57. @AnonFromTN
    “Svidomy” (свідомий in Ukrainian) originally meant “conscientious” or “aware/conscious” (don’t trust google translate – it’s crap). After 2014 Ukies started using the word for the people who subscribe to their version of nationalism, which boils down to anti-Russian Nazi. Then in Russian it became a derogatory term, used to mock Ukie Nazis. Hence Russian phrase that “svidomism is a mental disorder”.

    Much obliged.

  58. @AnonFromTN
    Antisemitism in Ukraine is traditional, going back centuries. The best known example internationally is Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”). In view of that, it looks comic when self-proclaimed Ukrainian “patriots” after 2014 placed Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and other non-Ukrainians into virtually all positions of power. The speaker of Rada (Ukrainian parliament) Parubiy is one of very few Ukrainians with ostensible power in post-Maidan Ukraine. He was diagnosed with mild mental retardation in his school years. Goes well with his political leanings.

    Koliyivshchyna (1768), a rebellion of Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule, which resulted in mass anti-Jewish and anti-Polish pogroms (whitewashed in Shevchenko poem “Haidamaky”)

    It featured a guy murdering his own children because they were half-Polish. How was that whitewashing?

  59. @Anon
    Zakarpattia was not part of Hungary. Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago. Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that. When Hungary eventually became a country, Zakarpattia ended up in Czechoslovakia.

    Also, I can't understand the Hungary fanboi. Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria. Anything Austrians built there, and could be described as noteworthy, has a counterpart, 100 times better, in Czechia or Slovenia. (And of course, Austria.) Anything Turks built there has an equivalent, 100 times more impressive, in Bulgaria. (Not to mention Turkey.) Russians and Jews essentially left nothing. What gives?

    Not sure if trolling or stupid … ( or simply an American ) .

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  60. @Dmitry
    Maria Gaidar was the most bizarre.

    First they gave her Ukrainian citizenship, then they made her remove her Russian citizenship for her job with the Saakashvili team in Odessa.

    So now she just has a Ukrainian citizenship - but then Saakashvili team has resigned, and Maria Gaidar says she is some kind of advisor to Poroshenko,

    Apparently Maria Gaidar is now lost in obscurity, abandoned all her social media last year, and bought a house in a village outside Odessa.

    Her last Instagram was updated in 2017:
    https://www.instagram.com/maria.gaidar/

    No updates on Facebook for more than 1 year as well.
    https://www.facebook.com/gaidarmaria

    So it's generally a mystery what she is doing...

    I wouldn’t shed any tears for Maria Gaidar. There is enough shit in Russia without her. It would be better for Russia to export all of it to Ukraine, but only a few left. Too bad.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    When Ukraine was politically cargo-culting not only to Russia, but even Georgia.

    Still, Saakashvili, at least, was an important person when he was in Georgia, even if his performance job was not exactly "competent".

    Gaidar's only distinction was to be some politically annoying daughter of important dead person.


    -
    But being daughter of important dead person in Moscow, is apparently enough qualification to receive Ukrainian passport directly from the president's hand in Kiev.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFl0bUg2Ka4

  61. Anon[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @Epigon
    You’re an ignorant fool.
    Habsburgs were crowned as kings of Hungary on separate occasions historically.
    More importantly, Hungarians conquered the area in early medieval period, and even expanded to Galicia in 13th century.

    Talking about more recent history, in 1867 Austro-Hungary came into existence, and the Hungarian part functioned practically as a state inside a federation.

    So what you are saying is that, in Zappa’s words, Austrian “Hungary” had its own airline and its own beer? Who cared if, starting with 1867, a bunch of autists pretended to run “Hungary”? (Also, congrats on pushing that number up by 50 years. That is guaranteed to wipe the centuries of Turkish rule.)

    For example, the Budapest autists claimed to enforce Hungarian language in schools, but did not provide schools for 80% of the people in “Hungary”. Even in the Hungarian-speaking plurality, more than 50% were illiterate.

    Another example: Budapest autists wanted to separate “Hungarian” regiments. Franz Joseph offered them a re-branding. From 1905, the army would be renamed, from “Imperial Army”, to “Imperial-Royal Army”.

    Tbh, Hungary is more gay than Ukraine. At least Ukrainians speak languages similar to their rulers, and may get to some positions of power in those empires (see Khrushchev). But when was a Hungarian Sultan or Emperor? Hungary is almost always, in its history, a border county in someone else’s empire. “The Hungary”, lol.

  62. @AP
    Not you, but some of Ukraine's Russian "well-wishers" were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he's gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.

    Or maybe, he is actually being democratic, with mere low level shenanigans typical of any democracy (is denying expats in Russia the vote in Russia any worse than gerrymandering in the USA) that will give him a couple % advantage at most.

    …but some of Ukraine’s Russian “well-wishers” were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he’s gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.

    Well, is that kind of cynicism really so unwarranted in this situation? Of the 2 remaining contestants, the incumbent is perceived as being rather corrupt, or at least soft on corruption, and was trailing in the polls. His declaration of martial law so close to the election didn’t look entirely innocent in light of that. Meanwhile, Zelensky is seen as being in the pocket of a criminal oligarch. With these 2 competing for the presidency, it will honestly be rather surprising if the elections turn out to be relatively clean.

    • Replies: @AP

    Well, is that kind of cynicism really so unwarranted in this situation?
     
    Yes, although in the alternative reality that Maidan was a manufactured oligarch project (or better, merely an American plot to take away Crimea that America was so desperate to get lol) it might make some sense.

    With these 2 competing for the presidency, it will honestly be rather surprising if the elections turn out to be relatively clean

     

    I'm sure it will not be a very clean election, Ukraine isn't Switzerland, there will be things for the Russian media to magnify, but it will not be a fake election.
  63. @Beckow

    ...Why were various Eastern European countries (even Bulgaria and Romania) previously admitted into the EU?
     
    First of they were smaller, closer geographically (you can't really have a EU if Prague or Budapest are not in it). But the most important factor was timing: they all joined during the massive optimistic wave of the late 90's to 2010. EU was richer then.

    The subsidy game is very different now, with all the poorer eastern countries joining there are more takers and fewer givers. Once UK is gone (a huge giver), it will get worse. The aid-receiving countries (looking at you, Poland) have zero incentive to bring in a large, poor country like Ukraine that would displace them as a primary aid recipient.

    Many in EU also think that allowing Romania-Bulgaria was a mistake, a costly one. They are not allowed in the Schengen free travel zone even today. I don't see how Ukraine would overcome the combined resistance of aid givers and receivers who primarily look out for their own interests. Ukraine is just too big and too poor.

    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though? Some of the Balkan countries are very poor just like Ukraine is and Turkey, while being relatively well-off, is overwhelmingly Muslim.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though?
     
    Did the EU take Turkey? Tell it to the Turks, they would be surprised no end.
    , @Adrian E.
    Turkey is theoretically a EU membership candidate, and for some odd political/diplomatic reasons that candidate status has not been cancelled completely, but that process is frozen. Partly, the same economic reasons for which Ukraine will not be accepted as a member are also the reason why Turkey won't become a member. Furthermore, Turkey's population is so large (and growing) that it would fundamentally change the nature of the EU if it became a member, and even those who now reject the idea of a danger of "Islamization" of Europe would have to reconsider if Turkey became a full member. All existing EU member states would have to agree to Turkey joining, and the likelihood that this will happen is very close to zero.

    The probability of Turkey becoming a EU member is extremely low, probably even lower than the probability of Ukraine becoming a EU member (but because unlike in the case of Turkey, which has had a candidate status for a long time, granting it to Ukraine would be a signal that the EU actually wants Ukraine as a member, candidate status will certainly not be granted to Ukraine).

    The expansion of the EU to the East is quite controversial, and many people think it was a mistake. Because of the relatively close integration, this has meant that lots of money were poored into these new member countries (e.g. Poland). At that time, the EU was more optimistic, countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are much closer to the heart of Central Europe, and Ukraine is even much larger and poorer than Poland. The EU has enough economic problems of its own. The likelihood that it will invite Ukraine in the next 10-20 years to join is close to zero.

    The EU might sooner or later accept one or the other tiny Balkan country as a member, but apart from that, EU expansion is finished for the near and medium-term future.

    Of course, the EU can develop stronger relations with Ukraine even if it is not a member. That would not have to be a contradiction with good Ukrainian-Russian relations. The best option for Ukraine would be that it can have good relations with both Russia and the EU. The neocons and their many allies, of course, don't want that and want to present all these poor countries with an either-or choice, but it remains to be seen whether they can uphold their influence.
  64. @Beckow
    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs 'independent'? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that - more than anything else - destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn't explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    The people in Subcarpathian Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued up to the present-day and had the CPs won WWI, no?

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued
     
    No way to know. By 1910 the Magyarization was running out of steam and generating substantial opposition. Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy). Magyar language is also very hard. The early successes of Magyarization were based on people who were pursuing careers and government jobs.

    It was also at the beginnings of mass education and that triggered a strong sense of Ruthenian national identity. If Magyars stayed in charge after 1918 there would be huge resistance and eventually some sort of compromise would be reached. What really hurt the Ruthenian identity was to become part of countries where people were like them - similar language, culture, etc... so they became Ukrainian, Polish or Slovak. It was a much more natural process than with the Hungarians.

    , @Anon
    I take it that you ran out of cherry-picked acts, so you are going further build your argument on counterfactuals. Can you discuss the outlook of Zakarpathia, after the intelligent and well-educated Hungarian nation will start CRISPRing their blockchains? What if they had IoT in 1919? What if The Hungary weren't run by (((Kun))) at the time when their Christians were already a hated species?
  65. @Mr. XYZ
    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though? Some of the Balkan countries are very poor just like Ukraine is and Turkey, while being relatively well-off, is overwhelmingly Muslim.

    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though?

    Did the EU take Turkey? Tell it to the Turks, they would be surprised no end.

  66. AP says:
    @Denis

    ...but some of Ukraine’s Russian “well-wishers” were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he’s gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.
     
    Well, is that kind of cynicism really so unwarranted in this situation? Of the 2 remaining contestants, the incumbent is perceived as being rather corrupt, or at least soft on corruption, and was trailing in the polls. His declaration of martial law so close to the election didn't look entirely innocent in light of that. Meanwhile, Zelensky is seen as being in the pocket of a criminal oligarch. With these 2 competing for the presidency, it will honestly be rather surprising if the elections turn out to be relatively clean.

    Well, is that kind of cynicism really so unwarranted in this situation?

    Yes, although in the alternative reality that Maidan was a manufactured oligarch project (or better, merely an American plot to take away Crimea that America was so desperate to get lol) it might make some sense.

    With these 2 competing for the presidency, it will honestly be rather surprising if the elections turn out to be relatively clean

    I’m sure it will not be a very clean election, Ukraine isn’t Switzerland, there will be things for the Russian media to magnify, but it will not be a fake election.

  67. @Mr. XYZ

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    The people in Subcarpathian Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued up to the present-day and had the CPs won WWI, no?

    …Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued

    No way to know. By 1910 the Magyarization was running out of steam and generating substantial opposition. Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy). Magyar language is also very hard. The early successes of Magyarization were based on people who were pursuing careers and government jobs.

    It was also at the beginnings of mass education and that triggered a strong sense of Ruthenian national identity. If Magyars stayed in charge after 1918 there would be huge resistance and eventually some sort of compromise would be reached. What really hurt the Ruthenian identity was to become part of countries where people were like them – similar language, culture, etc… so they became Ukrainian, Polish or Slovak. It was a much more natural process than with the Hungarians.

    • Replies: @AP

    Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy).
     
    No, most Ruthenians were Greek Catholic at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian-Catholic-Church

    They became Orthodox under Soviets.
  68. Well look at that. Ukraine is going to get another Jewish leader.

    How interesting. Either a Jewish comedian, or a crypto-Jew whose Jewish identity was exposed by Forward magazine.

    And to think that Victoria Nuland (Jewish) was caught telling a Jewish EU apparatchik that ‘Yats’ (Jewish) was going to be the next leader of Ukraine.

    I’m sure it is all a coincidence that a group representing less than 1% of the population keeps popping up in power.

    • Replies: @AP

    crypto-Jew whose Jewish identity was exposed by Forward magazine.
     
    In your world Obama must also have been a crypto-Jew.

    ‘Yats’ (Jewish)
     
    He is a Greek Catholic.
  69. @Mr. Hack
    Look, if he would have only gone after one big fish, and maybe 2 -3 smaller ones, he could have made a case that he was fighting corruption - but he really did nothing at all. The cartoon is accurate - Zelinsky does seem to be Kolomoisky's ass, and Ukraine deserves much better. With Kolomoisky adopting Zelensky as his 'clown' instead of Tymoshenko, perhaps she could shift her support to Poroshenko? I've never heard of any real hardcore hate between the two? I'm thinking that with Tymoshenko in 3rd place, she could end up being the 'kingmaker' in this race....

    Zelinsky does seem to be Kolomoisky’s ass, and Ukraine deserves much better. With Kolomoisky adopting Zelensky as his ‘clown’ instead of Tymoshenko, perhaps she could shift her support to Poroshenko?

    It has been said that Tymoshenko is more likely to go with Zelensky.

    On the Kolomoisky’s ass characterization, I’m reminded of Putin being KGB (Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and Berezovsky) supported/approved in the beginning of his presidential role. Putin was able to change that situation for (in overall terms) the better.

    I’m sure that the political novice Zelensky can do such with Kolomoisky, which leads to this video on the outcome of the preliminary round of the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election.

    http://theduran.com/ukraine-elections-the-chocolate-king-the-gas-princess-and-the-comedian-video/

    I was half asleep when listening to this video. Without checking back, if I’m not mistaken, it’s suggested that Kolomoisky has a business interest for improved Russian-Ukrainian relations. Not noted (if I correctly recall) is his support for some of the Ukrainian far right.

    Medvedchuk’s take:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/454959-medvedchuk-ukrainian-presidential-elections/

  70. Ukraine is a huge Potemkin village. Number of registered voters has remained almost constant in the past 10 years. At the same time Ukraine was losing 150-200k every year due to natural decrease, lost Crimea (2.4 million people), part of Donbass region (3-3.5 mln) and several million people due to high levels of emigration.

    Just a few months ago Poroshenko had 5-6% support, barely half of what Tymoshenko had. But in the past 2 months he managed to get ahead by a slim 2 percent margin. My bet that he will try to do the same trick with Zelenskyi … the gap might be too high to close in such a short term (until April 21st).

  71. @TG
    "his chances of success – transforming the Ukraine from an oligarchy into a “normal” country – don’t appear to be bright."

    But aren't "normal" countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is. When did the popular vote ever last have any real effect on fundamental policy?

    Yes, but the US isn’t captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves) to the same extent as in the Ukraine. It’s a place where the Russian 1990s never really ended.

    • Replies: @Epigon

    Yes, but the US isn’t captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves)
     
    Debatable, looking at the current status and the future of USA.

    Really, the global leadership position in everything the USA found itself post-WW2 was squandered away for private profit and special interests.

    Also, when there is plenty of power, influence and material wealth to distribute among power brokers, things run much more smoothly - especially when we are talking about entrenched elites and actual oligarch and political dynasties, as is the case in USA.

    Ukraine simply has much fewer spoilts to loot and fewer servants to exploit, so the fight is dirtier and more desperate.

    , @Anon
    Nah, no oligarchy in US. Trump, McCain, Romney are self-made men. And Bezos or the kibutzoid leadership at Google don't make money by fleecing the state for 'IT services', 'war robots', and 'modern genomics'. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.) Classic Karlin Americanophilia.
    , @Dmitry
    At least FSU oligarchs are politically simple people, though, without the security or ambitions of Western counterparts.

    FSU oligarchs only want to secure their business and properties from their rivals and state, or alternately to act as an extension of state capacity themselves. And then spend the money as far away as possible, from the workers who generated it.

    For this latter, e.g. Rotenberg is attaining state contracts, so operates effectively as an extension of state capacity - although with the disadvantage that the process is nationalizing losses and privatizing profits for himself.

    Main problem of FSU oligarchs, is that they are often extremely polluting to the environment, and the salaries they pay (to often captive workforce) incredibly low.

    And then whole cities can be slaves making money for different groups of oligarchs.

    Norilsk economy, for example, is basically only people freezing their ass and breathing toxic pollution, to make profits for Potanin and Deripaska.

    Actually, FSU oligarchs are much more like Monty Burns than American counterparts.

    Working for Bill Gates in America, will not destroy your health. But some few FSU oligarchs, can physically turn the sky of Krasnoyarsk black.

  72. @reiner Tor
    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.

    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    D) Contested outcome in which Poroshenko nominally wins by tiny margin, then Zelensky triumphs in Maidan 2.0, then Poroshenko-supporting Galicia does reverse Donbass and leaves Ukraine.

    In terms of what is realistic, I suppose B (I don’t think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C).

    But if you assume that Zelensky will also fail to significantly reduce corruption and generate strong economic growth (likely), then the answer might be A, since the failure of two consecutive pro-Western presidents will discredit Western orientation, more than the failure of a single pro-Western president.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I don’t think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C
     
    Me neither, I merely responded to the comment "Do it fagt." quoting the Poroshenko tweet "We will not give a single chance to the puppet of Kolomoyskyi"

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.
  73. @Jon0815

    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator
     
    D) Contested outcome in which Poroshenko nominally wins by tiny margin, then Zelensky triumphs in Maidan 2.0, then Poroshenko-supporting Galicia does reverse Donbass and leaves Ukraine.

    In terms of what is realistic, I suppose B (I don't think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C).

    But if you assume that Zelensky will also fail to significantly reduce corruption and generate strong economic growth (likely), then the answer might be A, since the failure of two consecutive pro-Western presidents will discredit Western orientation, more than the failure of a single pro-Western president.

    I don’t think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C

    Me neither, I merely responded to the comment “Do it fagt.” quoting the Poroshenko tweet “We will not give a single chance to the puppet of Kolomoyskyi”

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.

    • Replies: @Epigon

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.
     
    That would actually be an improvement, and an exercise in sovereignity compared to current status of Ukraine.
    Egypt would be a total failed state, impoverished and dysfunctional, yet it currently achieves more with far less human capital, worse position and less natural resources than Ukraine.
    , @Jon0815
    Sorry, I have to scroll through very quickly (curse of blue light hypersensitivity) so I missed the context.

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.
     

    Ukraine would probably be better off as an autocracy, unless this resulted in the West no longer propping it up economically (which of course it wouldn't, as long as it was an anti-Russian autocracy).
  74. @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, but the US isn't captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves) to the same extent as in the Ukraine. It's a place where the Russian 1990s never really ended.

    Yes, but the US isn’t captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves)

    Debatable, looking at the current status and the future of USA.

    Really, the global leadership position in everything the USA found itself post-WW2 was squandered away for private profit and special interests.

    Also, when there is plenty of power, influence and material wealth to distribute among power brokers, things run much more smoothly – especially when we are talking about entrenched elites and actual oligarch and political dynasties, as is the case in USA.

    Ukraine simply has much fewer spoilts to loot and fewer servants to exploit, so the fight is dirtier and more desperate.

  75. @Beckow

    ...Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued
     
    No way to know. By 1910 the Magyarization was running out of steam and generating substantial opposition. Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy). Magyar language is also very hard. The early successes of Magyarization were based on people who were pursuing careers and government jobs.

    It was also at the beginnings of mass education and that triggered a strong sense of Ruthenian national identity. If Magyars stayed in charge after 1918 there would be huge resistance and eventually some sort of compromise would be reached. What really hurt the Ruthenian identity was to become part of countries where people were like them - similar language, culture, etc... so they became Ukrainian, Polish or Slovak. It was a much more natural process than with the Hungarians.

    Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy).

    No, most Ruthenians were Greek Catholic at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian-Catholic-Church

    They became Orthodox under Soviets.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    No, most Ruthenians were Greek Catholic at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian-Catholic-Church

    They became Orthodox under Soviets.
     

    For the benefit of a complete accounting, which takes into consideration folks reading this thread (who might not be so historically well versed), the Ruthenians were initially Orthodox before the coercive manner involving the establishment of the Greek Catholic denomination - encouraged by people who didn't feel akin to Rus, while being prone to an anti-Russian mindset.
  76. @jbwilson24
    Well look at that. Ukraine is going to get another Jewish leader.

    How interesting. Either a Jewish comedian, or a crypto-Jew whose Jewish identity was exposed by Forward magazine.

    And to think that Victoria Nuland (Jewish) was caught telling a Jewish EU apparatchik that 'Yats' (Jewish) was going to be the next leader of Ukraine.

    I'm sure it is all a coincidence that a group representing less than 1% of the population keeps popping up in power.

    crypto-Jew whose Jewish identity was exposed by Forward magazine.

    In your world Obama must also have been a crypto-Jew.

    ‘Yats’ (Jewish)

    He is a Greek Catholic.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Greek Catholics are neither Greek, nor Catholic (in the true meaning of the word - all-embracing).

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders, and often would only represent a temporary religion - their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.

    As can be expected, Uniats/"Greek Catholics" have historically been most present in former Byzantine areas of Italy, among Albanians, Serbs under Habsburg/Venetian rule, and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
    Probably the best numbers to study are the fluctuations in number - a parish of Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another.... That is the way "Little Rascia" (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.

    Cue Ukrainian Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics coming into existence in 19th century.

  77. @reiner Tor

    I don’t think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C
     
    Me neither, I merely responded to the comment "Do it fagt." quoting the Poroshenko tweet "We will not give a single chance to the puppet of Kolomoyskyi"

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.

    That would actually be an improvement, and an exercise in sovereignity compared to current status of Ukraine.
    Egypt would be a total failed state, impoverished and dysfunctional, yet it currently achieves more with far less human capital, worse position and less natural resources than Ukraine.

    • Agree: melanf
  78. @AP

    crypto-Jew whose Jewish identity was exposed by Forward magazine.
     
    In your world Obama must also have been a crypto-Jew.

    ‘Yats’ (Jewish)
     
    He is a Greek Catholic.

    Greek Catholics are neither Greek, nor Catholic (in the true meaning of the word – all-embracing).

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders, and often would only represent a temporary religion – their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.

    As can be expected, Uniats/”Greek Catholics” have historically been most present in former Byzantine areas of Italy, among Albanians, Serbs under Habsburg/Venetian rule, and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
    Probably the best numbers to study are the fluctuations in number – a parish of Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another…. That is the way “Little Rascia” (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.

    Cue Ukrainian Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics coming into existence in 19th century.

    • Replies: @AP

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.
     
    Correct. They are practically identical.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders,
     
    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    and often would only represent a temporary religion – their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.
     
    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
     
    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another…. That is the way “Little Rascia” (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.
     
    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern "Slav."
  79. AP says:
    @Beckow
    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs 'independent'? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that - more than anything else - destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn't explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants (in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages). At that time fervently nationalistic German-speaking Hungarians taught themselves and their children the Hungarian language.

    Its interesting that only under the Hapsburgs (due to policy) and Romanovs (due to policy in the Baltic, neglect in Ukraine) did these rural languages survive in mass form. Gaelic disappeared n Britain, France lost its languages, Sorbian or whatever are basically gone in Germany. If the Hapsburgs were like Western rulers, Czechs and Hungarians might at most have been German-speaking, like English-speaking Irish nationalists. Or they might have simply become Germans of Czech or whatever descent, as utu stated.

    That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    Here we go again. Zakarpattiya’s eastern Slavs are no more averse to Ukrainian nationalists than are places like Zhytomir or Poltava. They is not nearly as extreme as Galicians on the other side of the Carpathians but they are in the nationalist camp. With respect to nationalism they are like central Ukrainians but in the far west.

    Wikipedia has a nice map of election results (Green Zelensky, Grey Poroshenko, Red Tymoshenko, Blue Boyko):

    • Replies: @Beckow

    Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages
     
    Not true. You are again inventing history based on - I have to assume - very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc...

    Between the late 17. and early 19.th century there was a so-called 'doba temna' = dark age, when Habsburgs pushed Germanisation and Catholicism. Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century. Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian... minorities in special position (government, trade, church).

    Hungary was more complicated due to its 250 year occupation by the Ottomans, and the frequent uprisings against the Habsburgs, but the language of government/church was Latin (not German) until late 18th century when an aspirational Habsburg king, Joseph II, replaced it with German - and triggered nationalist movements among all.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780's, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything, he also tried to change territorial divisions to make them more 'rational'. Joseph II was an older brother of Marie Antoinette, a fool with initiative...Habsburg Empire never recovered. Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.

    , @reiner Tor

    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants
     
    And nobles and the majority of aristocrats. Also some of the city-dwellers, though some 95% of the population was rural anyway. Some of the very richest aristocrats spent most of their time in Vienna, and for a few decades they couldn't speak Hungarian well, but that doesn't apply to the majority of the aristocracy who didn't have so much money so couldn't afford living in Vienna. Also, many the Vienna aristocrats required their children to learn the languages of the peasants on their estates, so they usually could speak some Hungarian (I'm not sure about Slovak).
  80. AP says:
    @Epigon
    Greek Catholics are neither Greek, nor Catholic (in the true meaning of the word - all-embracing).

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders, and often would only represent a temporary religion - their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.

    As can be expected, Uniats/"Greek Catholics" have historically been most present in former Byzantine areas of Italy, among Albanians, Serbs under Habsburg/Venetian rule, and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
    Probably the best numbers to study are the fluctuations in number - a parish of Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another.... That is the way "Little Rascia" (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.

    Cue Ukrainian Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics coming into existence in 19th century.

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.

    Correct. They are practically identical.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders,

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    and often would only represent a temporary religion – their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another…. That is the way “Little Rascia” (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.

    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern “Slav.”

    • Replies: @Epigon

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?
     
    Not really. National Orthodox Churches are a stark contrast to Roman Catholicism, Universalism and Papal Primacy.
    Each Orthodox Church is unique and adapted to locals, because it is formed by locals, for locals.
    Also, which Slavs were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords? Cyril and Methodius, Byzantine monks weren't a mirror image of Frankish sword and torch "proselytizing". The Glagolitic and Cyrillic script were created for Slavic languages.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

     

    Because Ukrainians and Greek Catholics became a useful tool to counter Poles in Galicia. Clever.
    I was writing about Polish period, when it was clearly a one-way street. I guess that many Poles in Ruthenia/Rus' were actually descendants of Uniat Ruthenian ancestors who assimilated and converted as time went on.

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.
     

    This is an unsubstianted claim. Besides, by the late 17th century, there was not a single Rus Orthodox Church or monastery operating in PLC lands. Inquisition and persecution was that systematic.

    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern “Slav.”
     
    If I am anti-something because I quote Habsburg and Hungarian documents, then so be it. I am a proponent of sticking to the truth and primary documents no matter the current climate and PC regime. This includes writing about my own people, history and state.
    , @Mikhail

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.
     
    Somewhat on par with saying that the US killed more Japanese civilians than vice versa.

    Catholics and their Uniates initiated such manner.

  81. @AP

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.
     
    Correct. They are practically identical.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders,
     
    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    and often would only represent a temporary religion – their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.
     
    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
     
    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another…. That is the way “Little Rascia” (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.
     
    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern "Slav."

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    Not really. National Orthodox Churches are a stark contrast to Roman Catholicism, Universalism and Papal Primacy.
    Each Orthodox Church is unique and adapted to locals, because it is formed by locals, for locals.
    Also, which Slavs were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords? Cyril and Methodius, Byzantine monks weren’t a mirror image of Frankish sword and torch “proselytizing”. The Glagolitic and Cyrillic script were created for Slavic languages.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    Because Ukrainians and Greek Catholics became a useful tool to counter Poles in Galicia. Clever.
    I was writing about Polish period, when it was clearly a one-way street. I guess that many Poles in Ruthenia/Rus’ were actually descendants of Uniat Ruthenian ancestors who assimilated and converted as time went on.

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    This is an unsubstianted claim. Besides, by the late 17th century, there was not a single Rus Orthodox Church or monastery operating in PLC lands. Inquisition and persecution was that systematic.

    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern “Slav.”

    If I am anti-something because I quote Habsburg and Hungarian documents, then so be it. I am a proponent of sticking to the truth and primary documents no matter the current climate and PC regime. This includes writing about my own people, history and state.

    • Agree: Mikhail, Denis
    • Replies: @AP

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    "Not really"
     
    So Scandinavian overlords didn't force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    National Orthodox Churches are a stark contrast to Roman Catholicism, Universalism and Papal Primacy.
    Each Orthodox Church is unique.
     
    Yes, they flirt with idolatry of nationalism and heresy of phyletism.

    Also, which Slavs were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords? Cyrillus and Methodius, Byzantine monks weren’t a mirror image of Frankish sword and torch “proselytizing”.
     
    The ones in Russia and Ukraine. Even in Bulgaria it was not a peaceful and voluntary process. There was military pressure from East and West and the ruler forced the new faith upon the people:

    Wiki:

    As Byzantine missions converted the Bulgarians, their forces encouraged the people to destroy the Pagan holy places. Conservative Bulgarian aristocratic circles opposed such destruction, as they had led the spiritual rituals. In 865, malcontents from all ten administrative regions (komitats) revolted against Prince Boris, accusing him of giving them "a bad law". The rebels moved toward the capital, intending to capture and kill the Knyaz and to restore the old religion.

    All that is known is that Prince Boris gathered people loyal to him and suppressed the revolt. He ordered the execution of 52[3] boyars who were leaders in the revolt, "along with their whole families". The common folk who "wished to do penance" were allowed to go without harm.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    Because Ukrainians and Greek Catholics became a useful tool to counter Poles in Galicia. Clever.
     
    Correct. Which doesn't change what I stated.

    I was writing about Polish period, when it was clearly a one-way street. I guess that many of “Poles” in Ruthenia/Rus’ were actually descendants of Uniat Ruthenian ancestors who assimilated and converted as time went on.
     
    Probably most were. It was an internal conflict between Rus people.

    "Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts."

    This is an unsubstianted claim. Besides, by the late 17th century, there was not a single Rus Orthodox Church or monastery operating in PLC lands. Inquisition and persecution was that systematic.
     
    Khmelytsky's slaughters were not equalled by the other side.

    By the late 17th century Galicia was still Orthodox. It officially switched over in 1700 or 1708. This process was the decision of the local Church hierarchs and did not involve mass arrests, slaughter etc.

    The reason there eventually was not a single Rus Orthodox Church operating was because they had all become Greek Catholics and because the relationship had become spoiled by the mass slaughter of Catholics and Uniates by Orthodox in the mid 17th century, not because of some Inquisition. There may have been individual dissenters but there was no mass persecution nor mass arrests and slaughters of people in order to create the conversion, other than the mutual slaughter (initiated by the Orthodox) during the rebellion.
  82. @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, but the US isn't captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves) to the same extent as in the Ukraine. It's a place where the Russian 1990s never really ended.

    Nah, no oligarchy in US. Trump, McCain, Romney are self-made men. And Bezos or the kibutzoid leadership at Google don’t make money by fleecing the state for ‘IT services’, ‘war robots’, and ‘modern genomics’. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.) Classic Karlin Americanophilia.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    ... don’t make money by fleecing the state for ‘IT services’, ‘war robots’, and ‘modern genomics’. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.)
     
    This beats spending money on yachts and foreign football clubs.
  83. Anon[491] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    The people in Subcarpathian Ruthenia would have overwhelmingly become Hungarians (Magyars) had the Magyarization program continued up to the present-day and had the CPs won WWI, no?

    I take it that you ran out of cherry-picked acts, so you are going further build your argument on counterfactuals. Can you discuss the outlook of Zakarpathia, after the intelligent and well-educated Hungarian nation will start CRISPRing their blockchains? What if they had IoT in 1919? What if The Hungary weren’t run by (((Kun))) at the time when their Christians were already a hated species?

  84. AP says:
    @Epigon

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?
     
    Not really. National Orthodox Churches are a stark contrast to Roman Catholicism, Universalism and Papal Primacy.
    Each Orthodox Church is unique and adapted to locals, because it is formed by locals, for locals.
    Also, which Slavs were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords? Cyril and Methodius, Byzantine monks weren't a mirror image of Frankish sword and torch "proselytizing". The Glagolitic and Cyrillic script were created for Slavic languages.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

     

    Because Ukrainians and Greek Catholics became a useful tool to counter Poles in Galicia. Clever.
    I was writing about Polish period, when it was clearly a one-way street. I guess that many Poles in Ruthenia/Rus' were actually descendants of Uniat Ruthenian ancestors who assimilated and converted as time went on.

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.
     

    This is an unsubstianted claim. Besides, by the late 17th century, there was not a single Rus Orthodox Church or monastery operating in PLC lands. Inquisition and persecution was that systematic.

    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern “Slav.”
     
    If I am anti-something because I quote Habsburg and Hungarian documents, then so be it. I am a proponent of sticking to the truth and primary documents no matter the current climate and PC regime. This includes writing about my own people, history and state.

    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    “Not really”

    So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    National Orthodox Churches are a stark contrast to Roman Catholicism, Universalism and Papal Primacy.
    Each Orthodox Church is unique.

    Yes, they flirt with idolatry of nationalism and heresy of phyletism.

    Also, which Slavs were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords? Cyrillus and Methodius, Byzantine monks weren’t a mirror image of Frankish sword and torch “proselytizing”.

    The ones in Russia and Ukraine. Even in Bulgaria it was not a peaceful and voluntary process. There was military pressure from East and West and the ruler forced the new faith upon the people:

    Wiki:

    As Byzantine missions converted the Bulgarians, their forces encouraged the people to destroy the Pagan holy places. Conservative Bulgarian aristocratic circles opposed such destruction, as they had led the spiritual rituals. In 865, malcontents from all ten administrative regions (komitats) revolted against Prince Boris, accusing him of giving them “a bad law”. The rebels moved toward the capital, intending to capture and kill the Knyaz and to restore the old religion.

    All that is known is that Prince Boris gathered people loyal to him and suppressed the revolt. He ordered the execution of 52[3] boyars who were leaders in the revolt, “along with their whole families”. The common folk who “wished to do penance” were allowed to go without harm.

    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    Because Ukrainians and Greek Catholics became a useful tool to counter Poles in Galicia. Clever.

    Correct. Which doesn’t change what I stated.

    I was writing about Polish period, when it was clearly a one-way street. I guess that many of “Poles” in Ruthenia/Rus’ were actually descendants of Uniat Ruthenian ancestors who assimilated and converted as time went on.

    Probably most were. It was an internal conflict between Rus people.

    “Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.”

    This is an unsubstianted claim. Besides, by the late 17th century, there was not a single Rus Orthodox Church or monastery operating in PLC lands. Inquisition and persecution was that systematic.

    Khmelytsky’s slaughters were not equalled by the other side.

    By the late 17th century Galicia was still Orthodox. It officially switched over in 1700 or 1708. This process was the decision of the local Church hierarchs and did not involve mass arrests, slaughter etc.

    The reason there eventually was not a single Rus Orthodox Church operating was because they had all become Greek Catholics and because the relationship had become spoiled by the mass slaughter of Catholics and Uniates by Orthodox in the mid 17th century, not because of some Inquisition. There may have been individual dissenters but there was no mass persecution nor mass arrests and slaughters of people in order to create the conversion, other than the mutual slaughter (initiated by the Orthodox) during the rebellion.

  85. @Anon
    Nah, no oligarchy in US. Trump, McCain, Romney are self-made men. And Bezos or the kibutzoid leadership at Google don't make money by fleecing the state for 'IT services', 'war robots', and 'modern genomics'. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.) Classic Karlin Americanophilia.

    … don’t make money by fleecing the state for ‘IT services’, ‘war robots’, and ‘modern genomics’. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.)

    This beats spending money on yachts and foreign football clubs.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Why mix up things? I listed a series of ways in which American oligarchs fleece the state, and you are listing a series of ways in which Russian oligarchs spend their money.

    Worse, it is the wrong example: Bezos is expecting delivery a 139-meter long yacht.

    Say what you want about Russians, or even Ukrainians, but even the worst alcoholic voter won't believe that skimping for a decade on local sales taxes, like Bezos did, was due to state legislatures "not paying attention", and "not updating their laws to e-commerce". We're talking about several thousand state legislators simultaneously turning a blind eye. You know, states, those entities which are responsible for healthcare and education in the US.

    I am sure you have something similar in Russia, a billionaire that pays off thousands of legislators. Or a McCain giving away envelopes with cash, from a group of billionaires, on the Senate floor. I am all ears.
  86. So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    Scandinavian overlords spoke and wrote Slavic.
    Only “Scandinavians” can build boats and live as traders and warriors, selling Slavs whom they conquered.

    Cool story.
    Bad history.

    As has been demonstrably proven, Rujani terrorised Danes, Osselians terrorised Swedes. Jomsvikings – mostly Slavic.
    Starigrad of Wagrians – Novgorod.
    You can’t disprove this. Claiming some genetic link of Rurikids with present-day Swedes is bogus.

    Yes, they flirt with idolatry of nationalism and heresy of phyletism.

    You do realise that the worst heresy there can be is the institution of Latin as a universal language – people literally didn’t understand a thing of the religion they were following – it went so far that at some point only nobility and clergy were allowed to have Holy Bible in Catholic realms.
    Apostles suddenly spoke all languages, Peter states that religion should be in language of the people.

    Regarding phyletism – Ecumenical Patriarch, a Fanar Ottoman subservient dog, warns against Balkan anti-Ottoman separatist Churches.

    Roman Catholic Church added dogmas well into 20th century, trampled upon Bible and Ecumenical Councils and is nothing but a tool of Frankish Imperial usurpation gone rogue – forgery after forgery, heresy after heresy, forced conversion of Christians, violent proselytizing etc.

    The ones in Russia and Ukraine. Even in Bulgaria it was not a peaceful and voluntary process. There was military pressure from East and West and the ruler forced the new faith upon the people:

    Bulgarians were not Slavs – the elite of Bulgarians back then most definitely wasn’t. The Slavs they assimilated in Thrace and Macedonia were Christian already.

    The reason there eventually was not a single Rus Orthodox Church operating was because they had all become Greek Catholics and because the relationship had become spoiled by the mass slaughter of Catholics and Uniates by Orthodox in the mid 17th century, not because of some Inquisition. There may have been individual dissenters but there was no mass persecution nor mass arrests and slaughters of people in order to create the conversion, other than the mutual slaughter (initiated by the Orthodox) during the rebellion.

    The relations went south much earlier. In your opinion, what would make the Orthodox commit such mass violence and atrocities?
    Could it have anything to do with the work of Inquisitors like SAINT Josaphat?
    Or that nice letter that Sapieha sent to the king to complain about persecution of Orthodox and cruelty of Inquisition?

    • Replies: @AP

    So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    Scandinavian overlords spoke and wrote Slavic.
     
    And Norse, certainly in the 10th century. Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson and returned to Rus, seizing power using Norse warriors.

    Claiming some genetic link of Rurikids with present-day Swedes is bogus.
     
    Because science bad. Nationalist mythologies good.

    the worst heresy there can be is the institution of Latin as a universal language – people literally didn’t understand a thing of the religion they were following
     
    For similar reasons do you oppose the use of Church Slavonic?

    The relations went south much earlier. In your opinion, what would make the Orthodox commit such mass violence and atrocities?
     
    Demoralization caused by the rebellion that involved Tatar allies of the Orthodox raiding Orthodox villages and carrying off slaves as the price of their alliance. BTW, Orthodox rebels also looted and destroyed Orthodox monasteries. Does that prove persecution of Orthodox by Orthodox or maybe the rebellion wasn't simply about religion.

    There was no justification for mass slaughter of Poles in Volhynia either, do you think that had a good reason also?

    Could it have anything to do with the work of Inquisitors like SAINT Josaphat?
     
    Even the Russians are not as extreme as your interpretation:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_(1618)
  87. @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, but the US isn't captured by its oligarchs (who are far more ethical, competent, patriotic, and civilized than their FSU counterparts, vast majority of whom are ultimately just thieves) to the same extent as in the Ukraine. It's a place where the Russian 1990s never really ended.

    At least FSU oligarchs are politically simple people, though, without the security or ambitions of Western counterparts.

    FSU oligarchs only want to secure their business and properties from their rivals and state, or alternately to act as an extension of state capacity themselves. And then spend the money as far away as possible, from the workers who generated it.

    For this latter, e.g. Rotenberg is attaining state contracts, so operates effectively as an extension of state capacity – although with the disadvantage that the process is nationalizing losses and privatizing profits for himself.

    Main problem of FSU oligarchs, is that they are often extremely polluting to the environment, and the salaries they pay (to often captive workforce) incredibly low.

    And then whole cities can be slaves making money for different groups of oligarchs.

    Norilsk economy, for example, is basically only people freezing their ass and breathing toxic pollution, to make profits for Potanin and Deripaska.

    Actually, FSU oligarchs are much more like Monty Burns than American counterparts.

    Working for Bill Gates in America, will not destroy your health. But some few FSU oligarchs, can physically turn the sky of Krasnoyarsk black.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Norilsk economy, for example, is basically only people freezing their ass and breathing toxic pollution, to make profits for Potanin and Deripaska.

     

    Russia is the true cyberpunk future.
  88. Poroshenko’s agitation in Kharkiv

    “Little Russian vote for Julia and she will give you a pussy. Vote for Zelensky and he’ll give you his dick”

  89. AP says:
    @Epigon

    So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?
     
    Scandinavian overlords spoke and wrote Slavic.
    Only "Scandinavians" can build boats and live as traders and warriors, selling Slavs whom they conquered.

    Cool story.
    Bad history.

    As has been demonstrably proven, Rujani terrorised Danes, Osselians terrorised Swedes. Jomsvikings - mostly Slavic.
    Starigrad of Wagrians - Novgorod.
    You can't disprove this. Claiming some genetic link of Rurikids with present-day Swedes is bogus.

    Yes, they flirt with idolatry of nationalism and heresy of phyletism.
     
    You do realise that the worst heresy there can be is the institution of Latin as a universal language - people literally didn't understand a thing of the religion they were following - it went so far that at some point only nobility and clergy were allowed to have Holy Bible in Catholic realms.
    Apostles suddenly spoke all languages, Peter states that religion should be in language of the people.

    Regarding phyletism - Ecumenical Patriarch, a Fanar Ottoman subservient dog, warns against Balkan anti-Ottoman separatist Churches.

    Roman Catholic Church added dogmas well into 20th century, trampled upon Bible and Ecumenical Councils and is nothing but a tool of Frankish Imperial usurpation gone rogue - forgery after forgery, heresy after heresy, forced conversion of Christians, violent proselytizing etc.



    The ones in Russia and Ukraine. Even in Bulgaria it was not a peaceful and voluntary process. There was military pressure from East and West and the ruler forced the new faith upon the people:
     
    Bulgarians were not Slavs - the elite of Bulgarians back then most definitely wasn't. The Slavs they assimilated in Thrace and Macedonia were Christian already.

    The reason there eventually was not a single Rus Orthodox Church operating was because they had all become Greek Catholics and because the relationship had become spoiled by the mass slaughter of Catholics and Uniates by Orthodox in the mid 17th century, not because of some Inquisition. There may have been individual dissenters but there was no mass persecution nor mass arrests and slaughters of people in order to create the conversion, other than the mutual slaughter (initiated by the Orthodox) during the rebellion.
     
    The relations went south much earlier. In your opinion, what would make the Orthodox commit such mass violence and atrocities?
    Could it have anything to do with the work of Inquisitors like SAINT Josaphat?
    Or that nice letter that Sapieha sent to the king to complain about persecution of Orthodox and cruelty of Inquisition?

    So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    Scandinavian overlords spoke and wrote Slavic.

    And Norse, certainly in the 10th century. Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson and returned to Rus, seizing power using Norse warriors.

    Claiming some genetic link of Rurikids with present-day Swedes is bogus.

    Because science bad. Nationalist mythologies good.

    the worst heresy there can be is the institution of Latin as a universal language – people literally didn’t understand a thing of the religion they were following

    For similar reasons do you oppose the use of Church Slavonic?

    The relations went south much earlier. In your opinion, what would make the Orthodox commit such mass violence and atrocities?

    Demoralization caused by the rebellion that involved Tatar allies of the Orthodox raiding Orthodox villages and carrying off slaves as the price of their alliance. BTW, Orthodox rebels also looted and destroyed Orthodox monasteries. Does that prove persecution of Orthodox by Orthodox or maybe the rebellion wasn’t simply about religion.

    There was no justification for mass slaughter of Poles in Volhynia either, do you think that had a good reason also?

    Could it have anything to do with the work of Inquisitors like SAINT Josaphat?

    Even the Russians are not as extreme as your interpretation:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_(1618)

    • Replies: @melanf

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson
     
    You only explain that you are telling the events from the history of the imaginary world invented by you (something like the middle earth of Tolkien or Martin's Westeros). Otherwise, there may be naive people who believe that this is not your imagination, but the facts known from sources (about Norway, Hakon, etc.)
  90. @AP

    So Scandinavian overlords didn’t force the Slavs whom they owned to throw their idols into the rivers and accept Christianity?

    Scandinavian overlords spoke and wrote Slavic.
     
    And Norse, certainly in the 10th century. Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson and returned to Rus, seizing power using Norse warriors.

    Claiming some genetic link of Rurikids with present-day Swedes is bogus.
     
    Because science bad. Nationalist mythologies good.

    the worst heresy there can be is the institution of Latin as a universal language – people literally didn’t understand a thing of the religion they were following
     
    For similar reasons do you oppose the use of Church Slavonic?

    The relations went south much earlier. In your opinion, what would make the Orthodox commit such mass violence and atrocities?
     
    Demoralization caused by the rebellion that involved Tatar allies of the Orthodox raiding Orthodox villages and carrying off slaves as the price of their alliance. BTW, Orthodox rebels also looted and destroyed Orthodox monasteries. Does that prove persecution of Orthodox by Orthodox or maybe the rebellion wasn't simply about religion.

    There was no justification for mass slaughter of Poles in Volhynia either, do you think that had a good reason also?

    Could it have anything to do with the work of Inquisitors like SAINT Josaphat?
     
    Even the Russians are not as extreme as your interpretation:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_(1618)

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson

    You only explain that you are telling the events from the history of the imaginary world invented by you (something like the middle earth of Tolkien or Martin’s Westeros). Otherwise, there may be naive people who believe that this is not your imagination, but the facts known from sources (about Norway, Hakon, etc.)

    • Replies: @AP
    So Britannica is wrong:

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I

    Vladimir was the son of the Norman-Rus prince Svyatoslav of Kiev by one of his courtesans and was a member of the Rurik lineage dominant from the 10th to the 13th century. He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk
  91. @TG
    "his chances of success – transforming the Ukraine from an oligarchy into a “normal” country – don’t appear to be bright."

    But aren't "normal" countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is. When did the popular vote ever last have any real effect on fundamental policy?

    But aren’t “normal” countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is.

    It’s a matter of degree. Also, the USA has a two-party political system (a consequence of its winner-take-all, no-runoff electoral process) that naturally tends toward oligarchic control: When there are only two parties, it’s easy to form a cartel to deny voters any real choice on those issues (immigration, foreign interventionism, fealty to Israel, etc.) where major donors to both parties agree.

    Whereas, Ukraine’s multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn’t).

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Whereas, Ukraine’s multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn’t).
     
    “But isn’t” is the key. The number of parties is irrelevant. You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough, like in Ukraine (facts: Porky was a minister in Yanuk government; Gas princess was prime minister under Yuschenko, etc.; virtually all big players are recycled and reused; the smarter ones steal a lot and run away, like Yats, and that’s the only way any rotation in Ukraine happens).
  92. @reiner Tor

    I don’t think it would be possible for Poroshenko to do C
     
    Me neither, I merely responded to the comment "Do it fagt." quoting the Poroshenko tweet "We will not give a single chance to the puppet of Kolomoyskyi"

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.

    Sorry, I have to scroll through very quickly (curse of blue light hypersensitivity) so I missed the context.

    Karlin would love it if Ukraine became an outright Egypt-tier dictatorship.

    Ukraine would probably be better off as an autocracy, unless this resulted in the West no longer propping it up economically (which of course it wouldn’t, as long as it was an anti-Russian autocracy).

  93. @AP

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants (in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic - city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages). At that time fervently nationalistic German-speaking Hungarians taught themselves and their children the Hungarian language.

    Its interesting that only under the Hapsburgs (due to policy) and Romanovs (due to policy in the Baltic, neglect in Ukraine) did these rural languages survive in mass form. Gaelic disappeared n Britain, France lost its languages, Sorbian or whatever are basically gone in Germany. If the Hapsburgs were like Western rulers, Czechs and Hungarians might at most have been German-speaking, like English-speaking Irish nationalists. Or they might have simply become Germans of Czech or whatever descent, as utu stated.

    That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    Here we go again. Zakarpattiya's eastern Slavs are no more averse to Ukrainian nationalists than are places like Zhytomir or Poltava. They is not nearly as extreme as Galicians on the other side of the Carpathians but they are in the nationalist camp. With respect to nationalism they are like central Ukrainians but in the far west.

    Wikipedia has a nice map of election results (Green Zelensky, Grey Poroshenko, Red Tymoshenko, Blue Boyko):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg/1024px-%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg.png

    Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages

    Not true. You are again inventing history based on – I have to assume – very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc…

    Between the late 17. and early 19.th century there was a so-called ‘doba temna’ = dark age, when Habsburgs pushed Germanisation and Catholicism. Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century. Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian… minorities in special position (government, trade, church).

    Hungary was more complicated due to its 250 year occupation by the Ottomans, and the frequent uprisings against the Habsburgs, but the language of government/church was Latin (not German) until late 18th century when an aspirational Habsburg king, Joseph II, replaced it with German – and triggered nationalist movements among all.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780’s, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything, he also tried to change territorial divisions to make them more ‘rational‘. Joseph II was an older brother of Marie Antoinette, a fool with initiative…Habsburg Empire never recovered. Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.

    • Replies: @AP

    "Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages"

    Not true. You are again inventing history based on – I have to assume – very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc…
     
    I was not discussing older history, of which I am aware. The statement "Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages" is correct.

    Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century.
     
    German was the administrative language of the Empire but the Hapsburgs strongly encouraged Czech to be used as a local language. One of the fathers of the new Czech language was a half-German, Josef Jungmann.

    Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian… minorities in special position (government, trade, church).
     
    Prague was majority German-speaking until the 1850s. I don't doubt the countryside was Czech-speaking.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780’s, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything
     
    Joseph II was the modernizer who replaced antiquated Latin with German as the administrative language of the Empire, however he also strongly encouraged the development of local languages, in order to educate and spread progress to the masses. He particularly encouraged the use of vernacular Czech in local schools and publications. Forget your local nationalist mythological sources - this is better -

    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541621.001.0001/acprof-9780199541621-chapter-8

    This chapter also explores the role of Josephinism in intensifying the sense of local and ethnic identity and reveals that most of the supporters of Joseph II were early leaders of movements committed to the propagation of national cultures.

    Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.
     
    That's right, Hitler was like the guy who freed your ancestors from serfdom.
  94. @Jon0815

    But aren’t “normal” countries pretty much all oligarchies? I mean, the United States sure is.
     
    It's a matter of degree. Also, the USA has a two-party political system (a consequence of its winner-take-all, no-runoff electoral process) that naturally tends toward oligarchic control: When there are only two parties, it's easy to form a cartel to deny voters any real choice on those issues (immigration, foreign interventionism, fealty to Israel, etc.) where major donors to both parties agree.

    Whereas, Ukraine's multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn't).

    Whereas, Ukraine’s multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn’t).

    “But isn’t” is the key. The number of parties is irrelevant. You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough, like in Ukraine (facts: Porky was a minister in Yanuk government; Gas princess was prime minister under Yuschenko, etc.; virtually all big players are recycled and reused; the smarter ones steal a lot and run away, like Yats, and that’s the only way any rotation in Ukraine happens).

    • Agree: melanf, Beckow
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    The number of parties is irrelevant.You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough
     
    Although oligarchic control is possible in either a two-party or multiple-party system, all else being equal, it is much easier in the former (but all else is not always equal, which is why there is more oligarchic control in Ukraine than the USA).

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA, unless you don't consider such matters as gun control, abortion, whether the state should guarantee universal health care, whether promotion of homosexuality trumps freedom of religion, etc. to be substantive. Even on immigration- the single most important issue- while both parties are bad, the Democrats are substantively much worse. There is virtually zero difference between the two parties on foreign policy though.

  95. Anon[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    ... don’t make money by fleecing the state for ‘IT services’, ‘war robots’, and ‘modern genomics’. (Adding to the equally indispensable war planes.)
     
    This beats spending money on yachts and foreign football clubs.

    Why mix up things? I listed a series of ways in which American oligarchs fleece the state, and you are listing a series of ways in which Russian oligarchs spend their money.

    Worse, it is the wrong example: Bezos is expecting delivery a 139-meter long yacht.

    Say what you want about Russians, or even Ukrainians, but even the worst alcoholic voter won’t believe that skimping for a decade on local sales taxes, like Bezos did, was due to state legislatures “not paying attention”, and “not updating their laws to e-commerce”. We’re talking about several thousand state legislators simultaneously turning a blind eye. You know, states, those entities which are responsible for healthcare and education in the US.

    I am sure you have something similar in Russia, a billionaire that pays off thousands of legislators. Or a McCain giving away envelopes with cash, from a group of billionaires, on the Senate floor. I am all ears.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    Oligarchy is a natural form of government when stability prevails for a long time. It is simply a rule by the people who own most valuable assets. They have a stake in maintaining property rights and resources to motivate others to do their bidding. In most stable societies ideology and greed combine - and always end up ruling. That was true under feudalism, early capitalism, communisms of different kinds, and it is true in our global neo-liberalism.

    The few exceptions that occasionally happen are popular uprisings that lead to elite turnovers - and it usually gets worse. Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?). That and an occasional foreign invasion are the only way oligarchies are kept in check.

    Western complains about 'corrupt oligarchies' are largely true - most states around the world are corrupt oligarchies. But it rings hollow from people who passively tolerate similar oligarchies at home. US is a managed oligarchy, its saving grace until recently was that it was managed quite well. Now the usual insider challenge has made it more wobbly, but it was inevitable as resources got scarcer.

    Given the choice between a well or badly managed oligarchy and chaos, one can see why most people opt for trying to go for a well managed oligarchy and hope for the best. Lately they have been mostly disappointed. That suggests that the long stable period is coming to an end.

  96. @Anon
    Why mix up things? I listed a series of ways in which American oligarchs fleece the state, and you are listing a series of ways in which Russian oligarchs spend their money.

    Worse, it is the wrong example: Bezos is expecting delivery a 139-meter long yacht.

    Say what you want about Russians, or even Ukrainians, but even the worst alcoholic voter won't believe that skimping for a decade on local sales taxes, like Bezos did, was due to state legislatures "not paying attention", and "not updating their laws to e-commerce". We're talking about several thousand state legislators simultaneously turning a blind eye. You know, states, those entities which are responsible for healthcare and education in the US.

    I am sure you have something similar in Russia, a billionaire that pays off thousands of legislators. Or a McCain giving away envelopes with cash, from a group of billionaires, on the Senate floor. I am all ears.

    Oligarchy is a natural form of government when stability prevails for a long time. It is simply a rule by the people who own most valuable assets. They have a stake in maintaining property rights and resources to motivate others to do their bidding. In most stable societies ideology and greed combine – and always end up ruling. That was true under feudalism, early capitalism, communisms of different kinds, and it is true in our global neo-liberalism.

    The few exceptions that occasionally happen are popular uprisings that lead to elite turnovers – and it usually gets worse. Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?). That and an occasional foreign invasion are the only way oligarchies are kept in check.

    Western complains about ‘corrupt oligarchies’ are largely true – most states around the world are corrupt oligarchies. But it rings hollow from people who passively tolerate similar oligarchies at home. US is a managed oligarchy, its saving grace until recently was that it was managed quite well. Now the usual insider challenge has made it more wobbly, but it was inevitable as resources got scarcer.

    Given the choice between a well or badly managed oligarchy and chaos, one can see why most people opt for trying to go for a well managed oligarchy and hope for the best. Lately they have been mostly disappointed. That suggests that the long stable period is coming to an end.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.
    , @Jon0815

    Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?).
     
    Trump is a fraud who never really cared about changing the system.

    What most Americans want is the platform Trump ran on (and has since betrayed): Less immigration, less foreign interventionism, and more health care. If either party offered that combination, they would dominate. But neither does, due to the power of big donors/oligarchs.
  97. @AnonFromTN

    Whereas, Ukraine’s multi-party political system, by offering voters more choice, should be less oligarch-controlled (but isn’t).
     
    “But isn’t” is the key. The number of parties is irrelevant. You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough, like in Ukraine (facts: Porky was a minister in Yanuk government; Gas princess was prime minister under Yuschenko, etc.; virtually all big players are recycled and reused; the smarter ones steal a lot and run away, like Yats, and that’s the only way any rotation in Ukraine happens).

    The number of parties is irrelevant.You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough

    Although oligarchic control is possible in either a two-party or multiple-party system, all else being equal, it is much easier in the former (but all else is not always equal, which is why there is more oligarchic control in Ukraine than the USA).

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA, unless you don’t consider such matters as gun control, abortion, whether the state should guarantee universal health care, whether promotion of homosexuality trumps freedom of religion, etc. to be substantive. Even on immigration- the single most important issue- while both parties are bad, the Democrats are substantively much worse. There is virtually zero difference between the two parties on foreign policy though.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA
     
    I was naïve and thought that there are differences. However, today I don’t see much. Reps are genuflecting to perverts, maybe not as aggressively as Dems, but that’s a matter of form, not substance. Gun control is a red herring on both sides, and neither would do anything: look at ostensibly Dem-controlled House today. So is abortion and the whole “pro-life” BS: both parties enthusiastically support killing born adults in endless wars for MIC profits, Americans and aborigines (true equal opportunity, wouldn’t you say). What Dems under Obama introduced under the guise of “universal health care” is not universal and benefits mostly the same fat cats in the insurance industry that Reps traditionally pander to. Eight years after the passage of Obama-care, one in eight Americans remains uninsured (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca). Anyone with above-clinical IQ must see that, as far as health care goes, health insurance companies and malpractice lawyers are pure parasites (or vultures, if you prefer). Huge tax reduction for the richest (with a few crumbs to the withering middle class) recently passed with bipartisan support. Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs. Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.
  98. @Beckow
    Oligarchy is a natural form of government when stability prevails for a long time. It is simply a rule by the people who own most valuable assets. They have a stake in maintaining property rights and resources to motivate others to do their bidding. In most stable societies ideology and greed combine - and always end up ruling. That was true under feudalism, early capitalism, communisms of different kinds, and it is true in our global neo-liberalism.

    The few exceptions that occasionally happen are popular uprisings that lead to elite turnovers - and it usually gets worse. Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?). That and an occasional foreign invasion are the only way oligarchies are kept in check.

    Western complains about 'corrupt oligarchies' are largely true - most states around the world are corrupt oligarchies. But it rings hollow from people who passively tolerate similar oligarchies at home. US is a managed oligarchy, its saving grace until recently was that it was managed quite well. Now the usual insider challenge has made it more wobbly, but it was inevitable as resources got scarcer.

    Given the choice between a well or badly managed oligarchy and chaos, one can see why most people opt for trying to go for a well managed oligarchy and hope for the best. Lately they have been mostly disappointed. That suggests that the long stable period is coming to an end.

    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.
     
    The truly tragi-comic thing is that this post isn't an exaggeration......these guys did actually say/promise all these things
    , @Beckow

    ...Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991.
     
    That is an understatement. For some reason, Ukraine has had an extreme bad oligarchic misrule since 1991, only Moldova comes close to it. At some point, one has to blame the people - something just doesn't add up. The combination of propensity for thievery, low work ethic, aspiring to be elsewhere (always West!!!), fatalism and gullibility is unique to Ukraine even by the very low eastern European standards.

    Regarding the income dreams that Ukrainian leaders dangle in front of the suffering population: Porky's has an advisor, Miklos, who used to be a Finance Minister in Slovakia about 7 years ago. His party run on 'doubling salaries in 4 years' - and the fools elected them (we have lots of fools too). Once in power, Miklos lowered incomes, sold all utilities to Western speculators at a discount, privatised banks (the genius that he was mostly to Italians), and agreed to exchange our currency for Euros at a 25% discount - Czechs wisely refused and kept their own currency.

    After that, Miklos and friends didn't even bother to run for re-election (4% popularity) and Miklos decamped to Kiev to advise Poroshenko on 'finance'. He is still there, looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.

  99. @Jon0815

    The number of parties is irrelevant.You can control sheeple equally well using a fake two-party system, like in the US (just try finding two differences on anything substantive between the two), or creating numerous parties ostensibly bickering among themselves, while remaining at the trough
     
    Although oligarchic control is possible in either a two-party or multiple-party system, all else being equal, it is much easier in the former (but all else is not always equal, which is why there is more oligarchic control in Ukraine than the USA).

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA, unless you don't consider such matters as gun control, abortion, whether the state should guarantee universal health care, whether promotion of homosexuality trumps freedom of religion, etc. to be substantive. Even on immigration- the single most important issue- while both parties are bad, the Democrats are substantively much worse. There is virtually zero difference between the two parties on foreign policy though.

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA

    I was naïve and thought that there are differences. However, today I don’t see much. Reps are genuflecting to perverts, maybe not as aggressively as Dems, but that’s a matter of form, not substance. Gun control is a red herring on both sides, and neither would do anything: look at ostensibly Dem-controlled House today. So is abortion and the whole “pro-life” BS: both parties enthusiastically support killing born adults in endless wars for MIC profits, Americans and aborigines (true equal opportunity, wouldn’t you say). What Dems under Obama introduced under the guise of “universal health care” is not universal and benefits mostly the same fat cats in the insurance industry that Reps traditionally pander to. Eight years after the passage of Obama-care, one in eight Americans remains uninsured (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca). Anyone with above-clinical IQ must see that, as far as health care goes, health insurance companies and malpractice lawyers are pure parasites (or vultures, if you prefer). Huge tax reduction for the richest (with a few crumbs to the withering middle class) recently passed with bipartisan support. Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs. Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs.
     
    Both parties used to be about equally bad on immigration, but recently the Dems have gotten much worse, while the GOP has gotten somewhat less bad. For example, in 2013, 100% of Senate Dems voted for the Gang of 8 amnesty/legal immigration increase, while only about 30% of the Senate GOP did. And if that same vote were held today, it would be 100% vs. 20% or less.

    Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.
     
    Even if it were true that in the legislature the only real differences between the parties were rhetorical (it's not), it would be clearly absurd to argue that it is irrelevant who sits on the Supreme Court. And there is a clearly a big difference between the two parties on the sort of Supreme Court justices they support: The 4 Dem-appointed justices consistently rule very differently from the 5 GOP-appointed ones. A supermajority (or even majority) of Dem appointed SCOTUS justices would mean de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment, criminalization of failure to celebrate to homo marriage, judicial sabotage of any attempts to control illegal immigration, etc. So at the least it does matter which party controls the presidency and Senate.
  100. @Beckow
    Oligarchy is a natural form of government when stability prevails for a long time. It is simply a rule by the people who own most valuable assets. They have a stake in maintaining property rights and resources to motivate others to do their bidding. In most stable societies ideology and greed combine - and always end up ruling. That was true under feudalism, early capitalism, communisms of different kinds, and it is true in our global neo-liberalism.

    The few exceptions that occasionally happen are popular uprisings that lead to elite turnovers - and it usually gets worse. Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?). That and an occasional foreign invasion are the only way oligarchies are kept in check.

    Western complains about 'corrupt oligarchies' are largely true - most states around the world are corrupt oligarchies. But it rings hollow from people who passively tolerate similar oligarchies at home. US is a managed oligarchy, its saving grace until recently was that it was managed quite well. Now the usual insider challenge has made it more wobbly, but it was inevitable as resources got scarcer.

    Given the choice between a well or badly managed oligarchy and chaos, one can see why most people opt for trying to go for a well managed oligarchy and hope for the best. Lately they have been mostly disappointed. That suggests that the long stable period is coming to an end.

    Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?).

    Trump is a fraud who never really cared about changing the system.

    What most Americans want is the platform Trump ran on (and has since betrayed): Less immigration, less foreign interventionism, and more health care. If either party offered that combination, they would dominate. But neither does, due to the power of big donors/oligarchs.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Trump is a fraud
     
    Possibly. That's why I put a question mark next to Trump. The inside challengers - oligarchs themselves - are usually ambitious frauds.

    But don't miss the point: their role is to introduce populist ideas and by doing so to destabilise the system. That's why insiders hate them so much as we see with Trump. Once the ideas are out there, it becomes harder to manage for the oligarchs...
  101. @Dmitry

    My issue is that pro-EU/pro-Russia are false choices. They are not available the way elites try to present them. They also can’t be mutually exclusive in the long run – it is a dichotomy that the elites forced on Ukraine.
     
    It's a very good point.

    You can see this simply in old discussion of "customs union" led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).

    Then the politicians and media was saying that Ukraine had to choose between free-trade zone with the Customs Union , or free-trade zone with EU.

    Yet at the same time, were some countries like Turkey, South Africa, Japan and Israel who did not have this choice forced to them, but already have free trade with EU, and are planning free trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

    Also note, Japan is beginning its trade agreement with the EU this year. And I'm not sure there is any statement (unlike with Ukraine), that this will prevent it eventually entering free-trade zone with Eurasian Economic Union.

    You can see this simply in old discussion of “customs union” led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).

    You would be surprised by how many cretins were unaware of this. One of the main reasons the Eurasian Union became a bigger idea after 2012 was merely a common sense idea of formalising and thus making easier, what was already an objective reality in trade, migration, investment, culture, infrastructure and technical standards between many ex Soviet countries….and to countries that by then were in no way being considered for EU membership ( to this day, nobody can say how the EU AA to ukrop “coincided” with Russia’s efforts to set up the EEA, when nobody can say what differently did Yanukovich do , to what Yushchenko did in his 5 years where even the EU AA was nowhere on offer to Ukraine)

    It’s a simple fact that a Customs Union with Russia , would have raised Ukrainian, standards, GDP, infrastructure to the point of making EU membership as more realistic possibiity (should they have wanted)…compared to the garbage position they are in now.

    It should be remembered that if anything , since the coup , EU trade with Ukraine is much less (% bigger only because the “pie” is extremely smaller – and only that due to Poland), but EU trade with Russia is significantly larger than in 2013

    Western investment in Russia is garbage….but in’western supported” ukropia…it’s even worse!
    Significantly more big , major foreign companies or operating, selling,manufacturing in Russia than in Ukraine

    Way significantly higher standards in manufacturing, QC, QA and in protection are done in Russia than in Ukraine

    the corruption is Russia is FAR, far less than in Ukraine……..and the judiciary is about a million times better

    all rankings since 2014 like Ease of Doing business &WEF- Russia has outperformed Banderastan

    So other than gay parades and the odd joint military exercise, and some back-slapping garbage with some western leaders…..what exactly is the “western orbit” of Ukraine?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    It’s a simple fact that a Customs Union with Russia would have raised Ukrainian standards, GDP, infrastructure to the point of making EU membership as more realistic possibility
     
    Reminds me of a Russian joke.
    Tourists ask an old lady:
    - Is it far to the village?
    - If you go around by the road - maybe three miles, but if you walk straight through the forest, then ten miles or even more.
  102. @Gerard2

    You can see this simply in old discussion of “customs union” led by Russia (this was before the concept became more ambitious).
     
    You would be surprised by how many cretins were unaware of this. One of the main reasons the Eurasian Union became a bigger idea after 2012 was merely a common sense idea of formalising and thus making easier, what was already an objective reality in trade, migration, investment, culture, infrastructure and technical standards between many ex Soviet countries....and to countries that by then were in no way being considered for EU membership ( to this day, nobody can say how the EU AA to ukrop "coincided" with Russia's efforts to set up the EEA, when nobody can say what differently did Yanukovich do , to what Yushchenko did in his 5 years where even the EU AA was nowhere on offer to Ukraine)

    It's a simple fact that a Customs Union with Russia , would have raised Ukrainian, standards, GDP, infrastructure to the point of making EU membership as more realistic possibiity (should they have wanted)...compared to the garbage position they are in now.

    It should be remembered that if anything , since the coup , EU trade with Ukraine is much less (% bigger only because the "pie" is extremely smaller - and only that due to Poland), but EU trade with Russia is significantly larger than in 2013

    Western investment in Russia is garbage....but in'western supported" ukropia...it's even worse!
    Significantly more big , major foreign companies or operating, selling,manufacturing in Russia than in Ukraine

    Way significantly higher standards in manufacturing, QC, QA and in protection are done in Russia than in Ukraine

    the corruption is Russia is FAR, far less than in Ukraine........and the judiciary is about a million times better


    all rankings since 2014 like Ease of Doing business &WEF- Russia has outperformed Banderastan

    So other than gay parades and the odd joint military exercise, and some back-slapping garbage with some western leaders.....what exactly is the "western orbit" of Ukraine?

    It’s a simple fact that a Customs Union with Russia would have raised Ukrainian standards, GDP, infrastructure to the point of making EU membership as more realistic possibility

    Reminds me of a Russian joke.
    Tourists ask an old lady:
    – Is it far to the village?
    – If you go around by the road – maybe three miles, but if you walk straight through the forest, then ten miles or even more.

    • LOL: Beckow
  103. @AnonFromTN
    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.

    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.

    The truly tragi-comic thing is that this post isn’t an exaggeration……these guys did actually say/promise all these things

  104. @Jon0815

    Or ambitious insiders who trie to change the system by getting popular support (Trump?).
     
    Trump is a fraud who never really cared about changing the system.

    What most Americans want is the platform Trump ran on (and has since betrayed): Less immigration, less foreign interventionism, and more health care. If either party offered that combination, they would dominate. But neither does, due to the power of big donors/oligarchs.

    …Trump is a fraud

    Possibly. That’s why I put a question mark next to Trump. The inside challengers – oligarchs themselves – are usually ambitious frauds.

    But don’t miss the point: their role is to introduce populist ideas and by doing so to destabilise the system. That’s why insiders hate them so much as we see with Trump. Once the ideas are out there, it becomes harder to manage for the oligarchs…

  105. @AP

    Ruthenians had a sense of identity and a separate religion (Orthodoxy).
     
    No, most Ruthenians were Greek Catholic at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian-Catholic-Church

    They became Orthodox under Soviets.

    No, most Ruthenians were Greek Catholic at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian-Catholic-Church

    They became Orthodox under Soviets.

    For the benefit of a complete accounting, which takes into consideration folks reading this thread (who might not be so historically well versed), the Ruthenians were initially Orthodox before the coercive manner involving the establishment of the Greek Catholic denomination – encouraged by people who didn’t feel akin to Rus, while being prone to an anti-Russian mindset.

  106. @AP

    Also, they are much closer lithurgically to Orthodox Catholics than Roman Catholics.
     
    Correct. They are practically identical.

    All in all, a religion of turncoats and opportunists who bowed to their invaders,
     
    This can be said of all Christian Slavs who were forced from their pagan faiths at the point of swords. So?

    and often would only represent a temporary religion – their descendants would often be Roman Catholics.
     
    Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine became stable under the Hapsburgs and was not a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Greek Catholics even (to their shame) engaged in mass murder of Roman Catholics just as Orthodox have done.

    and Rus(sians) under Polish Jesuit terror.
     
    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    Orthodox Serbs become Uniats, only for their children and grandchildren to become Roman Catholics so the number drops significantly. Then, another area, then another…. That is the way “Little Rascia” (census data and documents, correspondence talk only of Raci/Rascians) of 16/17th century in present-day Slavonia became Croat Catholic under Habsburgs.
     
    Okay, so your attitude boils down to being an anti-Croat thing by an Orthodox Southern "Slav."

    Orthodox slaughtered more Catholics and Uniates than vice versa during those conflicts.

    Somewhat on par with saying that the US killed more Japanese civilians than vice versa.

    Catholics and their Uniates initiated such manner.

    • Agree: melanf
  107. @AP
    Not you, but some of Ukraine's Russian "well-wishers" were sure that Poroshenko would cancel elections after he declared martial law, then they thought he would fake-win the first round, now he's gonna cancel the second round or cheat his way to victory.

    Or maybe, he is actually being democratic, with mere low level shenanigans typical of any democracy (is denying expats in Russia the vote in Russia any worse than gerrymandering in the USA) that will give him a couple % advantage at most.

    AK: Only leaving this comment as there’s a reply to it.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Porky was told by the masters not to cheat, so he cheated only to get past the gas princess and Boiko into the second round, which he was unlikely to get into w/o cheating. Now Porky is getting ready to cheat more blatantly. His goons (including notorious Biryukov, a councilor of the Defense ministry) are already posting threatening texts on the Internet. His post is supported by a “lawyer” Molchanov, who advises Porky supporters to violently break the law to get Porky back to the trough. Crimean Tatar criminal Aider Muzhdabaev openly calls for mass murder of supporters of Zelensky, Boiko, and Timoshenko, even if it means that Ukraine loses several more regions. You can tell who was near the trough and who wasn’t. Besides, Porky’s choice is limited: either he “wins”, or runs away to his stashed loot, or spends the rest of his miserable life in jail. Cornered rats are dangerous.
  108. @Gerard2
    AK: Only leaving this comment as there's a reply to it.

    Porky was told by the masters not to cheat, so he cheated only to get past the gas princess and Boiko into the second round, which he was unlikely to get into w/o cheating. Now Porky is getting ready to cheat more blatantly. His goons (including notorious Biryukov, a councilor of the Defense ministry) are already posting threatening texts on the Internet. His post is supported by a “lawyer” Molchanov, who advises Porky supporters to violently break the law to get Porky back to the trough. Crimean Tatar criminal Aider Muzhdabaev openly calls for mass murder of supporters of Zelensky, Boiko, and Timoshenko, even if it means that Ukraine loses several more regions. You can tell who was near the trough and who wasn’t. Besides, Porky’s choice is limited: either he “wins”, or runs away to his stashed loot, or spends the rest of his miserable life in jail. Cornered rats are dangerous.

  109. @AnonFromTN
    Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991. This is reflected even in lies told to the gullible sheeple. The first “president” Kravchuk promised that in 5 years Ukrainians will live, like in France. The second “president” Kuchma promised that in 10 years Ukrainians will live, like in Poland. Then failed Georgian “president” Saakashvili, when he was appointed a governor of Odessa region, said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 20 years Ukrainians will live, like under Yanukovych. If Zelensky is allowed to win despite Porky’s machinations, he should promise something in 50 years. A good clown should have enough imagination for that.

    …Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991.

    That is an understatement. For some reason, Ukraine has had an extreme bad oligarchic misrule since 1991, only Moldova comes close to it. At some point, one has to blame the people – something just doesn’t add up. The combination of propensity for thievery, low work ethic, aspiring to be elsewhere (always West!!!), fatalism and gullibility is unique to Ukraine even by the very low eastern European standards.

    Regarding the income dreams that Ukrainian leaders dangle in front of the suffering population: Porky’s has an advisor, Miklos, who used to be a Finance Minister in Slovakia about 7 years ago. His party run on ‘doubling salaries in 4 years‘ – and the fools elected them (we have lots of fools too). Once in power, Miklos lowered incomes, sold all utilities to Western speculators at a discount, privatised banks (the genius that he was mostly to Italians), and agreed to exchange our currency for Euros at a 25% discount – Czechs wisely refused and kept their own currency.

    After that, Miklos and friends didn’t even bother to run for re-election (4% popularity) and Miklos decamped to Kiev to advise Poroshenko on ‘finance’. He is still there, looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.
     
    I think it’s simpler than that: a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount. I guess he got his kickbacks for the “management”, too. Still, even with this kind of “effective managers” Slovakia is doing a lot better than Ukraine.

    Ukraine keeps importing scum from various countries, as if they don’t have enough homemade. A few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014. Russians joke that the country should send all its shit to Ukraine, and never let them come back.
  110. @Beckow

    ...Ukrainian oligarchy was badly managed since its inception in 1991.
     
    That is an understatement. For some reason, Ukraine has had an extreme bad oligarchic misrule since 1991, only Moldova comes close to it. At some point, one has to blame the people - something just doesn't add up. The combination of propensity for thievery, low work ethic, aspiring to be elsewhere (always West!!!), fatalism and gullibility is unique to Ukraine even by the very low eastern European standards.

    Regarding the income dreams that Ukrainian leaders dangle in front of the suffering population: Porky's has an advisor, Miklos, who used to be a Finance Minister in Slovakia about 7 years ago. His party run on 'doubling salaries in 4 years' - and the fools elected them (we have lots of fools too). Once in power, Miklos lowered incomes, sold all utilities to Western speculators at a discount, privatised banks (the genius that he was mostly to Italians), and agreed to exchange our currency for Euros at a 25% discount - Czechs wisely refused and kept their own currency.

    After that, Miklos and friends didn't even bother to run for re-election (4% popularity) and Miklos decamped to Kiev to advise Poroshenko on 'finance'. He is still there, looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.

    looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.

    I think it’s simpler than that: a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount. I guess he got his kickbacks for the “management”, too. Still, even with this kind of “effective managers” Slovakia is doing a lot better than Ukraine.

    Ukraine keeps importing scum from various countries, as if they don’t have enough homemade. A few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014. Russians joke that the country should send all its shit to Ukraine, and never let them come back.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount.
     
    One difference between Ukraine and others countries, incl. Slovakia, is that people in Ukraine either don't learn or maybe have such bad options that nothing they do actually matters.

    We got rid of Miklos. In general most comprador politicians only last one term. Then a new group is discovered by the Western sponsored media - they come up with new slogans ('decency' is hot now), new faces, and are back to promising Beverly Hills on the Danube. Lately they have been forced to dig deeper and pretend more - even our globalist politicians are vehemently against migrants and open borders, or so they say when in opposition.

    (Miklos is also a Slovak Rusin, maybe AP is right that they are all secretly Ukrainian nationalists...we just hope he doesn't come back.)
    , @melanf

    few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014.
     
    This

    http://i.imgur.com/30dWE3r.jpg

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy

  111. @AnonFromTN

    looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.
     
    I think it’s simpler than that: a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount. I guess he got his kickbacks for the “management”, too. Still, even with this kind of “effective managers” Slovakia is doing a lot better than Ukraine.

    Ukraine keeps importing scum from various countries, as if they don’t have enough homemade. A few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014. Russians joke that the country should send all its shit to Ukraine, and never let them come back.

    …a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount.

    One difference between Ukraine and others countries, incl. Slovakia, is that people in Ukraine either don’t learn or maybe have such bad options that nothing they do actually matters.

    We got rid of Miklos. In general most comprador politicians only last one term. Then a new group is discovered by the Western sponsored media – they come up with new slogans (‘decency’ is hot now), new faces, and are back to promising Beverly Hills on the Danube. Lately they have been forced to dig deeper and pretend more – even our globalist politicians are vehemently against migrants and open borders, or so they say when in opposition.

    (Miklos is also a Slovak Rusin, maybe AP is right that they are all secretly Ukrainian nationalists…we just hope he doesn’t come back.)

  112. @AnonFromTN
    I wouldn’t shed any tears for Maria Gaidar. There is enough shit in Russia without her. It would be better for Russia to export all of it to Ukraine, but only a few left. Too bad.

    When Ukraine was politically cargo-culting not only to Russia, but even Georgia.

    Still, Saakashvili, at least, was an important person when he was in Georgia, even if his performance job was not exactly “competent”.

    Gaidar’s only distinction was to be some politically annoying daughter of important dead person.


    But being daughter of important dead person in Moscow, is apparently enough qualification to receive Ukrainian passport directly from the president’s hand in Kiev.

  113. @AnonFromTN

    looks like Miklos is a member in good standing of the globalist nomenklatura.
     
    I think it’s simpler than that: a lot of people are grateful to him for the discount. I guess he got his kickbacks for the “management”, too. Still, even with this kind of “effective managers” Slovakia is doing a lot better than Ukraine.

    Ukraine keeps importing scum from various countries, as if they don’t have enough homemade. A few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014. Russians joke that the country should send all its shit to Ukraine, and never let them come back.

    few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014.

    This

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy
     
    There is Russian saying that God labels scoundrels (In Russian "Бог шельму метит")
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Sputnik & Pogrom had a hilarious article on the ultimate fate of these people: http://sputnikipogrom.com/society/49267/fate-of-a-traitor/

    In fairness, Russia has nothing to write home about on how to treat its sympathizers.
    , @Dmitry
    Lol, of course, she did not remain in Ukraine

    She escaped to Ukraine, only because of criminal cases against her for Ukraine activism, which is idiotic on both sides. But after a short time in Ukraine, and she made it to her real destination - Germany, where she attained citizenship on political asylum.

    She can continue Ukraine activism, in civilized conditions i.e. in Germany.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1319841981364277&set=t.100004378094015&type=3&theater

  114. @melanf

    few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014.
     
    This

    http://i.imgur.com/30dWE3r.jpg

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy

    There is Russian saying that God labels scoundrels (In Russian “Бог шельму метит”)

  115. Some of Porky’s cheating is coming out. Electoral commission of Mangush area (Ukraine-occupied part of Donetsk region) complained to local police that votes for Porky were increased by the Central electoral commission 9-fold (!). Maybe gas princess and/or Boiko beat him, after all: gas princess publicly stated that there were violations to increase Porky’s votes, but refused to fight in court (I guess she wants to remain alive, which in “democratic” Ukraine is not a given).

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct. Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    Расчеты показывают, что по нашей гипотезе эта операция по вбросу бюллетеней дала Порошенко 54,3 тысячи голосов. Это только 11% разрыва между ним и Тимошенко.
     
  116. Stop demeaning Ukrainians and piling up on Ukraine. Russians managed to get themselves killed by the millions by supporting non-Russian foreign agents bent on eradicating Russia, Russian culture, tradition and identity – and splitting Russian lands to various “nations”.

    So every time you want to insult Ukrops for having Jews and Oligarchs ruling over them and the West for pupetting them, remember that tens of millions of Russians had no problem with being ruled by Jews, Armenians, Georgians, Latvians, Kalmyks, Poles and murdered en masse by those ethnicities dominating their revolutionary government and terror squads – even worse, some continue to glorify this to the present day.

    At least Ukrainians fight for perceived Ukrainian ethnic or national interests. Had Russians done that in the past, there probably wouldn’t have been any of the Caucasian and central Asian -stan bullshit, let alone Belarus or Ukraine. Clumsy, shortsighted or outright stupid policies and decisions by Russian elite and stupidity made the disaster of 20th century possible.
    For example, promoting western dialects as Russian brotherly branches of beatiful Old Russian, while teaching official standardised as well, and decentralizing Russia to appeal to “west Rus” “in historical Rus lands” “currently occupied by foreign invaders” would have been a no-brainer if you go for Triune nation narrative.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    At least Ukrainians fight for perceived Ukrainian ethnic or national interests.
     
    Let me tell you a Russian joke (by way of introduction: in Russian there are neutral and derogatory terms for Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians; I will use Jews and Joose, Russians and katsaps, Ukrainians and Ukies, respectively; also, “salo” is pork fat, “gorilka” is Ukrainian vodka).

    Who are Jews? Jews are law-abiding people who live in Israel and work.
    Who are Joose? Joose live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Russians? Russians are law-abiding people who live in Russia, pump oil and grow wheat.
    Who are katsaps? Katsaps live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Ukrainians? Ukrainians are law-abiding people who live in the US and Canada, where they work or trade.
    Who are Ukies? Ukies live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and do all they can to prevent Joose and katsaps from building national Ukrainian state.
  117. @Epigon
    Stop demeaning Ukrainians and piling up on Ukraine. Russians managed to get themselves killed by the millions by supporting non-Russian foreign agents bent on eradicating Russia, Russian culture, tradition and identity - and splitting Russian lands to various “nations”.

    So every time you want to insult Ukrops for having Jews and Oligarchs ruling over them and the West for pupetting them, remember that tens of millions of Russians had no problem with being ruled by Jews, Armenians, Georgians, Latvians, Kalmyks, Poles and murdered en masse by those ethnicities dominating their revolutionary government and terror squads - even worse, some continue to glorify this to the present day.

    At least Ukrainians fight for perceived Ukrainian ethnic or national interests. Had Russians done that in the past, there probably wouldn’t have been any of the Caucasian and central Asian -stan bullshit, let alone Belarus or Ukraine. Clumsy, shortsighted or outright stupid policies and decisions by Russian elite and stupidity made the disaster of 20th century possible.
    For example, promoting western dialects as Russian brotherly branches of beatiful Old Russian, while teaching official standardised as well, and decentralizing Russia to appeal to “west Rus” “in historical Rus lands” “currently occupied by foreign invaders” would have been a no-brainer if you go for Triune nation narrative.

    At least Ukrainians fight for perceived Ukrainian ethnic or national interests.

    Let me tell you a Russian joke (by way of introduction: in Russian there are neutral and derogatory terms for Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians; I will use Jews and Joose, Russians and katsaps, Ukrainians and Ukies, respectively; also, “salo” is pork fat, “gorilka” is Ukrainian vodka).

    Who are Jews? Jews are law-abiding people who live in Israel and work.
    Who are Joose? Joose live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Russians? Russians are law-abiding people who live in Russia, pump oil and grow wheat.
    Who are katsaps? Katsaps live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Ukrainians? Ukrainians are law-abiding people who live in the US and Canada, where they work or trade.
    Who are Ukies? Ukies live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and do all they can to prevent Joose and katsaps from building national Ukrainian state.

    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    With all of the jokes that you share here, it's a wonder that you're not running for the pres position in Ukraine yourself, you'd give the new clown a run for his money. Let me guess, you're a russified 'Ukrainian'? No, I forgot for a moment, you're in one of those categories that you conveniently left out:

    Jannisary*
     
    *A Ukrainian who thinks he's better than his fellow countrymen that he's left behind for the West, and does nothing at all but mock them all day long. You're beginning to be so predictable and boring. :-)
    (And please refrain from your ususal comeback about how 'beautiful the 'real' Ukrainian language is and how you adore it. Stick to Russian - it suits you much better.) :-)
  118. @AnonFromTN

    At least Ukrainians fight for perceived Ukrainian ethnic or national interests.
     
    Let me tell you a Russian joke (by way of introduction: in Russian there are neutral and derogatory terms for Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians; I will use Jews and Joose, Russians and katsaps, Ukrainians and Ukies, respectively; also, “salo” is pork fat, “gorilka” is Ukrainian vodka).

    Who are Jews? Jews are law-abiding people who live in Israel and work.
    Who are Joose? Joose live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Russians? Russians are law-abiding people who live in Russia, pump oil and grow wheat.
    Who are katsaps? Katsaps live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and build national Ukrainian state.
    Who are Ukrainians? Ukrainians are law-abiding people who live in the US and Canada, where they work or trade.
    Who are Ukies? Ukies live in Ukraine, eat salo, drink gorilka, and do all they can to prevent Joose and katsaps from building national Ukrainian state.

    With all of the jokes that you share here, it’s a wonder that you’re not running for the pres position in Ukraine yourself, you’d give the new clown a run for his money. Let me guess, you’re a russified ‘Ukrainian’? No, I forgot for a moment, you’re in one of those categories that you conveniently left out:

    Jannisary*

    *A Ukrainian who thinks he’s better than his fellow countrymen that he’s left behind for the West, and does nothing at all but mock them all day long. You’re beginning to be so predictable and boring. 🙂
    (And please refrain from your ususal comeback about how ‘beautiful the ‘real’ Ukrainian language is and how you adore it. Stick to Russian – it suits you much better.) 🙂

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Is this a subtle hint that you don’t speak Ukrainian? Take heart, about a third of Ukraine population doesn’t. Some speak horrible surgic instead, with ridiculously inappropriate word usage, like Porky, who switches to Russian when in his cups. But the Poltava language is indeed beautiful and melodious, whereas Polonized and Germanized Western dialects sound horribly harsh. You also must hate Ukrainian literature: it is humanistic, like all high-quality literary works, and totally incompatible with Nazi ideology. Even Western Ukrainian Vasyl Stefanyk is like that. Bandera would hate him (always supposing that he was literate in addition to being a homo).
  119. AP says:
    @melanf

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson
     
    You only explain that you are telling the events from the history of the imaginary world invented by you (something like the middle earth of Tolkien or Martin's Westeros). Otherwise, there may be naive people who believe that this is not your imagination, but the facts known from sources (about Norway, Hakon, etc.)

    So Britannica is wrong:

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I

    Vladimir was the son of the Norman-Rus prince Svyatoslav of Kiev by one of his courtesans and was a member of the Rurik lineage dominant from the 10th to the 13th century. He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk

    • Replies: @Adam
    Vladimir had a Slavic name, spoke Old East Slavic, and originally followed Slavic paganism. Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman. Or perhaps he was received in Scandinavia as a foreigner. Kinship relations certainly did not imply some kind of shared ethnicity. Several of the Anglo-Saxon kings spent time in exile in Normandy, and William the Conqueror's claim to England was based on his blood relations to the kings of England. Anglo-Saxon nobility and Normans were still clearly distinct peoples.

    The problem is that you're taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people) as fact. Maybe that was true, or maybe Vladimir saw his own subjects as his own people. It's impossible to say for sure given the sources. The Christianization of Rus' was also not very brutal.

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian. There are some proper names, and a couple of words like "herring" and "whip". Compare this to the large number of common Old Norse words in English, and the modest amount in Irish, Norman, and Finnish. It's not conclusive evidence, but it does imply that the Rus' probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.

    , @melanf

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson....So Britannica :
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I
     
    Of course in Britannica says nothing about "exile in Norway". Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.
    The only source telling us about these events – the Primary chronicle.

    When Vladimir in Novgorod heard that Yaropolk killed Oleg, then got scared and fled across the sea. And Yaropolk put his Posadnik in Novgorod and owned one Russian land… Vladimir returned to Novgorod with the Varangians and …began to rule in Novgorod.

    As you can see about Norway not a single word. Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).
    And Vladimir definitely was not a kinsman of Hakon Sigurdsson


    The bad thing is that you have already spread this story (about the fictional life of Vladimir in Norway). For you it was explained in detail that this story is fiction http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-doesnt-leave-its-own-behind/#comment-1817664 comment 58. But now you're telling that story again (with a false reference to Britannica). And how such manipulations should be called?



    Vladimir had a Slavic name
     
    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark...
     
    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir
  120. @AP
    So Britannica is wrong:

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I

    Vladimir was the son of the Norman-Rus prince Svyatoslav of Kiev by one of his courtesans and was a member of the Rurik lineage dominant from the 10th to the 13th century. He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk

    Vladimir had a Slavic name, spoke Old East Slavic, and originally followed Slavic paganism. Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman. Or perhaps he was received in Scandinavia as a foreigner. Kinship relations certainly did not imply some kind of shared ethnicity. Several of the Anglo-Saxon kings spent time in exile in Normandy, and William the Conqueror’s claim to England was based on his blood relations to the kings of England. Anglo-Saxon nobility and Normans were still clearly distinct peoples.

    The problem is that you’re taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people) as fact. Maybe that was true, or maybe Vladimir saw his own subjects as his own people. It’s impossible to say for sure given the sources. The Christianization of Rus’ was also not very brutal.

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian. There are some proper names, and a couple of words like “herring” and “whip”. Compare this to the large number of common Old Norse words in English, and the modest amount in Irish, Norman, and Finnish. It’s not conclusive evidence, but it does imply that the Rus’ probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.

    • Replies: @AP

    Vladimir had a Slavic name
     
    So did a lot of Scandinavians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar

    Valdemar I of Denmark or Waldemar the Great (1131–1182)
    Valdemar II of Denmark or Waldemar the Victorious (1170–1241)
    Valdemar the Young (1209–1231)
    Valdemar III of Denmark (1314–1364)
    Waldemar I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1368)
    Waldemar II, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1371)
    Valdemar IV of Denmark or Waldemar Otherday (c. 1320–1375)
    Waldemar III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1391)
    Waldemar of Sweden (disambiguation), several people
    Valdemar of Denmark (bishop) (1157/1158–1235 or 1236)
    Prince Valdemar of Denmark (1858–1939)

    Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman.
     
    His father was a Scandinavian son of two Scandinavians who grew up with a Norse tutor. Vladimir's mother was either a Scandinavian or a Slavic servant girl (sources differ). The fact that he went into exile in Norway, gathered an army of Norsemen up there and seized Novgorod with this army suggests at least dual-identity.

    The problem is that you’re taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people)
     
    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled (see: the Derevlians, slaughtered by Vladimir's grandmother St. Helga).

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian.
     
    Combination of lack of contact between elite and those whom they ruled, not higher cultural level of the Norse compared to the Slavs, and nature of Norse rule.

    it does imply that the Rus’ probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.
     
    Skip ahead 100+ years after Vladimir to Mstslav of Kiev. He married a Swedish princess and some of their children had names such as Ingeborg and Malmfred while others had Slavic names.
  121. AP says:
    @Adam
    Vladimir had a Slavic name, spoke Old East Slavic, and originally followed Slavic paganism. Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman. Or perhaps he was received in Scandinavia as a foreigner. Kinship relations certainly did not imply some kind of shared ethnicity. Several of the Anglo-Saxon kings spent time in exile in Normandy, and William the Conqueror's claim to England was based on his blood relations to the kings of England. Anglo-Saxon nobility and Normans were still clearly distinct peoples.

    The problem is that you're taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people) as fact. Maybe that was true, or maybe Vladimir saw his own subjects as his own people. It's impossible to say for sure given the sources. The Christianization of Rus' was also not very brutal.

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian. There are some proper names, and a couple of words like "herring" and "whip". Compare this to the large number of common Old Norse words in English, and the modest amount in Irish, Norman, and Finnish. It's not conclusive evidence, but it does imply that the Rus' probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.

    Vladimir had a Slavic name

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar

    Valdemar I of Denmark or Waldemar the Great (1131–1182)
    Valdemar II of Denmark or Waldemar the Victorious (1170–1241)
    Valdemar the Young (1209–1231)
    Valdemar III of Denmark (1314–1364)
    Waldemar I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1368)
    Waldemar II, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1371)
    Valdemar IV of Denmark or Waldemar Otherday (c. 1320–1375)
    Waldemar III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1391)
    Waldemar of Sweden (disambiguation), several people
    Valdemar of Denmark (bishop) (1157/1158–1235 or 1236)
    Prince Valdemar of Denmark (1858–1939)

    Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman.

    His father was a Scandinavian son of two Scandinavians who grew up with a Norse tutor. Vladimir’s mother was either a Scandinavian or a Slavic servant girl (sources differ). The fact that he went into exile in Norway, gathered an army of Norsemen up there and seized Novgorod with this army suggests at least dual-identity.

    The problem is that you’re taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people)

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled (see: the Derevlians, slaughtered by Vladimir’s grandmother St. Helga).

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian.

    Combination of lack of contact between elite and those whom they ruled, not higher cultural level of the Norse compared to the Slavs, and nature of Norse rule.

    it does imply that the Rus’ probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.

    Skip ahead 100+ years after Vladimir to Mstslav of Kiev. He married a Swedish princess and some of their children had names such as Ingeborg and Malmfred while others had Slavic names.

    • Replies: @melanf

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled...
     
    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated. But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs), and Vladimir was a Slavic Prince of partly Scandinavian origin.


    by the middle of the 10th century the Rus had assimilated with the native Slavs and lost their distinct identity…. Even by 907, the Rus appear to have adopted native religious beliefs, swearing to uphold the treaties by the Slavic gods Perun, a thunder god, and Veles, a chthonic deity

    Northmen. The viking saga 793–1241 ad. John Haywood

    Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture.....The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56

    As for the sale of slaves, the destruction of the rebels, etc. the princes of the Rurik dynasty treated both the Slavs and the Scandinavians (as well as the Finno-Ugric and the Turks) in exactly the same way. In the Russian laws of that era there are no differences between the Slavs and Scandinavians. In particular, this same Prince Vladimir July 12, 978 killed two noble Vikings for human sacrifices to Slavic gods

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    " Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters..."

    , @Swedish Family

    "Vladimir had a Slavic name"

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar

    Valdemar I of Denmark or Waldemar the Great (1131–1182)
    Valdemar II of Denmark or Waldemar the Victorious (1170–1241)
    Valdemar the Young (1209–1231)
    Valdemar III of Denmark (1314–1364)
    Waldemar I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1368)
    Waldemar II, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1371)
    Valdemar IV of Denmark or Waldemar Otherday (c. 1320–1375)
    Waldemar III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1391)
    Waldemar of Sweden (disambiguation), several people
    Valdemar of Denmark (bishop) (1157/1158–1235 or 1236)
    Prince Valdemar of Denmark (1858–1939)
     
    For the record, Wiktionary and Svensk etymologisk ordbok (1922) say that Valdemar entered Swedish and Danish from Proto-Slavic Vladimir, and not the other way around. Interestingly, the opposite is true of the names Oleg/Olga and Igor, which entered Old East Slavic from Old Norse Helge/Helga and Ingvar, respectively. There seems to have been some give-and-take, then.
  122. AP says:
    @Beckow

    Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages
     
    Not true. You are again inventing history based on - I have to assume - very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc...

    Between the late 17. and early 19.th century there was a so-called 'doba temna' = dark age, when Habsburgs pushed Germanisation and Catholicism. Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century. Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian... minorities in special position (government, trade, church).

    Hungary was more complicated due to its 250 year occupation by the Ottomans, and the frequent uprisings against the Habsburgs, but the language of government/church was Latin (not German) until late 18th century when an aspirational Habsburg king, Joseph II, replaced it with German - and triggered nationalist movements among all.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780's, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything, he also tried to change territorial divisions to make them more 'rational'. Joseph II was an older brother of Marie Antoinette, a fool with initiative...Habsburg Empire never recovered. Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.

    “Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”

    Not true. You are again inventing history based on – I have to assume – very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc…

    I was not discussing older history, of which I am aware. The statement “Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages” is correct.

    Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century.

    German was the administrative language of the Empire but the Hapsburgs strongly encouraged Czech to be used as a local language. One of the fathers of the new Czech language was a half-German, Josef Jungmann.

    Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian… minorities in special position (government, trade, church).

    Prague was majority German-speaking until the 1850s. I don’t doubt the countryside was Czech-speaking.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780’s, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything

    Joseph II was the modernizer who replaced antiquated Latin with German as the administrative language of the Empire, however he also strongly encouraged the development of local languages, in order to educate and spread progress to the masses. He particularly encouraged the use of vernacular Czech in local schools and publications. Forget your local nationalist mythological sources – this is better –

    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541621.001.0001/acprof-9780199541621-chapter-8

    This chapter also explores the role of Josephinism in intensifying the sense of local and ethnic identity and reveals that most of the supporters of Joseph II were early leaders of movements committed to the propagation of national cultures.

    Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.

    That’s right, Hitler was like the guy who freed your ancestors from serfdom.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French
     
    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century, so you are obviously not correct. May I suggest checking with the mestizo math geniuses that you spoke off, they might help you understand how chronology works.

    Joseph II was a misguided character. He was impatient with the Habsburg Empire's old-fashioned ways, territorial complexity, Latin-run officialdom, local autonomies - so he decreed that all official communication will be in German, abolished church orders and also most (not all) feudal priviledges.

    It backfired. All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom and within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together. Joseph didn't encourage the national movements, he triggered them and then didn't quite know what to do. I am not a huge affictionado of using Latin (although it is a wonderful language), but short of using a neutral language the Habsburg Empire had no chance to survive (too bad English wasn't available then).

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes. Great, instead of sleeping under a tree most of the day, now the peasants had to fork over actual cash. These modernisers are always the same - somehow it always means that others work more for less. Macron is also a 'moderniser'.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna that was at that time (1905-14) undergoing a huge influx of Czechs from the countryside, by 1914 Czechs were an estimated 1/4 of the Viennese population. He hated it. He wanted order and in that way he was a more maniacal version of Joseph II. They both loved modernity and the German language.

  123. @melanf

    few “liberal” Russians moved there after 2014.
     
    This

    http://i.imgur.com/30dWE3r.jpg

    Willy-nilly from such portraits begin to believe in Physiognomy

    Sputnik & Pogrom had a hilarious article on the ultimate fate of these people: http://sputnikipogrom.com/society/49267/fate-of-a-traitor/

    In fairness, Russia has nothing to write home about on how to treat its sympathizers.

  124. @AnonFromTN
    Some of Porky’s cheating is coming out. Electoral commission of Mangush area (Ukraine-occupied part of Donetsk region) complained to local police that votes for Porky were increased by the Central electoral commission 9-fold (!). Maybe gas princess and/or Boiko beat him, after all: gas princess publicly stated that there were violations to increase Porky’s votes, but refused to fight in court (I guess she wants to remain alive, which in “democratic” Ukraine is not a given).

    Correct. Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    Расчеты показывают, что по нашей гипотезе эта операция по вбросу бюллетеней дала Порошенко 54,3 тысячи голосов. Это только 11% разрыва между ним и Тимошенко.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Maybe. Stay tuned, though: now that the rat is truly cornered, Porky won’t limit himself to this even if his masters tell him. All hell will break lose in the next three weeks. Porky wants to keep stealing, not to hang on a lamppost.

    However, chances are that Kolomoysky won’t go ahead with Zelensky scam, will just sell the clown to Porky for a quick profit.
    , @AP

    Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.
     
    You meant to write, "third." It was a localized problem that didn't change the overall result, like pro-Putin excess in Chechnya. But thanks for the article.
    , @Gerard2
    hundreds of 1000's of falsely registered people on the electoral role, somewhere I read 200000 dead people ( Alexander Zakharchenko may have "voted" in this election), busing in people, unlike in Russia ...NO video cameras in polling stations in the most corrupt place on earth in its most corrupt period and a zillion other things ( like a complete absence of any faith in what starting number the turnout is based on or even how many people are there)

    It would be typical of you to even think he had "won" fairly

    the Yuriy Tymoshenko fake candidate got 100000 votes alone...Poroshenko/Valtsman only got 400000 more than Yulia Tymoshenko.

    That's before we get into the ethics and legalities of having SBU members on the Electoral Commision of this freakshow..and only allowing "friendly" observers


    Nor should we forget that when Yanukovich was wrongly cheated out of victory in 2004 - he was essentially accused of faking 2 million extra votes. Poroshenko/Valtsman only 400000 votes ( or 300k) + other cheating+ western connivance

    Normally foreign votes are negligible - but in addition to all the other BS, in a provocative situation like this - it would be funny and entirely justified for Russia not to recognise these fake election.....or at least make non-recognition a serious threat ahead of the second round.
    If 55000 voted abroad then it's plausible that 200k-300k could vote in RF if motivated to do so - and, unlike the Moldovan elections, they don't only allow 1 voting station in Moscow for the whole country
  125. @Mr. Hack
    With all of the jokes that you share here, it's a wonder that you're not running for the pres position in Ukraine yourself, you'd give the new clown a run for his money. Let me guess, you're a russified 'Ukrainian'? No, I forgot for a moment, you're in one of those categories that you conveniently left out:

    Jannisary*
     
    *A Ukrainian who thinks he's better than his fellow countrymen that he's left behind for the West, and does nothing at all but mock them all day long. You're beginning to be so predictable and boring. :-)
    (And please refrain from your ususal comeback about how 'beautiful the 'real' Ukrainian language is and how you adore it. Stick to Russian - it suits you much better.) :-)

    Is this a subtle hint that you don’t speak Ukrainian? Take heart, about a third of Ukraine population doesn’t. Some speak horrible surgic instead, with ridiculously inappropriate word usage, like Porky, who switches to Russian when in his cups. But the Poltava language is indeed beautiful and melodious, whereas Polonized and Germanized Western dialects sound horribly harsh. You also must hate Ukrainian literature: it is humanistic, like all high-quality literary works, and totally incompatible with Nazi ideology. Even Western Ukrainian Vasyl Stefanyk is like that. Bandera would hate him (always supposing that he was literate in addition to being a homo).

  126. @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct. Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    Расчеты показывают, что по нашей гипотезе эта операция по вбросу бюллетеней дала Порошенко 54,3 тысячи голосов. Это только 11% разрыва между ним и Тимошенко.
     

    Maybe. Stay tuned, though: now that the rat is truly cornered, Porky won’t limit himself to this even if his masters tell him. All hell will break lose in the next three weeks. Porky wants to keep stealing, not to hang on a lamppost.

    However, chances are that Kolomoysky won’t go ahead with Zelensky scam, will just sell the clown to Porky for a quick profit.

  127. @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct. Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    Расчеты показывают, что по нашей гипотезе эта операция по вбросу бюллетеней дала Порошенко 54,3 тысячи голосов. Это только 11% разрыва между ним и Тимошенко.
     

    Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    You meant to write, “third.” It was a localized problem that didn’t change the overall result, like pro-Putin excess in Chechnya. But thanks for the article.

  128. @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct. Though very unlikely enough to prevent Tymoshenko or Boyko from coming second.

    Расчеты показывают, что по нашей гипотезе эта операция по вбросу бюллетеней дала Порошенко 54,3 тысячи голосов. Это только 11% разрыва между ним и Тимошенко.
     

    hundreds of 1000’s of falsely registered people on the electoral role, somewhere I read 200000 dead people ( Alexander Zakharchenko may have “voted” in this election), busing in people, unlike in Russia …NO video cameras in polling stations in the most corrupt place on earth in its most corrupt period and a zillion other things ( like a complete absence of any faith in what starting number the turnout is based on or even how many people are there)

    It would be typical of you to even think he had “won” fairly

    the Yuriy Tymoshenko fake candidate got 100000 votes alone…Poroshenko/Valtsman only got 400000 more than Yulia Tymoshenko.

    That’s before we get into the ethics and legalities of having SBU members on the Electoral Commision of this freakshow..and only allowing “friendly” observers

    Nor should we forget that when Yanukovich was wrongly cheated out of victory in 2004 – he was essentially accused of faking 2 million extra votes. Poroshenko/Valtsman only 400000 votes ( or 300k) + other cheating+ western connivance

    Normally foreign votes are negligible – but in addition to all the other BS, in a provocative situation like this – it would be funny and entirely justified for Russia not to recognise these fake election…..or at least make non-recognition a serious threat ahead of the second round.
    If 55000 voted abroad then it’s plausible that 200k-300k could vote in RF if motivated to do so – and, unlike the Moldovan elections, they don’t only allow 1 voting station in Moscow for the whole country

  129. @AP

    "Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages"

    Not true. You are again inventing history based on – I have to assume – very incomplete education. Czech state existed since 9th century, speaking, writing and ruling fully in Czech all the way to 17th century. Look up Czech early Reformation movement (Hussites) in 15.-17. centuries. It was all in Czech, all the time. Even Hussite liturgy was in Czech at that time, Bible translated, etc…
     
    I was not discussing older history, of which I am aware. The statement "Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages" is correct.

    Government offices and the church used first Latin and then German starting in the late 18th century.
     
    German was the administrative language of the Empire but the Hapsburgs strongly encouraged Czech to be used as a local language. One of the fathers of the new Czech language was a half-German, Josef Jungmann.

    Even during that time Czech was spoken by most of the population, in cities records were kept mostly in Czech, aristocracy was bilingual, Prague was a Czech city with German-Italian… minorities in special position (government, trade, church).
     
    Prague was majority German-speaking until the 1850s. I don't doubt the countryside was Czech-speaking.

    Until the so-called Josephine reforms in the 1780’s, the official language of the Habsburg Empire was Latin and all was well. Joseph II was an enlightened moderniser and decided to Germanise everything
     
    Joseph II was the modernizer who replaced antiquated Latin with German as the administrative language of the Empire, however he also strongly encouraged the development of local languages, in order to educate and spread progress to the masses. He particularly encouraged the use of vernacular Czech in local schools and publications. Forget your local nationalist mythological sources - this is better -

    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541621.001.0001/acprof-9780199541621-chapter-8

    This chapter also explores the role of Josephinism in intensifying the sense of local and ethnic identity and reveals that most of the supporters of Joseph II were early leaders of movements committed to the propagation of national cultures.

    Hitler was just a more insane version of Joseph II.
     
    That's right, Hitler was like the guy who freed your ancestors from serfdom.

    …Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French

    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century, so you are obviously not correct. May I suggest checking with the mestizo math geniuses that you spoke off, they might help you understand how chronology works.

    Joseph II was a misguided character. He was impatient with the Habsburg Empire’s old-fashioned ways, territorial complexity, Latin-run officialdom, local autonomies – so he decreed that all official communication will be in German, abolished church orders and also most (not all) feudal priviledges.

    It backfired. All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom and within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together. Joseph didn’t encourage the national movements, he triggered them and then didn’t quite know what to do. I am not a huge affictionado of using Latin (although it is a wonderful language), but short of using a neutral language the Habsburg Empire had no chance to survive (too bad English wasn’t available then).

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes. Great, instead of sleeping under a tree most of the day, now the peasants had to fork over actual cash. These modernisers are always the same – somehow it always means that others work more for less. Macron is also a ‘moderniser’.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna that was at that time (1905-14) undergoing a huge influx of Czechs from the countryside, by 1914 Czechs were an estimated 1/4 of the Viennese population. He hated it. He wanted order and in that way he was a more maniacal version of Joseph II. They both loved modernity and the German language.

    • Replies: @AP

    …Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French

    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century
     
    As were the years 1800 and 1700. You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post. Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America's mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.

    All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom
     
    So now you admit that he brought about linguistic freedom. Good. Even you are teachable.

    within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together
     
    Empire held together until the loss of the World War, which also brought down the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs. I suppose in your world those events were also inevitable?

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes.
     
    There was still widespread serfdom even in Bohemia (and Slovenia):

    https://voxeu.org/article/labour-scarcity-and-labour-coercion-serfdom-bohemia
    , @Mitleser
    Reminder that Hitler was only born in Austria because of Joseph II. botched attempt to add Bavaria to his domains.
    Joseph II. got Braunau am Inn, Hitler's birth town, but little else.
    , @reiner Tor

    Hitler grew up in Vienna
     
    He grew up closer to Salzburg. He was closer to a Bavarian than a regular Austrian, his town was part of Bavaria until the late 18th century.
  130. @AP
    So Britannica is wrong:

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I

    Vladimir was the son of the Norman-Rus prince Svyatoslav of Kiev by one of his courtesans and was a member of the Rurik lineage dominant from the 10th to the 13th century. He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson….So Britannica :
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I

    Of course in Britannica says nothing about “exile in Norway”. Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.
    The only source telling us about these events – the Primary chronicle.

    When Vladimir in Novgorod heard that Yaropolk killed Oleg, then got scared and fled across the sea. And Yaropolk put his Posadnik in Novgorod and owned one Russian land… Vladimir returned to Novgorod with the Varangians and …began to rule in Novgorod.

    As you can see about Norway not a single word. Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).
    And Vladimir definitely was not a kinsman of Hakon Sigurdsson

    The bad thing is that you have already spread this story (about the fictional life of Vladimir in Norway). For you it was explained in detail that this story is fiction http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-doesnt-leave-its-own-behind/#comment-1817664 comment 58. But now you’re telling that story again (with a false reference to Britannica). And how such manipulations should be called?

    Vladimir had a Slavic name

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark…

    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir

    • Replies: @AP

    Of course in Britannica says nothing about “exile in Norway”. Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.
     
    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory/chapter/vladimir-i-and-christianization/

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway at the time. Together they gathered an army with the intent to regain control of Rus’ and establish Vladimir as the ruler.

    Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).
     
    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia where his kinsmen lived, gathered an army there, and seized the throne. This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn't Slavicized.

    Vladimir had a Slavic name

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark…

    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir
     
    Yes, I know that you agree with me. I stated that a lot of Scandinavians had a Slavic name. This Slavic name was popular among Scandinavian elites. Having a Slavic name did not make a Scandinavian a Slav - unless you think that Denmark had a bunch of Slavic kings.
  131. @AP

    Vladimir had a Slavic name
     
    So did a lot of Scandinavians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar

    Valdemar I of Denmark or Waldemar the Great (1131–1182)
    Valdemar II of Denmark or Waldemar the Victorious (1170–1241)
    Valdemar the Young (1209–1231)
    Valdemar III of Denmark (1314–1364)
    Waldemar I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1368)
    Waldemar II, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1371)
    Valdemar IV of Denmark or Waldemar Otherday (c. 1320–1375)
    Waldemar III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (d. 1391)
    Waldemar of Sweden (disambiguation), several people
    Valdemar of Denmark (bishop) (1157/1158–1235 or 1236)
    Prince Valdemar of Denmark (1858–1939)

    Maybe he had some kind of dual identity as a Norseman.
     
    His father was a Scandinavian son of two Scandinavians who grew up with a Norse tutor. Vladimir's mother was either a Scandinavian or a Slavic servant girl (sources differ). The fact that he went into exile in Norway, gathered an army of Norsemen up there and seized Novgorod with this army suggests at least dual-identity.

    The problem is that you’re taking something true (that Vladimir had Scandinavian origins and had blood ties to Norsemen) and then passing your own speculation (that Vladimir was a foreigner who forced a religion onto an effectively occupied people)
     
    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled (see: the Derevlians, slaughtered by Vladimir's grandmother St. Helga).

    There are almost no Norse loanwords in Russian or Ukrainian.
     
    Combination of lack of contact between elite and those whom they ruled, not higher cultural level of the Norse compared to the Slavs, and nature of Norse rule.

    it does imply that the Rus’ probably assimilated into the local Slavic population fairly quickly.
     
    Skip ahead 100+ years after Vladimir to Mstslav of Kiev. He married a Swedish princess and some of their children had names such as Ingeborg and Malmfred while others had Slavic names.

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled…

    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated. But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs), and Vladimir was a Slavic Prince of partly Scandinavian origin.

    by the middle of the 10th century the Rus had assimilated with the native Slavs and lost their distinct identity…. Even by 907, the Rus appear to have adopted native religious beliefs, swearing to uphold the treaties by the Slavic gods Perun, a thunder god, and Veles, a chthonic deity

    Northmen. The viking saga 793–1241 ad. John Haywood

    Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture…..The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56

    As for the sale of slaves, the destruction of the rebels, etc. the princes of the Rurik dynasty treated both the Slavs and the Scandinavians (as well as the Finno-Ugric and the Turks) in exactly the same way. In the Russian laws of that era there are no differences between the Slavs and Scandinavians. In particular, this same Prince Vladimir July 12, 978 killed two noble Vikings for human sacrifices to Slavic gods

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters…

    • Replies: @AP

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled…

    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated.
     
    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.

    Meanwhile contemporary Arabs described the Volga as the slave highway because of all the Slavic slaves the Vikings had exported along it.

    But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs),

     

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Vladimir went to Scandinavia and gathered an army there, using it to seize power in Rus.

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Sviatoslav (son of two Scandinavians, Helga and Ingvar), Vladimir's father, was raised by a Scandinavian tutor Asmud.

    Etc.

    “Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture…..The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings”
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56
     
    Same source, page 321-322:

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and "forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians."

    "General picture" was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    So absorbtion by Slavs occurred in the 11th century, after Vladimir.

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    ” Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters…“
     
    Except that Victoria didn't go to Germany and come back to seize power with a German army. Using German troops, she did not slaughter an English town that resisted her, as Helga did the Drevlian capital. Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs by the British monarchs, as was done to Slavs by Rurikids.

    It is very funny to see that you are no better than Ukrainian svidomists with your mythology.
  132. @AnonFromTN

    And there are many substantive differences between the two parties in the USA
     
    I was naïve and thought that there are differences. However, today I don’t see much. Reps are genuflecting to perverts, maybe not as aggressively as Dems, but that’s a matter of form, not substance. Gun control is a red herring on both sides, and neither would do anything: look at ostensibly Dem-controlled House today. So is abortion and the whole “pro-life” BS: both parties enthusiastically support killing born adults in endless wars for MIC profits, Americans and aborigines (true equal opportunity, wouldn’t you say). What Dems under Obama introduced under the guise of “universal health care” is not universal and benefits mostly the same fat cats in the insurance industry that Reps traditionally pander to. Eight years after the passage of Obama-care, one in eight Americans remains uninsured (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca). Anyone with above-clinical IQ must see that, as far as health care goes, health insurance companies and malpractice lawyers are pure parasites (or vultures, if you prefer). Huge tax reduction for the richest (with a few crumbs to the withering middle class) recently passed with bipartisan support. Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs. Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.

    Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs.

    Both parties used to be about equally bad on immigration, but recently the Dems have gotten much worse, while the GOP has gotten somewhat less bad. For example, in 2013, 100% of Senate Dems voted for the Gang of 8 amnesty/legal immigration increase, while only about 30% of the Senate GOP did. And if that same vote were held today, it would be 100% vs. 20% or less.

    Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.

    Even if it were true that in the legislature the only real differences between the parties were rhetorical (it’s not), it would be clearly absurd to argue that it is irrelevant who sits on the Supreme Court. And there is a clearly a big difference between the two parties on the sort of Supreme Court justices they support: The 4 Dem-appointed justices consistently rule very differently from the 5 GOP-appointed ones. A supermajority (or even majority) of Dem appointed SCOTUS justices would mean de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment, criminalization of failure to celebrate to homo marriage, judicial sabotage of any attempts to control illegal immigration, etc. So at the least it does matter which party controls the presidency and Senate.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Yes, nominations to Supreme Court are the only remaining difference. I do hope it can curb repeated attempts to overturn people’s will by judicial shenanigans.
  133. @Anon
    Zakarpattia was not part of Hungary. Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago. Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that. When Hungary eventually became a country, Zakarpattia ended up in Czechoslovakia.

    Also, I can't understand the Hungary fanboi. Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria. Anything Austrians built there, and could be described as noteworthy, has a counterpart, 100 times better, in Czechia or Slovenia. (And of course, Austria.) Anything Turks built there has an equivalent, 100 times more impressive, in Bulgaria. (Not to mention Turkey.) Russians and Jews essentially left nothing. What gives?

    Hungary was not a country until 100 years ago.

    Depends on your definition of a country. Hungary had its own diets, as a result its own laws, there were customs to be paid on the border between Hungary and other parts of the Habsburg Empire, etc. It even had its own army until 1848, although the Hungarian units were often stationed in places like Italy, while Austrian etc. troops were often stationed in Hungary.

    Hungary was a subdivision of Austria, and Turkey before that.

    “Turkey” (the Ottoman Empire) never even managed to conquer the whole of the Kingdom of Hungary. Though after the defeat in 1526 the Hungarian king died, and a civil war resulted, with part of the country (the later Principality of Transylvania) becoming an Ottoman tributary vassal state. (It joined the Habsburgs twice during the Ottoman times in the 16th century, both with disastrous results, and both times reverted to being an Ottoman vassal. Its autonomy was greatly reduced in the late 17th century, fortunately shortly afterwards Ottoman power collapsed in Hungary.)

    Anyway, both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania continued to have its own laws (most of them common, since the Transylvanian state also derived from the Kingdom of Hungary following the civil war), so the Ottomans only ruled the middle part of the country, roughly one third of the area known as “Hungary” in the Middle Ages and Early Modern and Modern periods up until 1918.

    Hungary was the most retarded region of Austria.

    What does it even mean? After the destruction of the Turkish Wars, the country had a very low population density, and was primarily an agricultural land. The biggest concentration of industry was in Silesia, and also other provinces of Czechia (Bohemia proper and Moravia), with Silesia lost after 1740.

  134. AP says:
    @Beckow

    ...Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French
     
    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century, so you are obviously not correct. May I suggest checking with the mestizo math geniuses that you spoke off, they might help you understand how chronology works.

    Joseph II was a misguided character. He was impatient with the Habsburg Empire's old-fashioned ways, territorial complexity, Latin-run officialdom, local autonomies - so he decreed that all official communication will be in German, abolished church orders and also most (not all) feudal priviledges.

    It backfired. All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom and within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together. Joseph didn't encourage the national movements, he triggered them and then didn't quite know what to do. I am not a huge affictionado of using Latin (although it is a wonderful language), but short of using a neutral language the Habsburg Empire had no chance to survive (too bad English wasn't available then).

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes. Great, instead of sleeping under a tree most of the day, now the peasants had to fork over actual cash. These modernisers are always the same - somehow it always means that others work more for less. Macron is also a 'moderniser'.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna that was at that time (1905-14) undergoing a huge influx of Czechs from the countryside, by 1914 Czechs were an estimated 1/4 of the Viennese population. He hated it. He wanted order and in that way he was a more maniacal version of Joseph II. They both loved modernity and the German language.

    …Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French

    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century

    As were the years 1800 and 1700. You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post. Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America’s mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.

    All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom

    So now you admit that he brought about linguistic freedom. Good. Even you are teachable.

    within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together

    Empire held together until the loss of the World War, which also brought down the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs. I suppose in your world those events were also inevitable?

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes.

    There was still widespread serfdom even in Bohemia (and Slovenia):

    https://voxeu.org/article/labour-scarcity-and-labour-coercion-serfdom-bohemia

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post.
     
    What? You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn't happen 'until mid-19th century', and then take it back by saying that you didn't use the word 'never', you frankly sound desperate.

    Words have meaning. Claiming that 'only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century' is false. Even between 1700 and 1850 your 'only peasants spoke...' is untrue: there was church, literature, merchants, documents, schools in Czech, Slovak and Hungarian, etc...It was less than before 1700 and less than after around 1830-40, but it was there. Your statement was incorrect. You have a false narrative of the whole Habsburg era in your mind that you can't let go off.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America’s mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.
     
    I'd still like to see a source that Slovaks are, on average, dumber than US Hispanics. I find that hard to believe.
  135. @Beckow

    ...Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French
     
    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century, so you are obviously not correct. May I suggest checking with the mestizo math geniuses that you spoke off, they might help you understand how chronology works.

    Joseph II was a misguided character. He was impatient with the Habsburg Empire's old-fashioned ways, territorial complexity, Latin-run officialdom, local autonomies - so he decreed that all official communication will be in German, abolished church orders and also most (not all) feudal priviledges.

    It backfired. All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom and within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together. Joseph didn't encourage the national movements, he triggered them and then didn't quite know what to do. I am not a huge affictionado of using Latin (although it is a wonderful language), but short of using a neutral language the Habsburg Empire had no chance to survive (too bad English wasn't available then).

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes. Great, instead of sleeping under a tree most of the day, now the peasants had to fork over actual cash. These modernisers are always the same - somehow it always means that others work more for less. Macron is also a 'moderniser'.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna that was at that time (1905-14) undergoing a huge influx of Czechs from the countryside, by 1914 Czechs were an estimated 1/4 of the Viennese population. He hated it. He wanted order and in that way he was a more maniacal version of Joseph II. They both loved modernity and the German language.

    Reminder that Hitler was only born in Austria because of Joseph II. botched attempt to add Bavaria to his domains.
    Joseph II. got Braunau am Inn, Hitler’s birth town, but little else.

  136. AP says:
    @melanf

    Valdimir/Valdamarr or Kiev who forced Christianity upon the Slavs lived in exile in Norway under the protection of his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson....So Britannica :
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I
     
    Of course in Britannica says nothing about "exile in Norway". Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.
    The only source telling us about these events – the Primary chronicle.

    When Vladimir in Novgorod heard that Yaropolk killed Oleg, then got scared and fled across the sea. And Yaropolk put his Posadnik in Novgorod and owned one Russian land… Vladimir returned to Novgorod with the Varangians and …began to rule in Novgorod.

    As you can see about Norway not a single word. Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).
    And Vladimir definitely was not a kinsman of Hakon Sigurdsson


    The bad thing is that you have already spread this story (about the fictional life of Vladimir in Norway). For you it was explained in detail that this story is fiction http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-doesnt-leave-its-own-behind/#comment-1817664 comment 58. But now you're telling that story again (with a false reference to Britannica). And how such manipulations should be called?



    Vladimir had a Slavic name
     
    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark...
     
    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir

    Of course in Britannica says nothing about “exile in Norway”. Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory/chapter/vladimir-i-and-christianization/

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway at the time. Together they gathered an army with the intent to regain control of Rus’ and establish Vladimir as the ruler.

    Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia where his kinsmen lived, gathered an army there, and seized the throne. This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.

    Vladimir had a Slavic name

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark…

    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir

    Yes, I know that you agree with me. I stated that a lot of Scandinavians had a Slavic name. This Slavic name was popular among Scandinavian elites. Having a Slavic name did not make a Scandinavian a Slav – unless you think that Denmark had a bunch of Slavic kings.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway
     
    There is no mention of Norway in the only medieval source that speaks about Vladimir's exile. Why do you repeat the fiction for the third time?

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson...
     
    Vladimir was not a kinsman of Hakoon. The origin of both is known, they have no family ties

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia....This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.
     
    This is absurd.
    Four of the Norwegian king, was at different times in exile in “Ancient Russia”. So these kings, by your logic, were not Norwegians but Russians?
  137. @Beckow
    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs 'independent'? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that - more than anything else - destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn't explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs ‘independent‘?

    No one talked about independence, but Hungary was clearly a separate country. The Kingdom of Bohemia (including the lands of the Bohemian Crown Moravia and Silesia) was pretty much a separate country until roughly 1620, when it was thoroughly defeated (never to rebel again until 1918) and incorporated into the lands of the Austrian provinces. Especially after 1806 it was just a bunch of provinces of the Austrian Empire.

    While Hungary kept being a separate country until 1848. Then in 1867 it became a somewhat separate country, although not fully separate. For example many parts of the Compromise with Austria had to be renewed at certain periods, so at least theoretically it was still a separate country and Austria-Hungary was just a temporary measure. (Albeit it was possible to renew it, and they did it whenever the issue came up.)

    They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that – more than anything else – destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    The Habsburg Empire was inherently unstable anyway. Local national elites wanted their own countries, it was inevitable. In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German. I remember a few months (a year?) ago you wrote that Czechs were heroically fighting for the survival of their language… far from it, they actually had all the advantages in Czechia. Yet they it didn’t stop them from wanting their own country.

    Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary

    The Ruthenians received autonomy in Hungary 1939-44, a reason why for some Hungary was preferable to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was also only rich because of Czechia, Slovakia was dirt poor even relative to Hungary, so I don’t think that played a role.

    However, I assert that the majority of Subcarpathia wants to be in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @LH

    In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German.

     

    Since 1880 civil servants were required to answer in the language of request. Internal communication was still in German. Attempt to make Czech language equal also for internal communication in 1897 led to fall of the government. German speakers were strongly against it. The attempt was abandoned.

    In 1905 there was Mährischer Ausgleich, de facto separation of Czechs and Germans in Moravia into political nations. I am not aware of something specific to the year 1908.

    In early 1918 Bohemian Germans proposed to separate German speaking territories of Bohemia into its own crown land Deutschböhmen. This was response to growing calls for Czech independence. The monarchy didn't have time to implement it, and after the war the separation attempt was suppressed by force.


    ---------

    So no, A-H bureaucrats in Germanized areas were not required to know Czech language. Its knowledge was mandatory only later, after establishment of Czechoslovakia.
  138. AP says:
    @melanf

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled...
     
    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated. But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs), and Vladimir was a Slavic Prince of partly Scandinavian origin.


    by the middle of the 10th century the Rus had assimilated with the native Slavs and lost their distinct identity…. Even by 907, the Rus appear to have adopted native religious beliefs, swearing to uphold the treaties by the Slavic gods Perun, a thunder god, and Veles, a chthonic deity

    Northmen. The viking saga 793–1241 ad. John Haywood

    Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture.....The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56

    As for the sale of slaves, the destruction of the rebels, etc. the princes of the Rurik dynasty treated both the Slavs and the Scandinavians (as well as the Finno-Ugric and the Turks) in exactly the same way. In the Russian laws of that era there are no differences between the Slavs and Scandinavians. In particular, this same Prince Vladimir July 12, 978 killed two noble Vikings for human sacrifices to Slavic gods

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    " Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters..."

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled…

    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated.

    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.

    Meanwhile contemporary Arabs described the Volga as the slave highway because of all the Slavic slaves the Vikings had exported along it.

    But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs),

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Vladimir went to Scandinavia and gathered an army there, using it to seize power in Rus.

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Sviatoslav (son of two Scandinavians, Helga and Ingvar), Vladimir’s father, was raised by a Scandinavian tutor Asmud.

    Etc.

    “Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture…..The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings”
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56

    Same source, page 321-322:

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and “forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians.”

    “General picture” was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    So absorbtion by Slavs occurred in the 11th century, after Vladimir.

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    ” Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters…“

    Except that Victoria didn’t go to Germany and come back to seize power with a German army. Using German troops, she did not slaughter an English town that resisted her, as Helga did the Drevlian capital. Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs by the British monarchs, as was done to Slavs by Rurikids.

    It is very funny to see that you are no better than Ukrainian svidomists with your mythology.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.
     
    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was "slavicised"), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians. If you want to argue - give a quote from a modern scientific article/monograph (not Wikipedia or Reddit!) which States that the native language of the Volodymyr - old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc. I gave you quotes from scientific works of Western historians where it is clearly stated that to the time of Vladimir, the Rurik family "slavicised".

    Except that Victoria didn’t go to Germany
     
    Much worse , she despised her English slaves so much that she brought her husband from Germany.

    Using German troops,
     
    Victoria's ancestors in the 18th century used German troops to suppress uprisings in great Britain

    Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs
     
    I don't know about the Arabs, but the deal to buy 30,000 slaves-Englishmen for settle the Crimea failed only because of an accident.

    However here the early middle ages:
    "The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews. Here, via the saône and the Rhone, they were transported in Narbonne or Arles, and then to Spain or to the East. Since the middle of the VIII century., despite the protests of the popes, one of the main suppliers of slaves was another important market, Venice and Prague. Thus, throughout Europe, men and women were grabbed and sold to Muslims and Christians of Byzantium. The Anglo-Saxons were brought to Venice via Lyon or sent straight to Spain. The Lombards were bought in the markets of southern Italy and resold in Egypt and Africa."
  139. @AP

    Of course in Britannica says nothing about “exile in Norway”. Vladimir in 972 was in exile but there is no mention in the sources that he was in Norway, and the probability of such an event is small.
     
    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory/chapter/vladimir-i-and-christianization/

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway at the time. Together they gathered an army with the intent to regain control of Rus’ and establish Vladimir as the ruler.

    Vladimir was almost certainly in Sweden (with which the Ancient Rus was connected most closely, and which was closer).
     
    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia where his kinsmen lived, gathered an army there, and seized the throne. This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn't Slavicized.

    Vladimir had a Slavic name

    So did a lot of Scandinavians:
    Valdemar I of Denmark…

    As for you already explained (about a year ago) Valdemar/Vladimir is a Slavic (by origin) name borrowed by Scandinavians, after the reign of Vladimir
     
    Yes, I know that you agree with me. I stated that a lot of Scandinavians had a Slavic name. This Slavic name was popular among Scandinavian elites. Having a Slavic name did not make a Scandinavian a Slav - unless you think that Denmark had a bunch of Slavic kings.

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway

    There is no mention of Norway in the only medieval source that speaks about Vladimir’s exile. Why do you repeat the fiction for the third time?

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson…

    Vladimir was not a kinsman of Hakoon. The origin of both is known, they have no family ties

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia….This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.

    This is absurd.
    Four of the Norwegian king, was at different times in exile in “Ancient Russia”. So these kings, by your logic, were not Norwegians but Russians?

    • Replies: @AP

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway

    There is no mention of Norway in the only medieval source that speaks about Vladimir’s exile. Why do you repeat the fiction for the third time?
     
    And yet various historians claim he did.

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia….This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.

    This is absurd.
    Four of the Norwegian king, was at different times in exile in “Ancient Russia”. So these kings, by your logic, were not Norwegians but Russians?
     
    You are starting to learn, despite your best efforts.

    It means that the ruling Scandinavian-origin elite in Rus at that time was not Slavicised and these Scandinavians felt at home among them in Kiev or Novgorod. So Scnadinavian Rus moved to Norway, Scandinavian Norwegians moved to Rus.
  140. @Beckow

    ...Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French
     
    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century, so you are obviously not correct. May I suggest checking with the mestizo math geniuses that you spoke off, they might help you understand how chronology works.

    Joseph II was a misguided character. He was impatient with the Habsburg Empire's old-fashioned ways, territorial complexity, Latin-run officialdom, local autonomies - so he decreed that all official communication will be in German, abolished church orders and also most (not all) feudal priviledges.

    It backfired. All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom and within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together. Joseph didn't encourage the national movements, he triggered them and then didn't quite know what to do. I am not a huge affictionado of using Latin (although it is a wonderful language), but short of using a neutral language the Habsburg Empire had no chance to survive (too bad English wasn't available then).

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes. Great, instead of sleeping under a tree most of the day, now the peasants had to fork over actual cash. These modernisers are always the same - somehow it always means that others work more for less. Macron is also a 'moderniser'.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna that was at that time (1905-14) undergoing a huge influx of Czechs from the countryside, by 1914 Czechs were an estimated 1/4 of the Viennese population. He hated it. He wanted order and in that way he was a more maniacal version of Joseph II. They both loved modernity and the German language.

    Hitler grew up in Vienna

    He grew up closer to Salzburg. He was closer to a Bavarian than a regular Austrian, his town was part of Bavaria until the late 18th century.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I meant that Hitler came of age in Vienna - it was in Vienna that he formed as a young man before WWI and the Viennese milieu was quite unique at that time. He acquired most of his personality there: a rejected artist, frustrated nationalist in a multi-cultural city, unbounded anger,...

    As a boy he grew up mostly in Linz, Upper Austria, he never lived in Salzburg. You are right that Upper Austria is similar to Bavaria, and quite un-Viennese. Deeper family origins were in the Waldviertel district of Lower Austria, poor mountainous region on the Czech border. There were persistent stories that his family name - originally spelled mostly Hutler - was etymologically derived from the Czech word 'huta' that means a wooden mountain cottage. Hitler's male DNA was closest in Europe to Albanians - and originally from North Africa. He was a mutt.

  141. @AP

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants (in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic - city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages). At that time fervently nationalistic German-speaking Hungarians taught themselves and their children the Hungarian language.

    Its interesting that only under the Hapsburgs (due to policy) and Romanovs (due to policy in the Baltic, neglect in Ukraine) did these rural languages survive in mass form. Gaelic disappeared n Britain, France lost its languages, Sorbian or whatever are basically gone in Germany. If the Hapsburgs were like Western rulers, Czechs and Hungarians might at most have been German-speaking, like English-speaking Irish nationalists. Or they might have simply become Germans of Czech or whatever descent, as utu stated.

    That doesn’t explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.
     
    Here we go again. Zakarpattiya's eastern Slavs are no more averse to Ukrainian nationalists than are places like Zhytomir or Poltava. They is not nearly as extreme as Galicians on the other side of the Carpathians but they are in the nationalist camp. With respect to nationalism they are like central Ukrainians but in the far west.

    Wikipedia has a nice map of election results (Green Zelensky, Grey Poroshenko, Red Tymoshenko, Blue Boyko):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg/1024px-%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2019_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8.svg.png

    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants

    And nobles and the majority of aristocrats. Also some of the city-dwellers, though some 95% of the population was rural anyway. Some of the very richest aristocrats spent most of their time in Vienna, and for a few decades they couldn’t speak Hungarian well, but that doesn’t apply to the majority of the aristocracy who didn’t have so much money so couldn’t afford living in Vienna. Also, many the Vienna aristocrats required their children to learn the languages of the peasants on their estates, so they usually could speak some Hungarian (I’m not sure about Slovak).

    • Replies: @AP
    There was a widespread movement to learn Hungarian by German-speaking Hungarian city-dwellers. Initially the cities were German-speaking, but the patriotic Hungarian German-speakers learned Hungarians and often Magyarized their names around 1848.

    You are correct that overwhelming majority of Hungarian population were rural peasants thus the country as a whole was Hungarian-speaking.
  142. AP says:
    @melanf

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway
     
    There is no mention of Norway in the only medieval source that speaks about Vladimir's exile. Why do you repeat the fiction for the third time?

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson...
     
    Vladimir was not a kinsman of Hakoon. The origin of both is known, they have no family ties

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia....This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.
     
    This is absurd.
    Four of the Norwegian king, was at different times in exile in “Ancient Russia”. So these kings, by your logic, were not Norwegians but Russians?

    Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway

    There is no mention of Norway in the only medieval source that speaks about Vladimir’s exile. Why do you repeat the fiction for the third time?

    And yet various historians claim he did.

    The point was that he fled to Scandinavia….This tells us that he had at least a dual Slavic-Norse identify and wasn’t Slavicized.

    This is absurd.
    Four of the Norwegian king, was at different times in exile in “Ancient Russia”. So these kings, by your logic, were not Norwegians but Russians?

    You are starting to learn, despite your best efforts.

    It means that the ruling Scandinavian-origin elite in Rus at that time was not Slavicised and these Scandinavians felt at home among them in Kiev or Novgorod. So Scnadinavian Rus moved to Norway, Scandinavian Norwegians moved to Rus.

  143. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    Until the mid 19th century the only people speaking Hungarian in Hungary were peasants
     
    And nobles and the majority of aristocrats. Also some of the city-dwellers, though some 95% of the population was rural anyway. Some of the very richest aristocrats spent most of their time in Vienna, and for a few decades they couldn't speak Hungarian well, but that doesn't apply to the majority of the aristocracy who didn't have so much money so couldn't afford living in Vienna. Also, many the Vienna aristocrats required their children to learn the languages of the peasants on their estates, so they usually could speak some Hungarian (I'm not sure about Slovak).

    There was a widespread movement to learn Hungarian by German-speaking Hungarian city-dwellers. Initially the cities were German-speaking, but the patriotic Hungarian German-speakers learned Hungarians and often Magyarized their names around 1848.

    You are correct that overwhelming majority of Hungarian population were rural peasants thus the country as a whole was Hungarian-speaking.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Initially the cities were German-speaking
     
    That's true of most cities, but not nearly all. For example Debrecen or Kecskemét were always Hungarian-speaking.
  144. @Beckow
    We can all pick our favourite event from the Habsburg Empire history to prove almost anything. E.g. Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs 'independent'? Hungary was occupied by Turks for almost 300 years and Budapest was an Ottoman city. The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    1867 dual monarchy gave Hungary an autonomy, but it was still in every security-foreign respect a fully Habsburg controlled territory. They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that - more than anything else - destroyed the Habsburg Empire.

    Zakarpathia as a territorial unit was a part of Czechoslovakia until 1945 when it was absorbed to a fast expanding (under Stalin) Ukraine. Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary, but Magyars are only 15% of Zakarpathia so that seems upside-down. That doesn't explain their seeming electoral aversion to Ukrainian nationalists.

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.

    Where do you get this?

    First, most densely populated areas were roughly the areas which have been inhabited by an ethnically Hungarian population in 1910. The major exceptions are parts of Transylvania, on which later. Most of present day Slovakia, as well as Subcarpathia and large parts of Transylvania were all parts of the so-called gyepű area, which is an ancient Hungarian word for uninhabited border regions (no tax income from that area, no nobles were given to titles to these lands, etc.) This is one reason why Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.

    There are a few more reasons to think that.

    One is that already in the 11th century occasionally we find names of lowly servants in the sources. Those are invariably Magyar names.

    Second, the earliest (Latin language) sources often contain Hungarian words or sentences, never Slavic words or sentences – so the monks or scribes were likely ethnically Hungarian.

    Third, and this doesn’t apply to Slovaks, the Christian churches around 1000 were predominantly Western Rite, but there were many Eastern Rite churches, too. However, after 1001 each of these were incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, and especially after 1054 – before that the difference was not that important – the eastern rite churches were slowly converted to Western Rite. Then around 1200 Eastern Christians started to appear in the sources slowly, the Vlachs or Olachs in the South Carpathian and later other Transylvanian mountains, and the Ruthenians. Then the Turkish Wars, especially in the 1660s destroyed much of the ethnically Hungarian population in the Transylvanian valleys, and after that the nobles invited Romanians to their estates. It is usually thought that Transylvania had a Hungarian ethnic majority well into the 17th century.

    Fourth, the Magyar graves in the early 10th century contain a predominantly Eastern European population (though sample sizes are still small) with the elite showing heavy signs of East Asian (Mongoloid) admixture (roughly one third Asian / two thirds European), however, by the 11th century the signs of Asian admixture basically disappear from the elite, and from that time the elites are European. The only Turkish presence are the Kuns, settled after the Mongol invasion by King Béla IV, but they were a relatively small population, in a limited part of the country, and they were not heavily elite, though their nobles were given Hungarian nobility. They are also more Hungarian ethnically.

    Anyway, the nobility and aristocracy undoubtedly spoke Hungarian throughout the Middle Ages, and they also had a Hungarian noble/aristocrat identity. In some parts of the country (mostly Slovakia, as far as I know) in the 19th century the nobles often spoke the local language at home (that was definitely untrue of Transylvania’s Romanian areas), I don’t know if that had been the case earlier. Also, the area currently in Serbia (the province Vojvodina) has been mostly inhabited by Serbs since the Early Modern period and possibly earlier (it’s unclear how much the ethnic border moved to the north after the Ottoman Wars, when much of the area became fully uninhabited; anyway, the Serbs were given the area with privileges as Border Guards by the Habsburg kings; what’s clear is that the northernmost part, including the city Szabadka or Subotica was ethnically Hungarian until at least 1944).

    In short, there are reasons to think that Hungary was more ethnically Magyar before 1526 than ever since, because the wars 1526-1711 (yes I know 1703-11 was at least partly our fault) mostly destroyed the Hungarian areas. The low point was in the late 18th century (when Hungary was perhaps a little over one third Magyar), and then it slowly increased to roughly 50% by 1910.

    • Agree: Epigon
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Yours is a hodge podge description of many ethnic groups over a questionable time frame that doesn't really describe much at all. Each ethnic group that you describe, Slovaks, Rusyns, Romanians, Serbs, Kuns, had a different history in this area and deserve a separate explanation. Your justification for Hungarian autochtone in the vast areas that you describe based on a few Hungarian names in a 'Latin'document doesn't even pinpoint what area you're trying to claim? The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century. Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin 'amongst Slavic tribes'. Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.
    , @Beckow

    ...Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.
     
    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that, but it is not true. It is actually nonsense on its face, where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era - without any mention in the historical record? Unfortunately, what you describe is why we couldn't live in the same country. We understand our common history differently.

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region, inhabited since Bronze age. Today it has around 2 million people, many cities, 2 archbishops since early Middle Ages, 40% of Slovakia. The area was the core area of the 8.-10. century Great Moravia state and has remained a core area since then. This is where Byzantine Christianity was introduced in the 9.th century with cyrillic alphabet - it is where Slav Eastern Orthodoxy was initially invented - with eastern Moravia that is now part of Czechia. The region has had a documented Slovak population since then: names in documents, place names, Latin city records, archaic Slovak language used since 15th century. This was also the core region for the Slovak national movement, the leaders came from there, 1848-9 uprising happened there, this is where formation of Czecho-Slovakia in 1918 was very popular. To claim that Slovaks came from 'somewhere else later' makes no sense, where would they come from? And when? How would they maintain the continuity? How come nobody noticed? And who lived there before?

    You are right that large parts of central Slovakia were uninhabited until 12.-13. century, it was a huge mountainous forest. These areas were settled in the late Middle Ages by mostly peasants from the south-west looking for more land and by German miners and others. Eastern Slovakia was different - it always had very strong Rusin population and Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city - at one point I believe it was the second largest city in Hungary. Even during WWII, Kosice was taken by Hungary to revert back to Slovakia in 1945.

    We distinguish between Magyars and Hungary - we have always called Hungary, 'Uhorsko' and it is a geographic name for the Carpathian basin that includes core Magyar lands, plus Transylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Burgenland, Vojvodina,... In that we differ and will never agree. When we study our history, 'Uhorsko' (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together. My point is that this was the core reason why there is this lingering tension between Magyars and Slovaks - we don't see our common history in the same way.

    , @Good luck wit your parallel reality
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds_of_the_Romans


    According to an early 13th-century report by one Friar Ricardus, a lost Hungarian chronicle—The Deeds of the Christian Hungarians—stated that Hungary had been called the pasturing lands of the Romans before the Magyars conquered it. The identification of Hungary as the one-time pascua Romanorum ("the Romans' pasturing lands") was also mentioned in the Rhymed Chronicle of Stična from the 1240s, in Thomas the Archdeacon's History of the Bishops of Slanona and Split, which was written after 1250, and in the Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis from the early 14th century. On the other hand, Simon of Kéza and the 14th-century Hungarian chronicles did not refer to Hungary as the Romans' pasturing land. Instead, they wrote of the "shepherds and husbandmen" or the "farm-workers and shepherds" of the Roman citizens of Pannonia, Pamphylia, Macedonia, Dalmatia and Phrygia who stayed behind when their masters fled from these Roman provinces after the arrival of the Huns. Both Simon of Kéza and the 14th-century chronicles identified these "shepherds and husbandmen" as Vlachs.

    In truth, most of history is being rewritten, usually by the loudest revisionist, so I can see that page being 'corrected'.
  145. @AP
    There was a widespread movement to learn Hungarian by German-speaking Hungarian city-dwellers. Initially the cities were German-speaking, but the patriotic Hungarian German-speakers learned Hungarians and often Magyarized their names around 1848.

    You are correct that overwhelming majority of Hungarian population were rural peasants thus the country as a whole was Hungarian-speaking.

    Initially the cities were German-speaking

    That’s true of most cities, but not nearly all. For example Debrecen or Kecskemét were always Hungarian-speaking.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In the 18th century Debrecen was the biggest city in Hungary.
    , @reiner Tor
    I'm even unsure about the "most cities" part. Further examples of ethnically mostly Hungarian cities in the 18th century: Pécs, Miskolc, Szeged, I'm not sure about Győr, which was among the oldest cities built from stone, and never conquered by the Turks. (Unlike Székesfehérvár or Buda or Pest, which were, as a result, basically 100% German in the 18th and early 19th centuries, settling in the nearly uninhabited cities after the 1680s.)

    Many cities were mixed, like Kassa (present day Košice), where the population was Hungarian, Slovak and German. Even German speaking cities like Buda had some Hungarian inhabitants.

    EDIT:

    Maybe Pécs was also rather mixed with Croats and Germans.

  146. @Dmitry
    At least FSU oligarchs are politically simple people, though, without the security or ambitions of Western counterparts.

    FSU oligarchs only want to secure their business and properties from their rivals and state, or alternately to act as an extension of state capacity themselves. And then spend the money as far away as possible, from the workers who generated it.

    For this latter, e.g. Rotenberg is attaining state contracts, so operates effectively as an extension of state capacity - although with the disadvantage that the process is nationalizing losses and privatizing profits for himself.

    Main problem of FSU oligarchs, is that they are often extremely polluting to the environment, and the salaries they pay (to often captive workforce) incredibly low.

    And then whole cities can be slaves making money for different groups of oligarchs.

    Norilsk economy, for example, is basically only people freezing their ass and breathing toxic pollution, to make profits for Potanin and Deripaska.

    Actually, FSU oligarchs are much more like Monty Burns than American counterparts.

    Working for Bill Gates in America, will not destroy your health. But some few FSU oligarchs, can physically turn the sky of Krasnoyarsk black.

    Norilsk economy, for example, is basically only people freezing their ass and breathing toxic pollution, to make profits for Potanin and Deripaska.

    Russia is the true cyberpunk future.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    With Norilsk - the two oligarchs which own the company, Potanin and Deripaska both hate each other, and fight to control the company.

    Putin ordered Abramovich to mediate their dispute, by buying the shares which balanced between Potanin and Deripaska.

    Some years later, Abramovich tried to give his shares to Potanin, which would mean Potanin would have a larger share than Deripaska

    And then Deripaska won in London court against Abramovich, stopping him giving shares to .Potanin.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-6196909/Abramovich-loses-High-Court-spat-Deripaska-control-Russias-biggest-mining-company.html

    And then this story is still continuing in London this year.but complicated by sanctions
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/potanin-plans-talks-with-rusal-over-cutting-nornickel-dividend

    So the people of Norilsk don't just freeze their ass and destroy their lungs to make money for Potanin and Deripaska, but also for the legal industry and lawyers in London.

    -

    Atlantic Magazine has made an artistic documentary about the city problems:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9E9XQp_2k

  147. @reiner Tor

    Initially the cities were German-speaking
     
    That's true of most cities, but not nearly all. For example Debrecen or Kecskemét were always Hungarian-speaking.

    In the 18th century Debrecen was the biggest city in Hungary.

  148. @reiner Tor

    Initially the cities were German-speaking
     
    That's true of most cities, but not nearly all. For example Debrecen or Kecskemét were always Hungarian-speaking.

    I’m even unsure about the “most cities” part. Further examples of ethnically mostly Hungarian cities in the 18th century: Pécs, Miskolc, Szeged, I’m not sure about Győr, which was among the oldest cities built from stone, and never conquered by the Turks. (Unlike Székesfehérvár or Buda or Pest, which were, as a result, basically 100% German in the 18th and early 19th centuries, settling in the nearly uninhabited cities after the 1680s.)

    Many cities were mixed, like Kassa (present day Košice), where the population was Hungarian, Slovak and German. Even German speaking cities like Buda had some Hungarian inhabitants.

    EDIT:

    Maybe Pécs was also rather mixed with Croats and Germans.

    • Replies: @AP
    Most of the urban ethnic Hungarians were German-speaking, though, at least int he cities such as Pest.
  149. @Jon0815

    Immigration, benefiting the same fat cat darlings of Reps and Dems by depressing wages, is in fact supported by both parties, although their lip service differs.
     
    Both parties used to be about equally bad on immigration, but recently the Dems have gotten much worse, while the GOP has gotten somewhat less bad. For example, in 2013, 100% of Senate Dems voted for the Gang of 8 amnesty/legal immigration increase, while only about 30% of the Senate GOP did. And if that same vote were held today, it would be 100% vs. 20% or less.

    Different demagoguery is a matter of form without substance. So it goes.
     
    Even if it were true that in the legislature the only real differences between the parties were rhetorical (it's not), it would be clearly absurd to argue that it is irrelevant who sits on the Supreme Court. And there is a clearly a big difference between the two parties on the sort of Supreme Court justices they support: The 4 Dem-appointed justices consistently rule very differently from the 5 GOP-appointed ones. A supermajority (or even majority) of Dem appointed SCOTUS justices would mean de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment, criminalization of failure to celebrate to homo marriage, judicial sabotage of any attempts to control illegal immigration, etc. So at the least it does matter which party controls the presidency and Senate.

    Yes, nominations to Supreme Court are the only remaining difference. I do hope it can curb repeated attempts to overturn people’s will by judicial shenanigans.

  150. @reiner Tor

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Where do you get this?

    First, most densely populated areas were roughly the areas which have been inhabited by an ethnically Hungarian population in 1910. The major exceptions are parts of Transylvania, on which later. Most of present day Slovakia, as well as Subcarpathia and large parts of Transylvania were all parts of the so-called gyepű area, which is an ancient Hungarian word for uninhabited border regions (no tax income from that area, no nobles were given to titles to these lands, etc.) This is one reason why Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.

    There are a few more reasons to think that.

    One is that already in the 11th century occasionally we find names of lowly servants in the sources. Those are invariably Magyar names.

    Second, the earliest (Latin language) sources often contain Hungarian words or sentences, never Slavic words or sentences - so the monks or scribes were likely ethnically Hungarian.

    Third, and this doesn't apply to Slovaks, the Christian churches around 1000 were predominantly Western Rite, but there were many Eastern Rite churches, too. However, after 1001 each of these were incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, and especially after 1054 - before that the difference was not that important - the eastern rite churches were slowly converted to Western Rite. Then around 1200 Eastern Christians started to appear in the sources slowly, the Vlachs or Olachs in the South Carpathian and later other Transylvanian mountains, and the Ruthenians. Then the Turkish Wars, especially in the 1660s destroyed much of the ethnically Hungarian population in the Transylvanian valleys, and after that the nobles invited Romanians to their estates. It is usually thought that Transylvania had a Hungarian ethnic majority well into the 17th century.

    Fourth, the Magyar graves in the early 10th century contain a predominantly Eastern European population (though sample sizes are still small) with the elite showing heavy signs of East Asian (Mongoloid) admixture (roughly one third Asian / two thirds European), however, by the 11th century the signs of Asian admixture basically disappear from the elite, and from that time the elites are European. The only Turkish presence are the Kuns, settled after the Mongol invasion by King Béla IV, but they were a relatively small population, in a limited part of the country, and they were not heavily elite, though their nobles were given Hungarian nobility. They are also more Hungarian ethnically.

    Anyway, the nobility and aristocracy undoubtedly spoke Hungarian throughout the Middle Ages, and they also had a Hungarian noble/aristocrat identity. In some parts of the country (mostly Slovakia, as far as I know) in the 19th century the nobles often spoke the local language at home (that was definitely untrue of Transylvania's Romanian areas), I don't know if that had been the case earlier. Also, the area currently in Serbia (the province Vojvodina) has been mostly inhabited by Serbs since the Early Modern period and possibly earlier (it's unclear how much the ethnic border moved to the north after the Ottoman Wars, when much of the area became fully uninhabited; anyway, the Serbs were given the area with privileges as Border Guards by the Habsburg kings; what's clear is that the northernmost part, including the city Szabadka or Subotica was ethnically Hungarian until at least 1944).

    In short, there are reasons to think that Hungary was more ethnically Magyar before 1526 than ever since, because the wars 1526-1711 (yes I know 1703-11 was at least partly our fault) mostly destroyed the Hungarian areas. The low point was in the late 18th century (when Hungary was perhaps a little over one third Magyar), and then it slowly increased to roughly 50% by 1910.

    Yours is a hodge podge description of many ethnic groups over a questionable time frame that doesn’t really describe much at all. Each ethnic group that you describe, Slovaks, Rusyns, Romanians, Serbs, Kuns, had a different history in this area and deserve a separate explanation. Your justification for Hungarian autochtone in the vast areas that you describe based on a few Hungarian names in a ‘Latin’document doesn’t even pinpoint what area you’re trying to claim? The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century. Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’. Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century.
     
    Maybe. Do you have a source of that? Hungarian rulers in the 10th and 11th centuries considered the area to be uninhabited forests. It's a pretty long shot to claim that the White Croats moved there in 450 and then stayed there all the way until 2019. Is three any source for the continuity? Do we know anything about their religion? How were their churches not noticed by the Magyars for two centuries, and not incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, like other eastern churches in the country?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not in itself very convincing. Ruthenians may or may not have lived there in the 10th century, but the area was ravaged by armies dozens of times between the 5th and 10th centuries, so we'd need some evidence for the White Croats staying there.

    Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’.
     
    Genetically the Magyar tribes are very different from the 11th century Hungarians (especially the elites), which points to large-scale intermarriage and possibly assimilation. Whatever happened, it's pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. Interestingly, some Rus people came with the Magyar tribes, and they founded some settlements all around the country. For example Oroszvár (literally "Russian Castle") near present day Bratislava.

    Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.
     
    No, they didn't. I just looked it up, the first time the expression comes up is in the 12th century by a biographer of Konrad, archbishop of Salzburg. The biography (written in Salzburg in the second half of the century) contains lots of inaccuracies (for example the monk who wrote it visited the city of Esztergom in Hungary once, the easternmost point he ever visited, and believed it to be Hungary's royal seat), and seems to have incorrectly believed that similar to Germany (which had the Ostmark or Eastern March on the border) Hungary must also have a March on its border. The Hungarian king was (at the time of his visit in Esztergom) with his armies in Halych (for some reason nearly all medieval Hungarian kings tried to claim the throne of Halych), and so he incorrectly inferred that it was Marchia Ruthenorum. In any event, even if it really existed (highly dubious given that no other source from the time mentions it), it could simply mean a March organized against the Ruthenians.

    However, it's obvious that by the 13th (and probably 12th) century there were already Ruthenians in Subcarpathia. It's possible that they had been there in small numbers all along.
  151. @Mr. Hack
    Yours is a hodge podge description of many ethnic groups over a questionable time frame that doesn't really describe much at all. Each ethnic group that you describe, Slovaks, Rusyns, Romanians, Serbs, Kuns, had a different history in this area and deserve a separate explanation. Your justification for Hungarian autochtone in the vast areas that you describe based on a few Hungarian names in a 'Latin'document doesn't even pinpoint what area you're trying to claim? The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century. Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin 'amongst Slavic tribes'. Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.

    The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century.

    Maybe. Do you have a source of that? Hungarian rulers in the 10th and 11th centuries considered the area to be uninhabited forests. It’s a pretty long shot to claim that the White Croats moved there in 450 and then stayed there all the way until 2019. Is three any source for the continuity? Do we know anything about their religion? How were their churches not noticed by the Magyars for two centuries, and not incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, like other eastern churches in the country?

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that it’s not in itself very convincing. Ruthenians may or may not have lived there in the 10th century, but the area was ravaged by armies dozens of times between the 5th and 10th centuries, so we’d need some evidence for the White Croats staying there.

    Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’.

    Genetically the Magyar tribes are very different from the 11th century Hungarians (especially the elites), which points to large-scale intermarriage and possibly assimilation. Whatever happened, it’s pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. Interestingly, some Rus people came with the Magyar tribes, and they founded some settlements all around the country. For example Oroszvár (literally “Russian Castle”) near present day Bratislava.

    Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.

    No, they didn’t. I just looked it up, the first time the expression comes up is in the 12th century by a biographer of Konrad, archbishop of Salzburg. The biography (written in Salzburg in the second half of the century) contains lots of inaccuracies (for example the monk who wrote it visited the city of Esztergom in Hungary once, the easternmost point he ever visited, and believed it to be Hungary’s royal seat), and seems to have incorrectly believed that similar to Germany (which had the Ostmark or Eastern March on the border) Hungary must also have a March on its border. The Hungarian king was (at the time of his visit in Esztergom) with his armies in Halych (for some reason nearly all medieval Hungarian kings tried to claim the throne of Halych), and so he incorrectly inferred that it was Marchia Ruthenorum. In any event, even if it really existed (highly dubious given that no other source from the time mentions it), it could simply mean a March organized against the Ruthenians.

    However, it’s obvious that by the 13th (and probably 12th) century there were already Ruthenians in Subcarpathia. It’s possible that they had been there in small numbers all along.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I have a very busy day at work to day, so I wont be able to respond any earlier than this evening. Also, some literature dealing with your questions are at home...
    , @AP
    Thank you for your informative and fascinating posts.

    Whatever happened, it’s pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin.
     
    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.
    , @Mr. Hack
    Paul Magocsi, a Harvard based historian has spent the majority of his career researching Ukrainian and Rusyn history and is considered an authority on the subject puts it this way:

    The ancestors of the Carpatho-Rusyns can be traced to Slavic peoples who began to appear in the valleys of the Carpathian Mountains in small numbers during the fifth and sixth centuries. Their presence is related to the question of the original homeland of the Slavs and the invasion into east-central Europe by nomadic peoples from central Asia. Today most scholars agree that the center of the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine. During the 440s, an Asiatic people known as the Huns crossed through the Slavic homeland and burst into east-central Europe, bringing with them Slavic peoples, some of whom settled in Carpathian Rus'. A century later, one of the tribes living in the original Slavic homeland known as White Croats had begun to settle in the valleys of the northern as well as southern slopes of Carpathian Rus'. In the course of the sixth and early seventh centuries, the White Croats built fortified towns to protect their own people as well as the surrounding countryside which still included some Slavic settlers who had settled there earlier during the Hunnic invasions. During the seventh century, many of the Slavic tribes began to move out in various directions from their original homeland. Whereas some White Croats remained behind in Carpathian Rus', most moved southward into the Balkan peninsula. Their descendants are the modern Croats.
     
    http://carpatho-rusyn.org/cra/chap3.html
  152. @reiner Tor

    The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century.
     
    Maybe. Do you have a source of that? Hungarian rulers in the 10th and 11th centuries considered the area to be uninhabited forests. It's a pretty long shot to claim that the White Croats moved there in 450 and then stayed there all the way until 2019. Is three any source for the continuity? Do we know anything about their religion? How were their churches not noticed by the Magyars for two centuries, and not incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, like other eastern churches in the country?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not in itself very convincing. Ruthenians may or may not have lived there in the 10th century, but the area was ravaged by armies dozens of times between the 5th and 10th centuries, so we'd need some evidence for the White Croats staying there.

    Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’.
     
    Genetically the Magyar tribes are very different from the 11th century Hungarians (especially the elites), which points to large-scale intermarriage and possibly assimilation. Whatever happened, it's pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. Interestingly, some Rus people came with the Magyar tribes, and they founded some settlements all around the country. For example Oroszvár (literally "Russian Castle") near present day Bratislava.

    Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.
     
    No, they didn't. I just looked it up, the first time the expression comes up is in the 12th century by a biographer of Konrad, archbishop of Salzburg. The biography (written in Salzburg in the second half of the century) contains lots of inaccuracies (for example the monk who wrote it visited the city of Esztergom in Hungary once, the easternmost point he ever visited, and believed it to be Hungary's royal seat), and seems to have incorrectly believed that similar to Germany (which had the Ostmark or Eastern March on the border) Hungary must also have a March on its border. The Hungarian king was (at the time of his visit in Esztergom) with his armies in Halych (for some reason nearly all medieval Hungarian kings tried to claim the throne of Halych), and so he incorrectly inferred that it was Marchia Ruthenorum. In any event, even if it really existed (highly dubious given that no other source from the time mentions it), it could simply mean a March organized against the Ruthenians.

    However, it's obvious that by the 13th (and probably 12th) century there were already Ruthenians in Subcarpathia. It's possible that they had been there in small numbers all along.

    I have a very busy day at work to day, so I wont be able to respond any earlier than this evening. Also, some literature dealing with your questions are at home…

  153. To be sure, I don’t find it impossible that people lived in the gyepű area. However, in very small numbers only. So, Hungary was ethnically more Hungarian at the time than in, say, the 19th century.

  154. @reiner Tor

    The early medieval Hungary was not a Magyar ethnic state, it was the usual feudal multi-ethnic melange of German-French aristocrats and royal families, multi-cultural nobility (pastoral Turkish groups were particularly well represented) and peasants of a dozen different nationalities.
     
    Where do you get this?

    First, most densely populated areas were roughly the areas which have been inhabited by an ethnically Hungarian population in 1910. The major exceptions are parts of Transylvania, on which later. Most of present day Slovakia, as well as Subcarpathia and large parts of Transylvania were all parts of the so-called gyepű area, which is an ancient Hungarian word for uninhabited border regions (no tax income from that area, no nobles were given to titles to these lands, etc.) This is one reason why Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.

    There are a few more reasons to think that.

    One is that already in the 11th century occasionally we find names of lowly servants in the sources. Those are invariably Magyar names.

    Second, the earliest (Latin language) sources often contain Hungarian words or sentences, never Slavic words or sentences - so the monks or scribes were likely ethnically Hungarian.

    Third, and this doesn't apply to Slovaks, the Christian churches around 1000 were predominantly Western Rite, but there were many Eastern Rite churches, too. However, after 1001 each of these were incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, and especially after 1054 - before that the difference was not that important - the eastern rite churches were slowly converted to Western Rite. Then around 1200 Eastern Christians started to appear in the sources slowly, the Vlachs or Olachs in the South Carpathian and later other Transylvanian mountains, and the Ruthenians. Then the Turkish Wars, especially in the 1660s destroyed much of the ethnically Hungarian population in the Transylvanian valleys, and after that the nobles invited Romanians to their estates. It is usually thought that Transylvania had a Hungarian ethnic majority well into the 17th century.

    Fourth, the Magyar graves in the early 10th century contain a predominantly Eastern European population (though sample sizes are still small) with the elite showing heavy signs of East Asian (Mongoloid) admixture (roughly one third Asian / two thirds European), however, by the 11th century the signs of Asian admixture basically disappear from the elite, and from that time the elites are European. The only Turkish presence are the Kuns, settled after the Mongol invasion by King Béla IV, but they were a relatively small population, in a limited part of the country, and they were not heavily elite, though their nobles were given Hungarian nobility. They are also more Hungarian ethnically.

    Anyway, the nobility and aristocracy undoubtedly spoke Hungarian throughout the Middle Ages, and they also had a Hungarian noble/aristocrat identity. In some parts of the country (mostly Slovakia, as far as I know) in the 19th century the nobles often spoke the local language at home (that was definitely untrue of Transylvania's Romanian areas), I don't know if that had been the case earlier. Also, the area currently in Serbia (the province Vojvodina) has been mostly inhabited by Serbs since the Early Modern period and possibly earlier (it's unclear how much the ethnic border moved to the north after the Ottoman Wars, when much of the area became fully uninhabited; anyway, the Serbs were given the area with privileges as Border Guards by the Habsburg kings; what's clear is that the northernmost part, including the city Szabadka or Subotica was ethnically Hungarian until at least 1944).

    In short, there are reasons to think that Hungary was more ethnically Magyar before 1526 than ever since, because the wars 1526-1711 (yes I know 1703-11 was at least partly our fault) mostly destroyed the Hungarian areas. The low point was in the late 18th century (when Hungary was perhaps a little over one third Magyar), and then it slowly increased to roughly 50% by 1910.

    …Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.

    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that, but it is not true. It is actually nonsense on its face, where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era – without any mention in the historical record? Unfortunately, what you describe is why we couldn’t live in the same country. We understand our common history differently.

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region, inhabited since Bronze age. Today it has around 2 million people, many cities, 2 archbishops since early Middle Ages, 40% of Slovakia. The area was the core area of the 8.-10. century Great Moravia state and has remained a core area since then. This is where Byzantine Christianity was introduced in the 9.th century with cyrillic alphabet – it is where Slav Eastern Orthodoxy was initially invented – with eastern Moravia that is now part of Czechia. The region has had a documented Slovak population since then: names in documents, place names, Latin city records, archaic Slovak language used since 15th century. This was also the core region for the Slovak national movement, the leaders came from there, 1848-9 uprising happened there, this is where formation of Czecho-Slovakia in 1918 was very popular. To claim that Slovaks came from ‘somewhere else later’ makes no sense, where would they come from? And when? How would they maintain the continuity? How come nobody noticed? And who lived there before?

    You are right that large parts of central Slovakia were uninhabited until 12.-13. century, it was a huge mountainous forest. These areas were settled in the late Middle Ages by mostly peasants from the south-west looking for more land and by German miners and others. Eastern Slovakia was different – it always had very strong Rusin population and Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city – at one point I believe it was the second largest city in Hungary. Even during WWII, Kosice was taken by Hungary to revert back to Slovakia in 1945.

    We distinguish between Magyars and Hungary – we have always called Hungary, ‘Uhorsko’ and it is a geographic name for the Carpathian basin that includes core Magyar lands, plus Transylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Burgenland, Vojvodina,… In that we differ and will never agree. When we study our history, ‘Uhorsko’ (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together. My point is that this was the core reason why there is this lingering tension between Magyars and Slovaks – we don’t see our common history in the same way.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era
     
    The whole Kingdom of Hungary had maybe a million inhabitants in the 11th century. What millions are you talking about?

    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that
     
    I just did a googling. Apparently not all Hungarian historians think that. Especially not about Slovaks, who are Catholics, so the arguments are way weaker. Ruthenians are a small population, so anything is possible. Romanians are thought to be later arrivals by basically all Hungarian historians, at least for most of Transylvania.

    Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city
     
    It was fluctuating. Slovaks and Magyars had a plurality in different times, the Magyar percentage growing in the 19th century (Hungarian plurality, but not majority, by 1910 I think), and there was probably no clear ethnic majority since the early Middle Ages. There were also Germans.
    , @reiner Tor

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region
     
    Yes, I forgot about it. I read about these issues several years ago, so yes, maybe they don't consider those regions uninhabited. It's difficult to tell where was the gyepű, so it's pretty much possible that those areas were not part of it.

    Let me explain why substantial parts of the country were considered uninhabited.

    Gyepű was a usual defense of nomadic peoples, they left the immediate border regions of their countries intentionally uninhabited, called gyepűelve, and tried to get expel people who happened to live there. Then the regions just behind it, the gyepű proper, were inhabited by tribes designated as border guards. That way, when an enemy army came, they had to move through first uninhabited regions with no population, patrolled by the border guards, then the lands of the border guard tribes themselves.

    Now, we cannot know which regions were those exactly, but there were surely some such regions. There are multiple non-Hungarian sources for their existence well into the 12th century.

    So back to the original point. You wrote that medieval Hungary was a mishmash of multiple ethnicities, for example a heavily Turkish (?) nobility. My point was that the area where Hungarians have lived until this very day was already populated by Hungarians, whereas some of the other areas were either uninhabited, or then inhabited by Hungarians. As a corollary, medieval Hungary was definitely less multicultural than Hungary in 1910. It was, by all accounts, predominantly ethnically Hungarian. Although, ethnically Hungarian was pretty different from the original conquering Magyars.

    When we study our history, ‘Uhorsko’ (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together.
     
    But it also gets lumped together in Hungarian. There was a historical state, whose laws had continuity (with a part disruption 1849-67), whose elites had continuity, and they were predominantly ethnically Magyars, and they called their country Magyarország (literally Magyar Country). Then it fell apart, and there was a small rump Hungary, which still called itself Magyarország, had the same set of laws, same official language (it had been changed from Latin to Hungarian in 1844 - there was continuity even according to the Slovaks at the time, it didn't suddenly become a different country that year either), same elite, etc., and now you call it something else. That's not a very good understanding of history.
  155. @Beckow

    ...Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.
     
    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that, but it is not true. It is actually nonsense on its face, where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era - without any mention in the historical record? Unfortunately, what you describe is why we couldn't live in the same country. We understand our common history differently.

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region, inhabited since Bronze age. Today it has around 2 million people, many cities, 2 archbishops since early Middle Ages, 40% of Slovakia. The area was the core area of the 8.-10. century Great Moravia state and has remained a core area since then. This is where Byzantine Christianity was introduced in the 9.th century with cyrillic alphabet - it is where Slav Eastern Orthodoxy was initially invented - with eastern Moravia that is now part of Czechia. The region has had a documented Slovak population since then: names in documents, place names, Latin city records, archaic Slovak language used since 15th century. This was also the core region for the Slovak national movement, the leaders came from there, 1848-9 uprising happened there, this is where formation of Czecho-Slovakia in 1918 was very popular. To claim that Slovaks came from 'somewhere else later' makes no sense, where would they come from? And when? How would they maintain the continuity? How come nobody noticed? And who lived there before?

    You are right that large parts of central Slovakia were uninhabited until 12.-13. century, it was a huge mountainous forest. These areas were settled in the late Middle Ages by mostly peasants from the south-west looking for more land and by German miners and others. Eastern Slovakia was different - it always had very strong Rusin population and Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city - at one point I believe it was the second largest city in Hungary. Even during WWII, Kosice was taken by Hungary to revert back to Slovakia in 1945.

    We distinguish between Magyars and Hungary - we have always called Hungary, 'Uhorsko' and it is a geographic name for the Carpathian basin that includes core Magyar lands, plus Transylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Burgenland, Vojvodina,... In that we differ and will never agree. When we study our history, 'Uhorsko' (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together. My point is that this was the core reason why there is this lingering tension between Magyars and Slovaks - we don't see our common history in the same way.

    where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era

    The whole Kingdom of Hungary had maybe a million inhabitants in the 11th century. What millions are you talking about?

    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that

    I just did a googling. Apparently not all Hungarian historians think that. Especially not about Slovaks, who are Catholics, so the arguments are way weaker. Ruthenians are a small population, so anything is possible. Romanians are thought to be later arrivals by basically all Hungarian historians, at least for most of Transylvania.

    Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city

    It was fluctuating. Slovaks and Magyars had a plurality in different times, the Magyar percentage growing in the 19th century (Hungarian plurality, but not majority, by 1910 I think), and there was probably no clear ethnic majority since the early Middle Ages. There were also Germans.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I don't know much about Transylvania. I think Ruthenia was more like Slovakia and had continuous Rusin population.

    I mentioned 'millions' because if you take the Hungarian historians' claims at face value it implies that a very large numbers of Slovaks, Romanians, Rusins moved in between 11. and 17. century. It wouldn't work without large numbers, maybe hundreds of thousands. My question was: from where?

    It is a key point of contention between us, the main reason for the occasional poor relations. It has been discussed since at least 18th century, maybe it is time to have a more rational narrative that we agree on.
  156. @AP

    …Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French

    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century
     
    As were the years 1800 and 1700. You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post. Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America's mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.

    All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom
     
    So now you admit that he brought about linguistic freedom. Good. Even you are teachable.

    within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together
     
    Empire held together until the loss of the World War, which also brought down the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs. I suppose in your world those events were also inevitable?

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes.
     
    There was still widespread serfdom even in Bohemia (and Slovenia):

    https://voxeu.org/article/labour-scarcity-and-labour-coercion-serfdom-bohemia

    …You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post.

    What? You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn’t happen ‘until mid-19th century‘, and then take it back by saying that you didn’t use the word ‘never‘, you frankly sound desperate.

    Words have meaning. Claiming that ‘only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century‘ is false. Even between 1700 and 1850 your ‘only peasants spoke…‘ is untrue: there was church, literature, merchants, documents, schools in Czech, Slovak and Hungarian, etc…It was less than before 1700 and less than after around 1830-40, but it was there. Your statement was incorrect. You have a false narrative of the whole Habsburg era in your mind that you can’t let go off.

    • Replies: @AP

    You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn’t happen ‘until mid-19th century‘, and then take it back by saying that you didn’t use the word ‘never‘, you frankly sound desperate.
     
    Your assumption that I implied that there were never, ever Czech-speakers in Prague is bizarre.
  157. @AP

    He was a Norseman (see above), the people were Slavs. They were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered if they rebelled…

    Why are you repeating the odious fabrication?

    How identify themselves immediate successors of Rurik (Oleg, Igor) and what language they spoke being debated.
     
    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.

    Meanwhile contemporary Arabs described the Volga as the slave highway because of all the Slavic slaves the Vikings had exported along it.

    But concerning Vladimir, both Russian and foreign scientists have full consent at the time of the reign of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty completely assimilated (by Slavs),

     

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Vladimir went to Scandinavia and gathered an army there, using it to seize power in Rus.

    Completely assimilated by Slavs Sviatoslav (son of two Scandinavians, Helga and Ingvar), Vladimir's father, was raised by a Scandinavian tutor Asmud.

    Etc.

    “Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been was quickly absorbed into the Russian population and Russian culture…..The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun the Slavic god of thunder, indicating that the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion of their Slavic surroundings”
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, p 56
     
    Same source, page 321-322:

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and "forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians."

    "General picture" was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    So absorbtion by Slavs occurred in the 11th century, after Vladimir.

    Using your absurd logic, you can write that

    ” Victoria was a German Queen (see above), who based on the German elite rules conquered British slaves. British were sold as slaves, forced to give up tribute, and mass slaughtered by they German masters…“
     
    Except that Victoria didn't go to Germany and come back to seize power with a German army. Using German troops, she did not slaughter an English town that resisted her, as Helga did the Drevlian capital. Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs by the British monarchs, as was done to Slavs by Rurikids.

    It is very funny to see that you are no better than Ukrainian svidomists with your mythology.

    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.

    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was “slavicised”), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians. If you want to argue – give a quote from a modern scientific article/monograph (not Wikipedia or Reddit!) which States that the native language of the Volodymyr – old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc. I gave you quotes from scientific works of Western historians where it is clearly stated that to the time of Vladimir, the Rurik family “slavicised”.

    Except that Victoria didn’t go to Germany

    Much worse , she despised her English slaves so much that she brought her husband from Germany.

    Using German troops,

    Victoria’s ancestors in the 18th century used German troops to suppress uprisings in great Britain

    Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs

    I don’t know about the Arabs, but the deal to buy 30,000 slaves-Englishmen for settle the Crimea failed only because of an accident.

    However here the early middle ages:
    The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews. Here, via the saône and the Rhone, they were transported in Narbonne or Arles, and then to Spain or to the East. Since the middle of the VIII century., despite the protests of the popes, one of the main suppliers of slaves was another important market, Venice and Prague. Thus, throughout Europe, men and women were grabbed and sold to Muslims and Christians of Byzantium. The Anglo-Saxons were brought to Venice via Lyon or sent straight to Spain. The Lombards were bought in the markets of southern Italy and resold in Egypt and Africa.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews.
     
    These are very well known historical facts that AP intentionally omits from his narrative. Why? He either doesn't know and should stay away from these topics. Or, more likely, he is a bitter guy looking to throw dirt at anything that he doesn't identify with.

    I am assuming his identity is a half Ruthenian-Galician has been 'blue blood', and half the usual mis-educated descendant of exiles in US suburbia surrounded by mestizos taking over. He dreams of the heroic past and makes up stories to make himself feel better.

    The petty arguments are very harmful: we will argue and argue and one day the mestizo-African-Papuans-Indians... will pull the plug on our (common) European civilization. We are dividing ourselves, and that's exactly how we got to this dangerous point.

    , @AP

    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was “slavicised”), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians.
     
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, pp. 321-322

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and “forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians.”

    “General picture” was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    which States that the native language of the Volodymyr – old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc.
     
    Multiple sources confirm that he, son of a Norseman, moved to Scandinavia and gathered an army of Scandinavians that he used to seize power.

    You think he didn't speak Norse?

    Sources state 2+2 and you complain if they don't say "4."
  158. @reiner Tor

    where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era
     
    The whole Kingdom of Hungary had maybe a million inhabitants in the 11th century. What millions are you talking about?

    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that
     
    I just did a googling. Apparently not all Hungarian historians think that. Especially not about Slovaks, who are Catholics, so the arguments are way weaker. Ruthenians are a small population, so anything is possible. Romanians are thought to be later arrivals by basically all Hungarian historians, at least for most of Transylvania.

    Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city
     
    It was fluctuating. Slovaks and Magyars had a plurality in different times, the Magyar percentage growing in the 19th century (Hungarian plurality, but not majority, by 1910 I think), and there was probably no clear ethnic majority since the early Middle Ages. There were also Germans.

    I don’t know much about Transylvania. I think Ruthenia was more like Slovakia and had continuous Rusin population.

    I mentioned ‘millions‘ because if you take the Hungarian historians’ claims at face value it implies that a very large numbers of Slovaks, Romanians, Rusins moved in between 11. and 17. century. It wouldn’t work without large numbers, maybe hundreds of thousands. My question was: from where?

    It is a key point of contention between us, the main reason for the occasional poor relations. It has been discussed since at least 18th century, maybe it is time to have a more rational narrative that we agree on.

  159. @reiner Tor
    What do you think would be the best outcome for Russia?

    A) Zelensky wins
    B) Poroshenko wins
    C) Poroshenko annuls the election and becomes dictator

    I guess C.

    I don’t understand why you think (C) is the best outcome for Russia. Or I guess I understand but disagree.

    Right now, the best plausible outcome for Russia would be Ukrainian regime easing up on its relentless, preposterous anti-Russian propaganda. Poroshenko won’t do it but Zelensky might.

    So I’ll go with (A).

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Zelensky might
     
    Zelensky would have to get support in Rada, the parliamentary election this fall is the big one.

    Strategically it is not in Russia's interest to make up with Ukraine now. It would cost them a lot, it would keep them from squeezing the energy markets (the pipelines are almost ready), it would postpone the inevitable confrontation. Zelensky could mess it up if he tries to be 'friends' with Russia.

    The reality is that Western and Russian interests in Ukraine are at this point not reconcilable. Too much has happened since 2013. It can stay as a stalemate or Ukraine could split up. Any premature reconciliation would lead to the next Maidan. It is in Kiev's interest to feign rapprochement with Russia, but it wouldn't be real. The sad thing is that Russia needs to sit back and let this play out - most likely watch Ukraine ride this all the way down. Then they will be ready for a compromise.

    Ukraine is not a sovereign subject either - they are a tool used by the Western sponsors, and Washington has no interest in solving this crisis, it would hurt them. All Russia can do is sit back and wait, and increase the costs for Kiev and Washington-Brussels. It is easier done with a moron like Porky in power. Or if there is internal chaos in Ukraine - like disputed elections. Zelensky is the worst option.
  160. @melanf

    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.
     
    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was "slavicised"), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians. If you want to argue - give a quote from a modern scientific article/monograph (not Wikipedia or Reddit!) which States that the native language of the Volodymyr - old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc. I gave you quotes from scientific works of Western historians where it is clearly stated that to the time of Vladimir, the Rurik family "slavicised".

    Except that Victoria didn’t go to Germany
     
    Much worse , she despised her English slaves so much that she brought her husband from Germany.

    Using German troops,
     
    Victoria's ancestors in the 18th century used German troops to suppress uprisings in great Britain

    Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs
     
    I don't know about the Arabs, but the deal to buy 30,000 slaves-Englishmen for settle the Crimea failed only because of an accident.

    However here the early middle ages:
    "The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews. Here, via the saône and the Rhone, they were transported in Narbonne or Arles, and then to Spain or to the East. Since the middle of the VIII century., despite the protests of the popes, one of the main suppliers of slaves was another important market, Venice and Prague. Thus, throughout Europe, men and women were grabbed and sold to Muslims and Christians of Byzantium. The Anglo-Saxons were brought to Venice via Lyon or sent straight to Spain. The Lombards were bought in the markets of southern Italy and resold in Egypt and Africa."

    …The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews.

    These are very well known historical facts that AP intentionally omits from his narrative. Why? He either doesn’t know and should stay away from these topics. Or, more likely, he is a bitter guy looking to throw dirt at anything that he doesn’t identify with.

    I am assuming his identity is a half Ruthenian-Galician has been ‘blue blood‘, and half the usual mis-educated descendant of exiles in US suburbia surrounded by mestizos taking over. He dreams of the heroic past and makes up stories to make himself feel better.

    The petty arguments are very harmful: we will argue and argue and one day the mestizo-African-Papuans-Indians… will pull the plug on our (common) European civilization. We are dividing ourselves, and that’s exactly how we got to this dangerous point.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    White people have a long history of harming each other. Romans fought “barbarians”, all of whom were white. Throughout Middle Ages there were incessant wars between petty dukedoms and kingdoms for petty reasons. Then there were WWI and WWII, where white people of different nations exterminated each other with gusto. Then in Europe there were mostly wars or semi-wars between close relatives: Serbs, Croats, and Bosnyaks with each other in the 1990s, now Ukrainians with Russians. One can say to the credit of white people that many provocations did not result in wars: Baltics and Poles relentlessly provoke Russia, but no shots were fired so far.

    But generally, you are right: while the white people provoke and fight each other, non-white people breed much faster than they are killed in wars between themselves or as the result of imperial bombing. But how do you explain to morons that white-on-white wars are the worst thing they can do to their civilization?
  161. @reiner Tor

    Hitler grew up in Vienna
     
    He grew up closer to Salzburg. He was closer to a Bavarian than a regular Austrian, his town was part of Bavaria until the late 18th century.

    I meant that Hitler came of age in Vienna – it was in Vienna that he formed as a young man before WWI and the Viennese milieu was quite unique at that time. He acquired most of his personality there: a rejected artist, frustrated nationalist in a multi-cultural city, unbounded anger,…

    As a boy he grew up mostly in Linz, Upper Austria, he never lived in Salzburg. You are right that Upper Austria is similar to Bavaria, and quite un-Viennese. Deeper family origins were in the Waldviertel district of Lower Austria, poor mountainous region on the Czech border. There were persistent stories that his family name – originally spelled mostly Hutler – was etymologically derived from the Czech word ‘huta‘ that means a wooden mountain cottage. Hitler’s male DNA was closest in Europe to Albanians – and originally from North Africa. He was a mutt.

  162. @Beckow

    ...The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews.
     
    These are very well known historical facts that AP intentionally omits from his narrative. Why? He either doesn't know and should stay away from these topics. Or, more likely, he is a bitter guy looking to throw dirt at anything that he doesn't identify with.

    I am assuming his identity is a half Ruthenian-Galician has been 'blue blood', and half the usual mis-educated descendant of exiles in US suburbia surrounded by mestizos taking over. He dreams of the heroic past and makes up stories to make himself feel better.

    The petty arguments are very harmful: we will argue and argue and one day the mestizo-African-Papuans-Indians... will pull the plug on our (common) European civilization. We are dividing ourselves, and that's exactly how we got to this dangerous point.

    White people have a long history of harming each other. Romans fought “barbarians”, all of whom were white. Throughout Middle Ages there were incessant wars between petty dukedoms and kingdoms for petty reasons. Then there were WWI and WWII, where white people of different nations exterminated each other with gusto. Then in Europe there were mostly wars or semi-wars between close relatives: Serbs, Croats, and Bosnyaks with each other in the 1990s, now Ukrainians with Russians. One can say to the credit of white people that many provocations did not result in wars: Baltics and Poles relentlessly provoke Russia, but no shots were fired so far.

    But generally, you are right: while the white people provoke and fight each other, non-white people breed much faster than they are killed in wars between themselves or as the result of imperial bombing. But how do you explain to morons that white-on-white wars are the worst thing they can do to their civilization?

  163. @inertial
    I don't understand why you think (C) is the best outcome for Russia. Or I guess I understand but disagree.

    Right now, the best plausible outcome for Russia would be Ukrainian regime easing up on its relentless, preposterous anti-Russian propaganda. Poroshenko won't do it but Zelensky might.

    So I'll go with (A).

    …Zelensky might

    Zelensky would have to get support in Rada, the parliamentary election this fall is the big one.

    Strategically it is not in Russia’s interest to make up with Ukraine now. It would cost them a lot, it would keep them from squeezing the energy markets (the pipelines are almost ready), it would postpone the inevitable confrontation. Zelensky could mess it up if he tries to be ‘friends‘ with Russia.

    The reality is that Western and Russian interests in Ukraine are at this point not reconcilable. Too much has happened since 2013. It can stay as a stalemate or Ukraine could split up. Any premature reconciliation would lead to the next Maidan. It is in Kiev’s interest to feign rapprochement with Russia, but it wouldn’t be real. The sad thing is that Russia needs to sit back and let this play out – most likely watch Ukraine ride this all the way down. Then they will be ready for a compromise.

    Ukraine is not a sovereign subject either – they are a tool used by the Western sponsors, and Washington has no interest in solving this crisis, it would hurt them. All Russia can do is sit back and wait, and increase the costs for Kiev and Washington-Brussels. It is easier done with a moron like Porky in power. Or if there is internal chaos in Ukraine – like disputed elections. Zelensky is the worst option.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    No danger of “rapprochement” with Russia under Zelensky. His master Kolomoysky organized the first Nazi battalions to fight against Donbass. He personally performed for those goons and told them how proud he is of them. Ukraine will drink its cup to the bitter end. Europe will ask Putin to bring some order to Ukraine only after Ukies create a new Chernobyl or an equivalent major catastrophe on one of the chemical plants.
    , @inertial
    Nah, I don't expect better Russian-Ukrainian government-to-government relations. For one thing, Zelensky will have to prove that he is not "pro-Russian." Besides, Kolomoisky will Kolomoisky and so will other oligarchs. This doesn't matter much. Nothing that Ukraine can do by itself can hurt Russia now.

    Relationship between the people is far more important in the long term. Even under the current regime, Ukrainians are slowly warming toward Russia. Absent crazy propaganda, this process will speed up.

    Will Zelensky ease up on propaganda? Hard to tell. If he and/or his handlers understand who his voters are they must understand on some level that anti-Russian hysteria helps his enemies.
  164. @AP

    …Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French

    Last time I checked, the 800 years from 850 to 1650 were before the mid-19th century
     
    As were the years 1800 and 1700. You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post. Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America's mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.

    All ethnic groups jumped on the new linguistic freedom
     
    So now you admit that he brought about linguistic freedom. Good. Even you are teachable.

    within a generation or two there was no unifying concept that could hold the Empire together
     
    Empire held together until the loss of the World War, which also brought down the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs. I suppose in your world those events were also inevitable?

    By Joseph II time serfdom was effectively dead replaced with cash economy, except in the eastern boondocks where Polish landlords lorded over Galician peasants. Joseph replaced unenforceable work requirements with cash taxes.
     
    There was still widespread serfdom even in Bohemia (and Slovenia):

    https://voxeu.org/article/labour-scarcity-and-labour-coercion-serfdom-bohemia

    Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America’s mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.

    I’d still like to see a source that Slovaks are, on average, dumber than US Hispanics. I find that hard to believe.

    • Replies: @AP

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/2015-pisa-mean-scores-in-perspective/
     
    White Americans 519
    Slovenia 509
    Germany 508
    France 496
    Russia 492

    Hispanic Americans 465
    Slovak Republic 463

    Bulgaria 440
    Black Americans 432
  165. @Beckow

    ...Zelensky might
     
    Zelensky would have to get support in Rada, the parliamentary election this fall is the big one.

    Strategically it is not in Russia's interest to make up with Ukraine now. It would cost them a lot, it would keep them from squeezing the energy markets (the pipelines are almost ready), it would postpone the inevitable confrontation. Zelensky could mess it up if he tries to be 'friends' with Russia.

    The reality is that Western and Russian interests in Ukraine are at this point not reconcilable. Too much has happened since 2013. It can stay as a stalemate or Ukraine could split up. Any premature reconciliation would lead to the next Maidan. It is in Kiev's interest to feign rapprochement with Russia, but it wouldn't be real. The sad thing is that Russia needs to sit back and let this play out - most likely watch Ukraine ride this all the way down. Then they will be ready for a compromise.

    Ukraine is not a sovereign subject either - they are a tool used by the Western sponsors, and Washington has no interest in solving this crisis, it would hurt them. All Russia can do is sit back and wait, and increase the costs for Kiev and Washington-Brussels. It is easier done with a moron like Porky in power. Or if there is internal chaos in Ukraine - like disputed elections. Zelensky is the worst option.

    No danger of “rapprochement” with Russia under Zelensky. His master Kolomoysky organized the first Nazi battalions to fight against Donbass. He personally performed for those goons and told them how proud he is of them. Ukraine will drink its cup to the bitter end. Europe will ask Putin to bring some order to Ukraine only after Ukies create a new Chernobyl or an equivalent major catastrophe on one of the chemical plants.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Maybe it wasn't really a 'Nazi battalion'? I mean it's no secret that Kolomoyski is a Jewish oligarch. If what you say is true (highly unlikely), why would a Jew finance and reward a 'Nazi battallion'? Sounds like one of your strange conspiracy theories that just doesn't add up?....
  166. @AnonFromTN
    No danger of “rapprochement” with Russia under Zelensky. His master Kolomoysky organized the first Nazi battalions to fight against Donbass. He personally performed for those goons and told them how proud he is of them. Ukraine will drink its cup to the bitter end. Europe will ask Putin to bring some order to Ukraine only after Ukies create a new Chernobyl or an equivalent major catastrophe on one of the chemical plants.

    Maybe it wasn’t really a ‘Nazi battalion’? I mean it’s no secret that Kolomoyski is a Jewish oligarch. If what you say is true (highly unlikely), why would a Jew finance and reward a ‘Nazi battallion’? Sounds like one of your strange conspiracy theories that just doesn’t add up?….

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Kolomoysky organized the first (Nazi) battalions to fight against Donbass
     
    Ok, so they were not 'Nazis', whatever that terms means today to different people. To apply historical labels to today's political groups doesn't work well. There are really no Nazis, Jacobins, feudal lords, Bolsheviks, etc... today. It is 2019.

    The fact remains that Kolomoisky organized anti-Russian batalions in Donbass. Before Zelinsky, Kolomisky was a sponsor for Tymoshenko who in 2014 wanted to 'nuke Russia' (and that's a quote from her).

    I struggle to see how Zelinsky's (or Kolomoisky's) rapprochement with Russia would work. Would he say 'never mind, let's discuss trade'? Why would Russia agree? What does Kiev have to offer? They can't win the war, there is nothing beneficial for Russia in more trade with them, they will never give in diplomatically on Crimea - so what would Zelinsky offer?

    Zelinsky would most likely try threats: if Russia doesn't agree, Ukraine will 'join NATO', put missiles on Russia's border, bombard Donbas day and night. Threatening the stronger party is always a bad idea. Kiev has no cards to play, it is about 4 years too late. At least with Porky the situation would get frozen for a few years and who knows, maybe a meteor will hit Moscow... with Zelinsky the harsh reality would be too painful.

    , @AnonFromTN
    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.
  167. @Mr. Hack
    Maybe it wasn't really a 'Nazi battalion'? I mean it's no secret that Kolomoyski is a Jewish oligarch. If what you say is true (highly unlikely), why would a Jew finance and reward a 'Nazi battallion'? Sounds like one of your strange conspiracy theories that just doesn't add up?....

    …Kolomoysky organized the first (Nazi) battalions to fight against Donbass

    Ok, so they were not ‘Nazis‘, whatever that terms means today to different people. To apply historical labels to today’s political groups doesn’t work well. There are really no Nazis, Jacobins, feudal lords, Bolsheviks, etc… today. It is 2019.

    The fact remains that Kolomoisky organized anti-Russian batalions in Donbass. Before Zelinsky, Kolomisky was a sponsor for Tymoshenko who in 2014 wanted to ‘nuke Russia‘ (and that’s a quote from her).

    I struggle to see how Zelinsky’s (or Kolomoisky’s) rapprochement with Russia would work. Would he say ‘never mind, let’s discuss trade’? Why would Russia agree? What does Kiev have to offer? They can’t win the war, there is nothing beneficial for Russia in more trade with them, they will never give in diplomatically on Crimea – so what would Zelinsky offer?

    Zelinsky would most likely try threats: if Russia doesn’t agree, Ukraine will ‘join NATO’, put missiles on Russia’s border, bombard Donbas day and night. Threatening the stronger party is always a bad idea. Kiev has no cards to play, it is about 4 years too late. At least with Porky the situation would get frozen for a few years and who knows, maybe a meteor will hit Moscow… with Zelinsky the harsh reality would be too painful.

  168. @Mr. Hack
    Maybe it wasn't really a 'Nazi battalion'? I mean it's no secret that Kolomoyski is a Jewish oligarch. If what you say is true (highly unlikely), why would a Jew finance and reward a 'Nazi battallion'? Sounds like one of your strange conspiracy theories that just doesn't add up?....

    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.

    • Replies: @AP

    They were (and are) Nazi battalions
     
    Kolomoysky sponsored Right Sector which is not a Nazi battalion, unless you think that Mussolini or Franco were Nazis.

    But to victims of Russian propaganda all far right militants in Ukraine are "Nazis." (but similar ones in western countries who are friendly towards Russia somehow are not).
    , @Mikhail

    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.
     
    Looks like Kolo is trying to cover all angles. He's at odds with Poroshenko, while sensing that Zelensky is easier to manage than Tymoshenko. Perhaps Kolo's business interests necessitate a desire to get 0n better with Russia. At the same time, he feels a need to cover a certain flank, which explains his funding of some Ukrainian nationalist elements.
    , @Dmitry
    I don't think Zelensky is controlled by Kolomoisky, except as employee for his channel, who was then promoted by Kolomoisky opportunistically.

    Rather Kolomoisky has an obvious motivation to support Zelensky, which is to displace Poroshenko.

    But Kolomoisky will probably never be able to regain PrivatBank after its nationalization. So he will continue to be a problem to Kiev, even if the next president is friendly to him, and has a debt to him.

    Kolomoisky just seems lucky he is not in prison, or at least exiled without his assets. He seems a thousand times stupider than Akhmetov, but somehow he is still not in prison, and has not been successfully poisoned yet with any exotic chemicals.

  169. Just when I thought this freakshow couldn’t get any worse………….this Nazi state of Ukraine with jewish PM and a jewish President working to keep control against a jewish comedian funded by a ultra-vermin cockraoch Nazi-stereotype of a jew, slug – Jewish oligarch Kolomoisky….hires black PR consultant , Israeli, Moshe Klugkhafta to destroy his opposition and lead him into the second round!

    (not anti-semitic – but pointing out the irony, contradictions and stupidity of it), jews are great for the world…..just not these filth

    Probably the worst/more embarrassing one is hireing the American Nazi hippy, Banderatard bitch Suprun, with the CIA brother and millions in corrupt money………becoming the Health Minister in s state she hasn’t lived in……..f**king it up in spectactular style…and being the worst rated official in the country

  170. @reiner Tor
    I'm even unsure about the "most cities" part. Further examples of ethnically mostly Hungarian cities in the 18th century: Pécs, Miskolc, Szeged, I'm not sure about Győr, which was among the oldest cities built from stone, and never conquered by the Turks. (Unlike Székesfehérvár or Buda or Pest, which were, as a result, basically 100% German in the 18th and early 19th centuries, settling in the nearly uninhabited cities after the 1680s.)

    Many cities were mixed, like Kassa (present day Košice), where the population was Hungarian, Slovak and German. Even German speaking cities like Buda had some Hungarian inhabitants.

    EDIT:

    Maybe Pécs was also rather mixed with Croats and Germans.

    Most of the urban ethnic Hungarians were German-speaking, though, at least int he cities such as Pest.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Pest and Buda were certainly German cities (already before the Ottoman occupation), as was Székesfehérvár (before the Ottomans it had been mostly Hungarian, I think), many cities in present day Slovakia (or at least mixed with a heavy German presence) or Transylvania (though some areas there were entirely German).
  171. @reiner Tor

    The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century.
     
    Maybe. Do you have a source of that? Hungarian rulers in the 10th and 11th centuries considered the area to be uninhabited forests. It's a pretty long shot to claim that the White Croats moved there in 450 and then stayed there all the way until 2019. Is three any source for the continuity? Do we know anything about their religion? How were their churches not noticed by the Magyars for two centuries, and not incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, like other eastern churches in the country?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not in itself very convincing. Ruthenians may or may not have lived there in the 10th century, but the area was ravaged by armies dozens of times between the 5th and 10th centuries, so we'd need some evidence for the White Croats staying there.

    Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’.
     
    Genetically the Magyar tribes are very different from the 11th century Hungarians (especially the elites), which points to large-scale intermarriage and possibly assimilation. Whatever happened, it's pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. Interestingly, some Rus people came with the Magyar tribes, and they founded some settlements all around the country. For example Oroszvár (literally "Russian Castle") near present day Bratislava.

    Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.
     
    No, they didn't. I just looked it up, the first time the expression comes up is in the 12th century by a biographer of Konrad, archbishop of Salzburg. The biography (written in Salzburg in the second half of the century) contains lots of inaccuracies (for example the monk who wrote it visited the city of Esztergom in Hungary once, the easternmost point he ever visited, and believed it to be Hungary's royal seat), and seems to have incorrectly believed that similar to Germany (which had the Ostmark or Eastern March on the border) Hungary must also have a March on its border. The Hungarian king was (at the time of his visit in Esztergom) with his armies in Halych (for some reason nearly all medieval Hungarian kings tried to claim the throne of Halych), and so he incorrectly inferred that it was Marchia Ruthenorum. In any event, even if it really existed (highly dubious given that no other source from the time mentions it), it could simply mean a March organized against the Ruthenians.

    However, it's obvious that by the 13th (and probably 12th) century there were already Ruthenians in Subcarpathia. It's possible that they had been there in small numbers all along.

    Thank you for your informative and fascinating posts.

    Whatever happened, it’s pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin.

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.
     
    Does that include Slovenes and northern Croatians?

    Also, aren't Volga Tatars largely Slavic by ancestry as well?
    , @Mikhail

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.
     
    Try proving this put mildly suspect claim.
  172. AP says:
    @Beckow

    ...You might review the word never and find that I did not use it in my post.
     
    What? You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn't happen 'until mid-19th century', and then take it back by saying that you didn't use the word 'never', you frankly sound desperate.

    Words have meaning. Claiming that 'only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century' is false. Even between 1700 and 1850 your 'only peasants spoke...' is untrue: there was church, literature, merchants, documents, schools in Czech, Slovak and Hungarian, etc...It was less than before 1700 and less than after around 1830-40, but it was there. Your statement was incorrect. You have a false narrative of the whole Habsburg era in your mind that you can't let go off.

    You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn’t happen ‘until mid-19th century‘, and then take it back by saying that you didn’t use the word ‘never‘, you frankly sound desperate.

    Your assumption that I implied that there were never, ever Czech-speakers in Prague is bizarre.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    Your words:

    only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century
     
    I am not sure why you narrow it to just Prague, but in any case, peasants generally don’t dwell in cities. No assumption, I quoted what you wrote and it was wrong.
  173. AP says:
    @melanf

    Yes, by Ukrainian and Russian nationalist mythmakers on the one hand, and normal people on the other hand.
     
    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was "slavicised"), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians. If you want to argue - give a quote from a modern scientific article/monograph (not Wikipedia or Reddit!) which States that the native language of the Volodymyr - old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc. I gave you quotes from scientific works of Western historians where it is clearly stated that to the time of Vladimir, the Rurik family "slavicised".

    Except that Victoria didn’t go to Germany
     
    Much worse , she despised her English slaves so much that she brought her husband from Germany.

    Using German troops,
     
    Victoria's ancestors in the 18th century used German troops to suppress uprisings in great Britain

    Nor were Englishmen being sold as slaves to the Arabs
     
    I don't know about the Arabs, but the deal to buy 30,000 slaves-Englishmen for settle the Crimea failed only because of an accident.

    However here the early middle ages:
    "The largest Western European slave market was in Verdun, a famous center of castration, which was mostly produced by Jews. Here, via the saône and the Rhone, they were transported in Narbonne or Arles, and then to Spain or to the East. Since the middle of the VIII century., despite the protests of the popes, one of the main suppliers of slaves was another important market, Venice and Prague. Thus, throughout Europe, men and women were grabbed and sold to Muslims and Christians of Byzantium. The Anglo-Saxons were brought to Venice via Lyon or sent straight to Spain. The Lombards were bought in the markets of southern Italy and resold in Egypt and Africa."

    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was “slavicised”), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians.

    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, pp. 321-322

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and “forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians.”

    “General picture” was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    which States that the native language of the Volodymyr – old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc.

    Multiple sources confirm that he, son of a Norseman, moved to Scandinavia and gathered an army of Scandinavians that he used to seize power.

    You think he didn’t speak Norse?

    Sources state 2+2 and you complain if they don’t say “4.”

    • Replies: @Epigon
    I can quote historical books that claim Lugii, Marcomanii, Vandals, Goths, Gepides, Heruli are all East Germanic people.

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
    Something obviously doesn’t add up - let alone the bizzare idea that entire nations numbering tens/hundreds of thousands of people could migrate and survive for years - do the logistical calculation, daily consumption of food, fodder, water.

    Moreover, not so long ago, the mainstream narrative was that civilization came to Europe from Middle East/Mesopotamia.

    But then you raise the issue of Danube and Kurgan area archeological finds, metallurgy, urbanisation evidenced 5000 to 4000 BC.

    In case you haven’t noticed - most distant history books are fantasy - creative or outright biased interpretations relying on scarce or no primary sources at all, often negating common sense. Similarly, books dealing with significant and recent events are politically and ideologically charged - Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book - but it got him a state award and lots of money in Germany. If I asked you on which primary source did that German base his writings on Vladimir, your answer would be? Moreover, Mr.Hack’s writing on White Croats from 450 AD is based on what exactly?

    , @melanf


    give a quote from a modern scientific article/monograph (not Wikipedia or Reddit!) which States that the native language of the Volodymyr – old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc. I gave you quotes from scientific works of Western historians where it is clearly stated that to the time of Vladimir, the Rurik family “slavicised”.
     
    Multiple sources confirm that he, son of a Norseman blah blah blah
     
    That is, you can not give the required quote (from any scientific work), but only 101 times repeat to us your fantasies. Well, imaginary worlds is a good thing. But you could make your stories more entertaining. Something like:

    https://hsto.org/files/847/7f7/cf4/8477f7cf4c1c43329af740a6dc7803ae.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/be/87/15/be8715af26e532140d526732b73f5c28.jpg

    https://c.radikal.ru/c04/1904/57/c8d2538fed33.png

    https://u.kanobu.ru/longreads/2018/4/18/b42b1180-e89f-4de5-b043-529b0e6c1a47.jpeg

    http://img1.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/full/Tales-Of-Old-Rus%27-Roman-Papsuev-%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-3663417.jpeg

    https://kino.tricolor.tv/upload/iblock/db4/skazki.jpg

  174. @AP

    You are grasping for straws, when you say that something didn’t happen ‘until mid-19th century‘, and then take it back by saying that you didn’t use the word ‘never‘, you frankly sound desperate.
     
    Your assumption that I implied that there were never, ever Czech-speakers in Prague is bizarre.

    Your words:

    only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century

    I am not sure why you narrow it to just Prague, but in any case, peasants generally don’t dwell in cities. No assumption, I quoted what you wrote and it was wrong.

    • Replies: @AP
    My actual words -

    “Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”

    No implication that this was true for all eternity. Do you think that I meant that in the 10th century Bohemian nobles spoke the French language? Will you argue that I meant this?

    So under the Hapsburgs the modern Czech language was created, it became the main urban language, and Czechs attained basically full literacy in it. So mu“Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”ersecutin.

    Applying the principle that you accuse others of what you yourself do, it becomes clear that you are trying to deflect from your exposed ignorance regarding Joseph II whom you compared to Hitler and whom you accused of Germanizing Bohemia when the opposite was true - he strongly promoted the local Slavic speech.
  175. @Mr. XYZ

    Of course, your country did more poorly on standardized test than did America’s mestizos so reading comprehension and basic logic may be difficult for you.
     
    I'd still like to see a source that Slovaks are, on average, dumber than US Hispanics. I find that hard to believe.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/2015-pisa-mean-scores-in-perspective/

    White Americans 519
    Slovenia 509
    Germany 508
    France 496
    Russia 492

    Hispanic Americans 465
    Slovak Republic 463

    Bulgaria 440
    Black Americans 432

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Thank you very much!

    Anyway, it's very interesting that White Americans very slightly outperform Asian Americans. I guess that this confirms La Griffe du Lion's theory about the Asian population in the US being bimodal in regards to IQ--with one half having an average IQ comparable perhaps to US Ashkenazi Jews while the other half has an average IQ comparable to US Hispanics.

    Also, I will admit that I was wrong and that you were right here. Still, I do wonder if Ukraine is going to perform better than Slovakia on this year's PISA exam. My guess would be that the two of them are going to perform very close to each other and that if Ukraine will beat out Slovakia, it will do so by a dozen or less points on the PISA exam. Ditto for Slovakia if it will beat out Ukraine on this year's PISA exam.

  176. AP says:
    @Beckow
    Your words:

    only peasants spoke Czech or Hungarian until mid-19th century
     
    I am not sure why you narrow it to just Prague, but in any case, peasants generally don’t dwell in cities. No assumption, I quoted what you wrote and it was wrong.

    My actual words –

    “Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”

    No implication that this was true for all eternity. Do you think that I meant that in the 10th century Bohemian nobles spoke the French language? Will you argue that I meant this?

    So under the Hapsburgs the modern Czech language was created, it became the main urban language, and Czechs attained basically full literacy in it. So mu“Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”ersecutin.

    Applying the principle that you accuse others of what you yourself do, it becomes clear that you are trying to deflect from your exposed ignorance regarding Joseph II whom you compared to Hitler and whom you accused of Germanizing Bohemia when the opposite was true – he strongly promoted the local Slavic speech.

    • Replies: @AP
    Something happened with cut and paste on my comment...ignore the second-to-last paragraph.
  177. AP says:
    @AnonFromTN
    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.

    They were (and are) Nazi battalions

    Kolomoysky sponsored Right Sector which is not a Nazi battalion, unless you think that Mussolini or Franco were Nazis.

    But to victims of Russian propaganda all far right militants in Ukraine are “Nazis.” (but similar ones in western countries who are friendly towards Russia somehow are not).

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Quintessence of Nazism is “my tribe is the best”. Logical corollary is “all other tribes are enemies”. By both of these criteria the Right sector, as well as battalions like Azov, Aidar, Donbass, Dnipro, and their ilk are Nazis (although only Azov openly uses Nazi symbol). The ideology of none of the presumably friendly to Russia Alt-right parties in Europe includes “my tribe is the best”.

    Also, if you have a good explanation why “Deutschland über alles” is Nazi, while “Ukraine above all” (Україна понад усе) is not, I promise to send you $100.
  178. @AP
    My actual words -

    “Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”

    No implication that this was true for all eternity. Do you think that I meant that in the 10th century Bohemian nobles spoke the French language? Will you argue that I meant this?

    So under the Hapsburgs the modern Czech language was created, it became the main urban language, and Czechs attained basically full literacy in it. So mu“Until the mid 19th century in Bohemia, only peasants spoke Slavic – city-dwellers spoke German and nobles spoke French and looked down upon both the German and Czech languages”ersecutin.

    Applying the principle that you accuse others of what you yourself do, it becomes clear that you are trying to deflect from your exposed ignorance regarding Joseph II whom you compared to Hitler and whom you accused of Germanizing Bohemia when the opposite was true - he strongly promoted the local Slavic speech.

    Something happened with cut and paste on my comment…ignore the second-to-last paragraph.

  179. @AP

    They were (and are) Nazi battalions
     
    Kolomoysky sponsored Right Sector which is not a Nazi battalion, unless you think that Mussolini or Franco were Nazis.

    But to victims of Russian propaganda all far right militants in Ukraine are "Nazis." (but similar ones in western countries who are friendly towards Russia somehow are not).

    Quintessence of Nazism is “my tribe is the best”. Logical corollary is “all other tribes are enemies”. By both of these criteria the Right sector, as well as battalions like Azov, Aidar, Donbass, Dnipro, and their ilk are Nazis (although only Azov openly uses Nazi symbol). The ideology of none of the presumably friendly to Russia Alt-right parties in Europe includes “my tribe is the best”.

    Also, if you have a good explanation why “Deutschland über alles” is Nazi, while “Ukraine above all” (Україна понад усе) is not, I promise to send you $100.

    • Replies: @AP

    Quintessence of Nazism is “my tribe is the best”.
     
    It is essentially "Germanics are best." It is modeled, ironically, on interpretations of Judaism albeit mixed with 19th and early 20th century biology, with Germanics playing the role of Jews. Yet one would not call hardcore Zionists, or ancient Israelites, "Nazis."

    By both of these criteria the Right sector,
     
    Right Sector are state-based nationalists that welcome Jews or other non-tribal members who support the nationalist state. Recall that Mussolini had openly Jewish generals. If Right Sector are Nazis than Mussolini was a Nazi.

    The ideology of none of the presumably friendly to Russia Alt-right parties in Europe includes “my tribe is the best”.
     
    France's National Front is not different from Right Sector from this perspective.

    “Deutschland über alles” is Nazi
     
    Written in 1841. So in your imagination there were Nazis in 1841?
  180. @AP
    Thank you for your informative and fascinating posts.

    Whatever happened, it’s pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin.
     
    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.

    Does that include Slovenes and northern Croatians?

    Also, aren’t Volga Tatars largely Slavic by ancestry as well?

  181. @AP

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/2015-pisa-mean-scores-in-perspective/
     
    White Americans 519
    Slovenia 509
    Germany 508
    France 496
    Russia 492

    Hispanic Americans 465
    Slovak Republic 463

    Bulgaria 440
    Black Americans 432

    Thank you very much!

    Anyway, it’s very interesting that White Americans very slightly outperform Asian Americans. I guess that this confirms La Griffe du Lion’s theory about the Asian population in the US being bimodal in regards to IQ–with one half having an average IQ comparable perhaps to US Ashkenazi Jews while the other half has an average IQ comparable to US Hispanics.

    Also, I will admit that I was wrong and that you were right here. Still, I do wonder if Ukraine is going to perform better than Slovakia on this year’s PISA exam. My guess would be that the two of them are going to perform very close to each other and that if Ukraine will beat out Slovakia, it will do so by a dozen or less points on the PISA exam. Ditto for Slovakia if it will beat out Ukraine on this year’s PISA exam.

  182. @reiner Tor

    The Slavic tribe of White Croats were already settled in the areas of Subcarpathian Rus as early as the mid 5th century.
     
    Maybe. Do you have a source of that? Hungarian rulers in the 10th and 11th centuries considered the area to be uninhabited forests. It's a pretty long shot to claim that the White Croats moved there in 450 and then stayed there all the way until 2019. Is three any source for the continuity? Do we know anything about their religion? How were their churches not noticed by the Magyars for two centuries, and not incorporated into the Hungarian Catholic Church, like other eastern churches in the country?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not in itself very convincing. Ruthenians may or may not have lived there in the 10th century, but the area was ravaged by armies dozens of times between the 5th and 10th centuries, so we'd need some evidence for the White Croats staying there.

    Hungarian tribes passed through this area in 896 from the east and then settled in the Panonian basin ‘amongst Slavic tribes’.
     
    Genetically the Magyar tribes are very different from the 11th century Hungarians (especially the elites), which points to large-scale intermarriage and possibly assimilation. Whatever happened, it's pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. Interestingly, some Rus people came with the Magyar tribes, and they founded some settlements all around the country. For example Oroszvár (literally "Russian Castle") near present day Bratislava.

    Even Hungarian sources always referred to these areas in legal documents as the Marchia Ruthenorum.
     
    No, they didn't. I just looked it up, the first time the expression comes up is in the 12th century by a biographer of Konrad, archbishop of Salzburg. The biography (written in Salzburg in the second half of the century) contains lots of inaccuracies (for example the monk who wrote it visited the city of Esztergom in Hungary once, the easternmost point he ever visited, and believed it to be Hungary's royal seat), and seems to have incorrectly believed that similar to Germany (which had the Ostmark or Eastern March on the border) Hungary must also have a March on its border. The Hungarian king was (at the time of his visit in Esztergom) with his armies in Halych (for some reason nearly all medieval Hungarian kings tried to claim the throne of Halych), and so he incorrectly inferred that it was Marchia Ruthenorum. In any event, even if it really existed (highly dubious given that no other source from the time mentions it), it could simply mean a March organized against the Ruthenians.

    However, it's obvious that by the 13th (and probably 12th) century there were already Ruthenians in Subcarpathia. It's possible that they had been there in small numbers all along.

    Paul Magocsi, a Harvard based historian has spent the majority of his career researching Ukrainian and Rusyn history and is considered an authority on the subject puts it this way:

    The ancestors of the Carpatho-Rusyns can be traced to Slavic peoples who began to appear in the valleys of the Carpathian Mountains in small numbers during the fifth and sixth centuries. Their presence is related to the question of the original homeland of the Slavs and the invasion into east-central Europe by nomadic peoples from central Asia. Today most scholars agree that the center of the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine. During the 440s, an Asiatic people known as the Huns crossed through the Slavic homeland and burst into east-central Europe, bringing with them Slavic peoples, some of whom settled in Carpathian Rus’. A century later, one of the tribes living in the original Slavic homeland known as White Croats had begun to settle in the valleys of the northern as well as southern slopes of Carpathian Rus’. In the course of the sixth and early seventh centuries, the White Croats built fortified towns to protect their own people as well as the surrounding countryside which still included some Slavic settlers who had settled there earlier during the Hunnic invasions. During the seventh century, many of the Slavic tribes began to move out in various directions from their original homeland. Whereas some White Croats remained behind in Carpathian Rus’, most moved southward into the Balkan peninsula. Their descendants are the modern Croats.

    http://carpatho-rusyn.org/cra/chap3.html

    • Replies: @Epigon
    This expert has exactly 0 primary sources and archaelogical finds to back his writing.

    He is a fantasy writer and his authority is arbitrary. The only sources for early history of Slavic peoples are the contemporary Frankish, Italian and Byzantine writings.

    Likewise, a lot can be concluded when Byzantines equating Triballi and Serbs, Franks equate Sorabos of Elbe and Balkans, while Medieval and early Modern period writers equate Vandals, Wends and Venedi. Look up Dalimil’s Chronicle of later ages - the origin of Czechs.

    , @Beckow

    scholars agree that the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine.
     
    This theory originate in the 19th century - mostly among Czech historians in Prague (Palacky, Niederle), and others picked it up. It was an attempt to find an acceptable explanation for the very large number of Slavs in the region without offending German sensibilities too much. Germans really insisted on 'this was our home' - and from Joseph II to Hitler they were rather pushy about it. It is jokingly referred to as the 'Pinsk marshes theory - millions of Slav speaking people suddenly emerged out of the remote marshes deep in eastern Europe and somehow within 200 years took over around 40% of Europe. And, mind you, without any historical record describing it. Incredible and very sneaky (maybe Brennan genetic theories are on to something :).

    Nothing in historical documents describes this. What documents say is exactly the opposite: the Primary Chronicle specifically says that Slav tribes originate and spread from the Carpathian basin (it says from 'Danube'). Medieval Polish, Czech, Frankish, papal and Byzantine documents all say that Slavs were originally living in the broader Carpathian regions and were known by different names at different times. They moved down south to the Balkans starting in the 5th century, but the original 'homeland' was clearly much larger and more longer lasting - not just the east Poland-western Ukraine, but at least the northern half of the Carpathian basin and today's Poland and E Germany.

    There are also linguistic, geographic and DNA reasons why the original homeland was larger and further to the south and west: local rivers and mountains have Slavic names, old tales of 'bogatyrs' have them live in rocky mountains and killing 'dragons' in caves. Slavs were farmers and farming spread from the Carpathian basin towards north-east and not vice-versa.

    As we get more DNA data, the more autochthonous explanation looks more likely - the ancient DNA shows continuity with today's population in the Carpathian basin. There were movements by some tribes, but the German-centric explanations don't look right. They exist to please a certain kind of 'dungeons and dragons' people who like to live their mounted knights fantasies and would like the damn Slavs to know their place.

  183. @AP
    Thank you for your informative and fascinating posts.

    Whatever happened, it’s pretty clear that the Magyar tribes absorbed the majority of the Slavs in the Carpathian Basin.
     
    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.

    Try proving this put mildly suspect claim.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Balkan Slavs have complex ethnogenesis made even more difficult to decipher due to huge migrations caused by Ottoman conquests and population exchanges between Ottoman, Habsburg and Venetian ruled areas - Christians from Ottoman lands would be invited by Christians, Muslims would get cleansed from liberated areas, Croats fled to San Marino, Burgenland, Slovakia initially (look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary) etc. etc.

    A very significant paleo-Balkan/“Illyrian”/Thracian component is present, outweighing “Slavic” (even though strictly speaking, there is no such thing) in many areas of Balkan peninsula.

    , @AP
    Someone doesn't believe in DNA.
  184. @AnonFromTN
    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.

    Circumstances make strange bedfellows. They were (and are) Nazi battalions, and at least two of them were financed by a Jew Kolomoysky. Truth be told, he is a profiteer without scruples first, and a Jew second. Like Soros, he’d sell his co-religionists any time there is profit in it. His main grievance with current Kiev regime is not that it’s Nazi, but that Porky did not give him enough chances to steal. Not because Porky is honest, but because Porky prefers stealing it himself.

    Looks like Kolo is trying to cover all angles. He’s at odds with Poroshenko, while sensing that Zelensky is easier to manage than Tymoshenko. Perhaps Kolo’s business interests necessitate a desire to get 0n better with Russia. At the same time, he feels a need to cover a certain flank, which explains his funding of some Ukrainian nationalist elements.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    I wouldn’t trust Kolomoysky any more than Porky. Both are scum ready to commit any crime for profit.
  185. LH says:
    @reiner Tor

    Habsburgs were also crowned as Czech kings in Prague, would that make Czechs ‘independent‘?
     
    No one talked about independence, but Hungary was clearly a separate country. The Kingdom of Bohemia (including the lands of the Bohemian Crown Moravia and Silesia) was pretty much a separate country until roughly 1620, when it was thoroughly defeated (never to rebel again until 1918) and incorporated into the lands of the Austrian provinces. Especially after 1806 it was just a bunch of provinces of the Austrian Empire.

    While Hungary kept being a separate country until 1848. Then in 1867 it became a somewhat separate country, although not fully separate. For example many parts of the Compromise with Austria had to be renewed at certain periods, so at least theoretically it was still a separate country and Austria-Hungary was just a temporary measure. (Albeit it was possible to renew it, and they did it whenever the issue came up.)

    They could run their own schools, they insisted on a Magyar monoculture, and that – more than anything else – destroyed the Habsburg Empire.
     
    The Habsburg Empire was inherently unstable anyway. Local national elites wanted their own countries, it was inevitable. In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German. I remember a few months (a year?) ago you wrote that Czechs were heroically fighting for the survival of their language... far from it, they actually had all the advantages in Czechia. Yet they it didn't stop them from wanting their own country.

    Most people in Zakarpathia were probably by far happiest as part of a much more advanced and richer Czechoslovakia. Some preferred Hungary
     
    The Ruthenians received autonomy in Hungary 1939-44, a reason why for some Hungary was preferable to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was also only rich because of Czechia, Slovakia was dirt poor even relative to Hungary, so I don't think that played a role.

    However, I assert that the majority of Subcarpathia wants to be in Ukraine.

    In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German.

    Since 1880 civil servants were required to answer in the language of request. Internal communication was still in German. Attempt to make Czech language equal also for internal communication in 1897 led to fall of the government. German speakers were strongly against it. The attempt was abandoned.

    In 1905 there was Mährischer Ausgleich, de facto separation of Czechs and Germans in Moravia into political nations. I am not aware of something specific to the year 1908.

    In early 1918 Bohemian Germans proposed to separate German speaking territories of Bohemia into its own crown land Deutschböhmen. This was response to growing calls for Czech independence. The monarchy didn’t have time to implement it, and after the war the separation attempt was suppressed by force.

    ———

    So no, A-H bureaucrats in Germanized areas were not required to know Czech language. Its knowledge was mandatory only later, after establishment of Czechoslovakia.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I stand corrected. I read about these issues several years ago.

    However. Do you thinks Czechs would not have wanted their own country, if knowledge of Czech was made obligatory?
  186. utu says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_center,_Dnipro
    The Menorah center (Ukrainian: Центр “Менора”, Russian: Центр “Менора”) is a cultural and business center of the Jewish community in Dnipro in Eastern Ukraine. Some sources declare it to be the biggest multifunctional Jewish community center in Europe[1] or in the world.[2] The heart of the complex is the historic Golden Rose central synagogue, built in the 19th century.

    • Replies: @Gerard2
    How is your post relevant to here? You can't just post the images without any opinion comment to go with it
    , @Dmitry
    I read about this story a few years ago.

    Just an overly large but uninteresting Orthodox Jewish community centre which looks like an office building from 1920s New York.

    However, the story of its funding is a bit insightful, because Gennady Timchenko was originally going to jointly fund construction of the building with Pinchuk and Kolomoisky.

    Businessmen donate to each other's personal projects, probably as a way to ease relations between one to other, when they are investing in the same businesses (or for Kolomoisky, usually it seems he is stealing money from more powerful oligarchs than himself).

    So there is an example of how seisimically everything changed with Ukraine - when you see before the conflict how Timchenko was funding their Chabad centre, and now a few years later Timchenko is a main enemy of Kiev as well as Washington.


    cafes, conference halls, banquet halls, a luxury hotel, youth hostel,
     
    Wikipedia's "largest Jewish community centre", does not look so impressive in video.
    "Luxury hotel" looks "midrange", except it is kosher for Jews and Chabad rabbis probably. And the budget kosher hotel, is really "Spartan".
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqYoAF4WXis

    They obviously design the building before Euromaidan, and were showing off how they could afford a huge building .

    Then afterwards, they don't have any idea what to use a large building for Chabad, where there are probably a a couple of thousand religious Jews in the city.

    Something funny is Chabad seems to split into different branches after the conflict. So now there is some kind of Ukraine Chabad for oligarchs in Ukraine, which is separate from the one funded by oligarchs in Russia.

  187. @AP

    In this issue (since the time of Vladimir, the Rurik dynasty was “slavicised”), there is complete unanimity of the Russian, Scandinavian, English, American etc. historians.
     
    “Law in Medieval Russia” Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, section “Germanic Contacts”, pp. 321-322

    10th century treaties with Byzantium all participating warriors and merchants had Scandinavian names and “forces commanding by the princes of Kiev consisted apparently almost completely of Varangians.”

    “General picture” was that the Vikings took over Russia (sic) and that a particular Viking clan, the Rurikids, took monarchial power. They maintained a lively relationship with Scandinavia until the first decades of the 11th century through dynastic marriages and calling upon military aid from their former homeland, after which there was no longer significant Varangian influence.

    which States that the native language of the Volodymyr – old Norse that he identified himself as a Scandinavian, etc., etc.
     
    Multiple sources confirm that he, son of a Norseman, moved to Scandinavia and gathered an army of Scandinavians that he used to seize power.

    You think he didn't speak Norse?

    Sources state 2+2 and you complain if they don't say "4."

    I can quote historical books that claim Lugii, Marcomanii, Vandals, Goths, Gepides, Heruli are all East Germanic people.

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
    Something obviously doesn’t add up – let alone the bizzare idea that entire nations numbering tens/hundreds of thousands of people could migrate and survive for years – do the logistical calculation, daily consumption of food, fodder, water.

    Moreover, not so long ago, the mainstream narrative was that civilization came to Europe from Middle East/Mesopotamia.

    But then you raise the issue of Danube and Kurgan area archeological finds, metallurgy, urbanisation evidenced 5000 to 4000 BC.

    In case you haven’t noticed – most distant history books are fantasy – creative or outright biased interpretations relying on scarce or no primary sources at all, often negating common sense. Similarly, books dealing with significant and recent events are politically and ideologically charged – Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book – but it got him a state award and lots of money in Germany. If I asked you on which primary source did that German base his writings on Vladimir, your answer would be? Moreover, Mr.Hack’s writing on White Croats from 450 AD is based on what exactly?

    • Replies: @AP

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
     
    It wasn't that small and spread over 1.5 centuries was not unreasonable:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Slavic_distribution_origin.png/220px-Slavic_distribution_origin.png
    , @for-the-record
    Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book

    Can you please expand on this, as my reviews I have seen have been quite positive. Thanks.
  188. @Mr. Hack
    Paul Magocsi, a Harvard based historian has spent the majority of his career researching Ukrainian and Rusyn history and is considered an authority on the subject puts it this way:

    The ancestors of the Carpatho-Rusyns can be traced to Slavic peoples who began to appear in the valleys of the Carpathian Mountains in small numbers during the fifth and sixth centuries. Their presence is related to the question of the original homeland of the Slavs and the invasion into east-central Europe by nomadic peoples from central Asia. Today most scholars agree that the center of the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine. During the 440s, an Asiatic people known as the Huns crossed through the Slavic homeland and burst into east-central Europe, bringing with them Slavic peoples, some of whom settled in Carpathian Rus'. A century later, one of the tribes living in the original Slavic homeland known as White Croats had begun to settle in the valleys of the northern as well as southern slopes of Carpathian Rus'. In the course of the sixth and early seventh centuries, the White Croats built fortified towns to protect their own people as well as the surrounding countryside which still included some Slavic settlers who had settled there earlier during the Hunnic invasions. During the seventh century, many of the Slavic tribes began to move out in various directions from their original homeland. Whereas some White Croats remained behind in Carpathian Rus', most moved southward into the Balkan peninsula. Their descendants are the modern Croats.
     
    http://carpatho-rusyn.org/cra/chap3.html

    This expert has exactly 0 primary sources and archaelogical finds to back his writing.

    He is a fantasy writer and his authority is arbitrary. The only sources for early history of Slavic peoples are the contemporary Frankish, Italian and Byzantine writings.

    Likewise, a lot can be concluded when Byzantines equating Triballi and Serbs, Franks equate Sorabos of Elbe and Balkans, while Medieval and early Modern period writers equate Vandals, Wends and Venedi. Look up Dalimil’s Chronicle of later ages – the origin of Czechs.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The Croats are mentioned several times within Nestor's 'Primary Chronicle'. That they were a large Slavic tribe that played a prominent role in the ethnogenesis of Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and of course the Dalmatian Croats is an accepted fact. There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin including gords, kurgans, burial mounds and tombs, one of the largest sites is near Stilsko. This site is quite impressive and includes 50 settlements and a fortress including a defensive line of 10 km. This site is especially valuable because it also includes one of the only complete Slavic religious temples dedicated to the god Hors. This was an active Croat center from the 8th - 10th centuries. I'm definitely going to visit this site the next time I visit Ukraine. Until then, even a doubting Thomas will have to find this photo sufficient:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5..JPG/250px-%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5..JPG

  189. @Mikhail

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.
     
    Try proving this put mildly suspect claim.

    Balkan Slavs have complex ethnogenesis made even more difficult to decipher due to huge migrations caused by Ottoman conquests and population exchanges between Ottoman, Habsburg and Venetian ruled areas – Christians from Ottoman lands would be invited by Christians, Muslims would get cleansed from liberated areas, Croats fled to San Marino, Burgenland, Slovakia initially (look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary) etc. etc.

    A very significant paleo-Balkan/“Illyrian”/Thracian component is present, outweighing “Slavic” (even though strictly speaking, there is no such thing) in many areas of Balkan peninsula.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary
     
    That's interesting. The most common Hungarian surnames list:

    https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggyakoribb_magyar_vezet%C3%A9knevek_list%C3%A1ja

    Of which the following mean an ethnicity:

    Tóth (archaic for Slovak)
    Horváth (Croat)
    Németh (German)
    Oláh (archaic for Romanian, though in that case there's also a type of Gypsy who are also called "oláh")
    Rácz (archaic for Serb)
    Török (Turk)
    Magyar (Hungarian)
    Orosz (Russian - possibly Ruthenian etc.)
    Lengyel (Polish)
    Székely (or Szekler in English, a Hungarian group in Transylvania, not very different from other Hungarians, but at least they have their own name)

    I don't know what the "frequency" ("gyakoriság" on the Wikipedia page) numbers mean (the number from a sample of unknown size), but I guess they are good for comparison.
  190. @Mikhail

    Yes. By descent, Hungarians are more Slavic than are Balkan Slavic-speaking people.
     
    Try proving this put mildly suspect claim.

    Someone doesn’t believe in DNA.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Someone doesn’t believe in DNA.
     
    Depends on how it's interpreted, with US presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren as a reference point.

    Unlike someone else, I don't jump to conclusions based on a limited DNA study, purporting to reflect a whole group. This point leads to how many (probably most) Hungarians, Serbs and others would be surprised by your (put mildly) suspect claim that Hungarians are more Slavic than Serbs.

  191. AP says:
    @AnonFromTN
    Quintessence of Nazism is “my tribe is the best”. Logical corollary is “all other tribes are enemies”. By both of these criteria the Right sector, as well as battalions like Azov, Aidar, Donbass, Dnipro, and their ilk are Nazis (although only Azov openly uses Nazi symbol). The ideology of none of the presumably friendly to Russia Alt-right parties in Europe includes “my tribe is the best”.

    Also, if you have a good explanation why “Deutschland über alles” is Nazi, while “Ukraine above all” (Україна понад усе) is not, I promise to send you $100.

    Quintessence of Nazism is “my tribe is the best”.

    It is essentially “Germanics are best.” It is modeled, ironically, on interpretations of Judaism albeit mixed with 19th and early 20th century biology, with Germanics playing the role of Jews. Yet one would not call hardcore Zionists, or ancient Israelites, “Nazis.”

    By both of these criteria the Right sector,

    Right Sector are state-based nationalists that welcome Jews or other non-tribal members who support the nationalist state. Recall that Mussolini had openly Jewish generals. If Right Sector are Nazis than Mussolini was a Nazi.

    The ideology of none of the presumably friendly to Russia Alt-right parties in Europe includes “my tribe is the best”.

    France’s National Front is not different from Right Sector from this perspective.

    “Deutschland über alles” is Nazi

    Written in 1841. So in your imagination there were Nazis in 1841?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    The key tenet of German Nazism is that Germans are superior to others, the key tenet of Jewish Nazism is that Jews are superior to others, the key tenet of Ukrainian Nazism is that Ukrainians are superior to others, and so on. Every nation has its own Nazis, but in very few countries Nazis are in power.

    Written in 1841
     
    Are you telling me that Nazism appeared out of nowhere in the twentieth century? If you believe that, I have a mountain to sell you.
  192. The “Deutschland über alles” meaning is that Germany is what you should love/care about more than anything else in the world “Über alles in der Welt.” It has no chauvinistic tone in it. It was a poem written when Germany was being unified. It is about unity and identity. Italian anthem written six years later had the same themes for the same reasons.

    Many non-Germans think that “Deutschland über alles” means “We are better than you” particularly in the Eastern Europe where their national pride often is reactive and defensive so they feel easily dissed.

    • Agree: Epigon, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AP

    The “Deutschland über alles” meaning is that Germany is what you should love/care about more than anything else in the world “Über alles in der Welt.” It has no chauvinistic tone in it. It was a poem written when Germany was being unified. It is about unity and identity. Italian anthem written six years later had the same themes for the same reasons.
     
    Indeed. Those nationalists were Romantic and liberal.
  193. It would be interesting to compare Ukrainian “Nazis” to ideology of White Russians, Black Hundreds, and modern Russian nationalists.
    There are bona fide Ukrainian Nazis, Neonazis dispersed among Maidan paramilitaries and in UA army, but there are few of them relatively speaking.

    • Agree: AP
  194. AP says:
    @Epigon
    I can quote historical books that claim Lugii, Marcomanii, Vandals, Goths, Gepides, Heruli are all East Germanic people.

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
    Something obviously doesn’t add up - let alone the bizzare idea that entire nations numbering tens/hundreds of thousands of people could migrate and survive for years - do the logistical calculation, daily consumption of food, fodder, water.

    Moreover, not so long ago, the mainstream narrative was that civilization came to Europe from Middle East/Mesopotamia.

    But then you raise the issue of Danube and Kurgan area archeological finds, metallurgy, urbanisation evidenced 5000 to 4000 BC.

    In case you haven’t noticed - most distant history books are fantasy - creative or outright biased interpretations relying on scarce or no primary sources at all, often negating common sense. Similarly, books dealing with significant and recent events are politically and ideologically charged - Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book - but it got him a state award and lots of money in Germany. If I asked you on which primary source did that German base his writings on Vladimir, your answer would be? Moreover, Mr.Hack’s writing on White Croats from 450 AD is based on what exactly?

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.

    It wasn’t that small and spread over 1.5 centuries was not unreasonable:

    • Replies: @Epigon
    That map is wrong, very wrong.

    So, the population of wetlands between Pripyat and Dniester in 5th century AD somehow ravages Balkans and Greece already throughout the entire 6th century AD? This is found in works of contemporary Byzantine chronicles, and Byzantine Emperors and generals had to deal with Slavic threat and later on, combined Avar and Slavic threat in 7th century.

    The entire Balkans area up to Peloponnese was considered Sklavinia in early 7th century.

    During this same time, Slavs expand far to the east and the north, and reach Elbe in the West (Franks note late 6th and 7th century Wendish presence in lands arround Elbe) and dominate southern Baltic coast.


    And like a miracle, the previously historically marginal and unimportant Slavs come to dominate both demographically and militarily the area once supposedly inhabited by East Germanic people. It's almost a 100% overlap.

    That is impossible. By all accounts and archeological finds the primitive, low population density proto-Slavic area and culture couldn't have produced the manpower and forces involved. Dark Age historiography is a joke, so called Berlin school of historiography is a fantasy.

  195. AP says:
    @utu
    The "Deutschland über alles" meaning is that Germany is what you should love/care about more than anything else in the world "Über alles in der Welt." It has no chauvinistic tone in it. It was a poem written when Germany was being unified. It is about unity and identity. Italian anthem written six years later had the same themes for the same reasons.

    Many non-Germans think that "Deutschland über alles" means "We are better than you" particularly in the Eastern Europe where their national pride often is reactive and defensive so they feel easily dissed.

    The “Deutschland über alles” meaning is that Germany is what you should love/care about more than anything else in the world “Über alles in der Welt.” It has no chauvinistic tone in it. It was a poem written when Germany was being unified. It is about unity and identity. Italian anthem written six years later had the same themes for the same reasons.

    Indeed. Those nationalists were Romantic and liberal.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Yeah, about those Geman "liberals"....

    German Liberals of 19th century were explicitly chauvinistic towards Slavs, both Polabian and Poles - their Liberalism has nothing to do with modern understanding of the term.

    So if one is trying to find the root of Hitlerite thought on Slavs, he should go no further than Hegel and German 19th century liberal politicians and ideologues.

    The "liberal" German "theologian" Naumann wrote a book on Germans conquering and eradicating/assimilating everything up to Bulgars, whom he considered dependable vassals under a German dynasty.
  196. @AP
    Most of the urban ethnic Hungarians were German-speaking, though, at least int he cities such as Pest.

    Pest and Buda were certainly German cities (already before the Ottoman occupation), as was Székesfehérvár (before the Ottomans it had been mostly Hungarian, I think), many cities in present day Slovakia (or at least mixed with a heavy German presence) or Transylvania (though some areas there were entirely German).

  197. @utu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_center,_Dnipro
    The Menorah center (Ukrainian: Центр "Менора", Russian: Центр "Менора") is a cultural and business center of the Jewish community in Dnipro in Eastern Ukraine. Some sources declare it to be the biggest multifunctional Jewish community center in Europe[1] or in the world.[2] The heart of the complex is the historic Golden Rose central synagogue, built in the 19th century.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Dnp_ukr2013_08.JPG
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/3Д_макет_центра_«Менора».jpg

    How is your post relevant to here? You can’t just post the images without any opinion comment to go with it

    • Replies: @utu

    " You can’t just post the images without any opinion comment to go with it."
     
    - No, I can. I thought it was a propos. Is this thread about the election in Ukraine? Isn't it true that Zelensky is Kolomoisky's puppet?

    https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/giant-jcc-empowers-jews-in-ukraine/
    Non-Jews sometimes refer to the center as the Kolomoisky building — Igor Kolomoisky, a Jewish billionaire, funded the building with fellow Ukrainian billionaire Gennady Bogolyubov, the president of the Jewish community of Dnepropetrovsk.
     
  198. @AP

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
     
    It wasn't that small and spread over 1.5 centuries was not unreasonable:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Slavic_distribution_origin.png/220px-Slavic_distribution_origin.png

    That map is wrong, very wrong.

    So, the population of wetlands between Pripyat and Dniester in 5th century AD somehow ravages Balkans and Greece already throughout the entire 6th century AD? This is found in works of contemporary Byzantine chronicles, and Byzantine Emperors and generals had to deal with Slavic threat and later on, combined Avar and Slavic threat in 7th century.

    The entire Balkans area up to Peloponnese was considered Sklavinia in early 7th century.

    During this same time, Slavs expand far to the east and the north, and reach Elbe in the West (Franks note late 6th and 7th century Wendish presence in lands arround Elbe) and dominate southern Baltic coast.

    And like a miracle, the previously historically marginal and unimportant Slavs come to dominate both demographically and militarily the area once supposedly inhabited by East Germanic people. It’s almost a 100% overlap.

    That is impossible. By all accounts and archeological finds the primitive, low population density proto-Slavic area and culture couldn’t have produced the manpower and forces involved. Dark Age historiography is a joke, so called Berlin school of historiography is a fantasy.

    • Replies: @LH

    And like a miracle, the previously historically marginal and unimportant Slavs come to dominate both demographically and militarily the area once supposedly inhabited by East Germanic people. It’s almost a 100% overlap.

     

    Based on polen analysis, archaeologists found massive depopulation of East Bohemian lowlands during the Migration period (4th/5th century). Agricultural land turned into wilderness. The Slavs arrived around year 530.
  199. @Epigon
    I can quote historical books that claim Lugii, Marcomanii, Vandals, Goths, Gepides, Heruli are all East Germanic people.

    Whereas Slavs inhabited a small, remote area of Pripyat marshes until late 5th century.

    And then, by the half of 7th century, they spread across a vast area from Peloponnese to Bavaria, Holstein, Ladoga and Dnieper.
    Something obviously doesn’t add up - let alone the bizzare idea that entire nations numbering tens/hundreds of thousands of people could migrate and survive for years - do the logistical calculation, daily consumption of food, fodder, water.

    Moreover, not so long ago, the mainstream narrative was that civilization came to Europe from Middle East/Mesopotamia.

    But then you raise the issue of Danube and Kurgan area archeological finds, metallurgy, urbanisation evidenced 5000 to 4000 BC.

    In case you haven’t noticed - most distant history books are fantasy - creative or outright biased interpretations relying on scarce or no primary sources at all, often negating common sense. Similarly, books dealing with significant and recent events are politically and ideologically charged - Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book - but it got him a state award and lots of money in Germany. If I asked you on which primary source did that German base his writings on Vladimir, your answer would be? Moreover, Mr.Hack’s writing on White Croats from 450 AD is based on what exactly?

    Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book

    Can you please expand on this, as my reviews I have seen have been quite positive. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    The entire premise of the book is moronic and low-brow.

    Empires don't "blunder" into a war. Things of great importance don't happen by accident. The stage for showdown was set at least since 1908 Annexation Crisis, if not earlier at 1878 congress of Berlin.

    To start with, the 1903 coup the author deals with is misrepresented and outright falsified, with key (foreign) backers and details left out - the man who was placed on the throne was a Freemason, a Franco-Prussian war veteran of Foreign Legion, sentenced to death in Serbia in absentia and a fan of John Stuart Mill who printed a translation of "On Liberty". His view of 1914 Sarajevo assassination does not correspond to reality.
    The other Serb state, Montenegro, was actually more implicated, and interestingly, so was Italy, through its Montenegrin Queen (an Italian had already murdered the Empress Elizabeth, wife of Franz Joseph I) - the 1903 coup saw cooperation of two intermarried Petrović and Karađorđević dynasties move against ruling Obrenović - prior to the regicide, there were earlier attempts, most notably Toplica revolt and 1885 unrest after Serb defeat against Bulgarians and Austrian ultimatum which stopped Bulgarians.

    As has been demonstrably proven by archival records, Austro-Hungary was itching for a war against Serbia since at least 1905 - the Customs war and first plans for invasion of Serbia transpired then. The author of the plan would be Austrian Chief of General Staff in continuity, apart from a short period in 1911-1912 when Morocco crisis was in motion.

    Germany actually urged Austro-Hungary to invade Serbia in 1912 (Imperial War Council meeting of December 12th) and bring Russia into war. The motives were clear - Balkan Alliance successes in the First Balkan War (the Alliance was a Russian effort) threatened to seal of any German influence, throw out Turks out of Europe, and leave a unified Orthodox Balkans dominated by Russia. At the same time, the announced Russian Military reform pushed the Germans into panic.

    Their only hope for victory in a two-front war against France and Russia was rapid defeat of France before backward and inefficent but vast Russian Armies could mobilise, organise and attack them. With the announced reforms starting in 1913 and ending in 1917, even the modified Schlieffen plan would be a failure. In reality, Germans failed in 1914 with only partially improved, but still deeply flawed Russian Army taking away crucial German forces away from the attack on France, too soon.

    Tirpitz and Navy were however nowhere near ready for war. Germany was significantly behind in dreadnought-type battleships and battlecruisers, submarine program was in infancy, so the British who would definitely intervene in accordance with their continental balance of power policy, would have no issues with blockading Germany, conquering German overseas holdings and ending German Empire.
    In short, the Germans were faced with a dilemma Hitler would face in the future - attack now with a chance of victory, or skip this opportunity and risk facing a much stronger adversaries in the future.
    This is taking into account the fact that in the future, Britain wouldn't probably intervene in favour of French and Russians - still, German chances of victory would be even slimmer.

    On top of this, you have the French revanchism since 1871. The entire French loan, investment and assistance scheme to Russia since 1890s was motivated by French desire to make the uplifted Russia a credible counterbalance to Germany.


    Our esteemed author pretends none of this happened, no primary sources exist. So he tells us that foolish and shortsighted monarchs went to war for stupid, terroristic savage Serbs' sake.
  200. @LH

    In Bohemia after 1908 knowledge of the Czech language was mandatory for local civil servants, which practically barred local Germans (who could only speak German) from joining the local bureaucracy, while all educated Czechs with the required education could speak German.

     

    Since 1880 civil servants were required to answer in the language of request. Internal communication was still in German. Attempt to make Czech language equal also for internal communication in 1897 led to fall of the government. German speakers were strongly against it. The attempt was abandoned.

    In 1905 there was Mährischer Ausgleich, de facto separation of Czechs and Germans in Moravia into political nations. I am not aware of something specific to the year 1908.

    In early 1918 Bohemian Germans proposed to separate German speaking territories of Bohemia into its own crown land Deutschböhmen. This was response to growing calls for Czech independence. The monarchy didn't have time to implement it, and after the war the separation attempt was suppressed by force.


    ---------

    So no, A-H bureaucrats in Germanized areas were not required to know Czech language. Its knowledge was mandatory only later, after establishment of Czechoslovakia.

    I stand corrected. I read about these issues several years ago.

    However. Do you thinks Czechs would not have wanted their own country, if knowledge of Czech was made obligatory?

    • Replies: @LH

    However. Do you thinks Czechs would not have wanted their own country, if knowledge of Czech was made obligatory?

     

    Hypothetical success of 1897 language proposals by Badeni's government wouldn't change too much. It was issue affecting small class of bureaucrats. The internal Czech-German conflict was already way too strong. Some kind of independence, or attempt to obtain independence was probably inevitable.
  201. @AP

    The “Deutschland über alles” meaning is that Germany is what you should love/care about more than anything else in the world “Über alles in der Welt.” It has no chauvinistic tone in it. It was a poem written when Germany was being unified. It is about unity and identity. Italian anthem written six years later had the same themes for the same reasons.
     
    Indeed. Those nationalists were Romantic and liberal.

    Yeah, about those Geman “liberals”….

    German Liberals of 19th century were explicitly chauvinistic towards Slavs, both Polabian and Poles – their Liberalism has nothing to do with modern understanding of the term.

    So if one is trying to find the root of Hitlerite thought on Slavs, he should go no further than Hegel and German 19th century liberal politicians and ideologues.

    The “liberal” German “theologian” Naumann wrote a book on Germans conquering and eradicating/assimilating everything up to Bulgars, whom he considered dependable vassals under a German dynasty.

  202. @Epigon
    Balkan Slavs have complex ethnogenesis made even more difficult to decipher due to huge migrations caused by Ottoman conquests and population exchanges between Ottoman, Habsburg and Venetian ruled areas - Christians from Ottoman lands would be invited by Christians, Muslims would get cleansed from liberated areas, Croats fled to San Marino, Burgenland, Slovakia initially (look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary) etc. etc.

    A very significant paleo-Balkan/“Illyrian”/Thracian component is present, outweighing “Slavic” (even though strictly speaking, there is no such thing) in many areas of Balkan peninsula.

    look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary

    That’s interesting. The most common Hungarian surnames list:

    https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggyakoribb_magyar_vezet%C3%A9knevek_list%C3%A1ja

    Of which the following mean an ethnicity:

    Tóth (archaic for Slovak)
    Horváth (Croat)
    Németh (German)
    Oláh (archaic for Romanian, though in that case there’s also a type of Gypsy who are also called “oláh”)
    Rácz (archaic for Serb)
    Török (Turk)
    Magyar (Hungarian)
    Orosz (Russian – possibly Ruthenian etc.)
    Lengyel (Polish)
    Székely (or Szekler in English, a Hungarian group in Transylvania, not very different from other Hungarians, but at least they have their own name)

    I don’t know what the “frequency” (“gyakoriság” on the Wikipedia page) numbers mean (the number from a sample of unknown size), but I guess they are good for comparison.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Serbian Principality was de iure a vassal of Hungary (King Imre), and Serbian despotate was a vassal state of Hungary. Geza II Arpad was born to a Serbian princess mother, who brought Rama (Bosna) as dowry.

    Serbian despot Stefan received lands from Hungarian kings - Satmar, Nemet, Beckerek, Debrecen and lands in Tamis County.
    The other Serb noble, Mrnjavčević Dmitar was Count of Zarand County and Captain of Vilagos. Serbian despots in exile would receive lands from Hungarian and later on Habsburg kings and settle Serbs in present-day Slavonia and Vojvodina.

    Hunyadi Black Army - mostly Serbs. (G)Hussars and Hajduks - Serb refugees originally, later Haiduk Infantry of Poland and Hungary is not the same thing.


    Szentendre was one centre of Serb settlement in Hungary - 88% Serb in 1720.
    The other centre was Buda, including the period of Ottoman rule. At Csepel Island, there is a settlement Racz Kovin - founded by refugees from Kovin.

    , @Beckow
    Székely is an interesting name. Weren't Szeklers also border guards? We have a name 'Cikel' (very uncommon) from Szekely.
  203. @Mr. XYZ
    Why did the EU also agree to take in the Balkan countries and Turkey, though? Some of the Balkan countries are very poor just like Ukraine is and Turkey, while being relatively well-off, is overwhelmingly Muslim.

    Turkey is theoretically a EU membership candidate, and for some odd political/diplomatic reasons that candidate status has not been cancelled completely, but that process is frozen. Partly, the same economic reasons for which Ukraine will not be accepted as a member are also the reason why Turkey won’t become a member. Furthermore, Turkey’s population is so large (and growing) that it would fundamentally change the nature of the EU if it became a member, and even those who now reject the idea of a danger of “Islamization” of Europe would have to reconsider if Turkey became a full member. All existing EU member states would have to agree to Turkey joining, and the likelihood that this will happen is very close to zero.

    The probability of Turkey becoming a EU member is extremely low, probably even lower than the probability of Ukraine becoming a EU member (but because unlike in the case of Turkey, which has had a candidate status for a long time, granting it to Ukraine would be a signal that the EU actually wants Ukraine as a member, candidate status will certainly not be granted to Ukraine).

    The expansion of the EU to the East is quite controversial, and many people think it was a mistake. Because of the relatively close integration, this has meant that lots of money were poored into these new member countries (e.g. Poland). At that time, the EU was more optimistic, countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are much closer to the heart of Central Europe, and Ukraine is even much larger and poorer than Poland. The EU has enough economic problems of its own. The likelihood that it will invite Ukraine in the next 10-20 years to join is close to zero.

    The EU might sooner or later accept one or the other tiny Balkan country as a member, but apart from that, EU expansion is finished for the near and medium-term future.

    Of course, the EU can develop stronger relations with Ukraine even if it is not a member. That would not have to be a contradiction with good Ukrainian-Russian relations. The best option for Ukraine would be that it can have good relations with both Russia and the EU. The neocons and their many allies, of course, don’t want that and want to present all these poor countries with an either-or choice, but it remains to be seen whether they can uphold their influence.

  204. @for-the-record
    Clark’s Sleepwalkers book is a terrible book

    Can you please expand on this, as my reviews I have seen have been quite positive. Thanks.

    The entire premise of the book is moronic and low-brow.

    Empires don’t “blunder” into a war. Things of great importance don’t happen by accident. The stage for showdown was set at least since 1908 Annexation Crisis, if not earlier at 1878 congress of Berlin.

    To start with, the 1903 coup the author deals with is misrepresented and outright falsified, with key (foreign) backers and details left out – the man who was placed on the throne was a Freemason, a Franco-Prussian war veteran of Foreign Legion, sentenced to death in Serbia in absentia and a fan of John Stuart Mill who printed a translation of “On Liberty”. His view of 1914 Sarajevo assassination does not correspond to reality.
    The other Serb state, Montenegro, was actually more implicated, and interestingly, so was Italy, through its Montenegrin Queen (an Italian had already murdered the Empress Elizabeth, wife of Franz Joseph I) – the 1903 coup saw cooperation of two intermarried Petrović and Karađorđević dynasties move against ruling Obrenović – prior to the regicide, there were earlier attempts, most notably Toplica revolt and 1885 unrest after Serb defeat against Bulgarians and Austrian ultimatum which stopped Bulgarians.

    As has been demonstrably proven by archival records, Austro-Hungary was itching for a war against Serbia since at least 1905 – the Customs war and first plans for invasion of Serbia transpired then. The author of the plan would be Austrian Chief of General Staff in continuity, apart from a short period in 1911-1912 when Morocco crisis was in motion.

    Germany actually urged Austro-Hungary to invade Serbia in 1912 (Imperial War Council meeting of December 12th) and bring Russia into war. The motives were clear – Balkan Alliance successes in the First Balkan War (the Alliance was a Russian effort) threatened to seal of any German influence, throw out Turks out of Europe, and leave a unified Orthodox Balkans dominated by Russia. At the same time, the announced Russian Military reform pushed the Germans into panic.

    Their only hope for victory in a two-front war against France and Russia was rapid defeat of France before backward and inefficent but vast Russian Armies could mobilise, organise and attack them. With the announced reforms starting in 1913 and ending in 1917, even the modified Schlieffen plan would be a failure. In reality, Germans failed in 1914 with only partially improved, but still deeply flawed Russian Army taking away crucial German forces away from the attack on France, too soon.

    Tirpitz and Navy were however nowhere near ready for war. Germany was significantly behind in dreadnought-type battleships and battlecruisers, submarine program was in infancy, so the British who would definitely intervene in accordance with their continental balance of power policy, would have no issues with blockading Germany, conquering German overseas holdings and ending German Empire.
    In short, the Germans were faced with a dilemma Hitler would face in the future – attack now with a chance of victory, or skip this opportunity and risk facing a much stronger adversaries in the future.
    This is taking into account the fact that in the future, Britain wouldn’t probably intervene in favour of French and Russians – still, German chances of victory would be even slimmer.

    On top of this, you have the French revanchism since 1871. The entire French loan, investment and assistance scheme to Russia since 1890s was motivated by French desire to make the uplifted Russia a credible counterbalance to Germany.

    Our esteemed author pretends none of this happened, no primary sources exist. So he tells us that foolish and shortsighted monarchs went to war for stupid, terroristic savage Serbs’ sake.

  205. @Epigon
    This expert has exactly 0 primary sources and archaelogical finds to back his writing.

    He is a fantasy writer and his authority is arbitrary. The only sources for early history of Slavic peoples are the contemporary Frankish, Italian and Byzantine writings.

    Likewise, a lot can be concluded when Byzantines equating Triballi and Serbs, Franks equate Sorabos of Elbe and Balkans, while Medieval and early Modern period writers equate Vandals, Wends and Venedi. Look up Dalimil’s Chronicle of later ages - the origin of Czechs.

    The Croats are mentioned several times within Nestor’s ‘Primary Chronicle’. That they were a large Slavic tribe that played a prominent role in the ethnogenesis of Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and of course the Dalmatian Croats is an accepted fact. There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin including gords, kurgans, burial mounds and tombs, one of the largest sites is near Stilsko. This site is quite impressive and includes 50 settlements and a fortress including a defensive line of 10 km. This site is especially valuable because it also includes one of the only complete Slavic religious temples dedicated to the god Hors. This was an active Croat center from the 8th – 10th centuries. I’m definitely going to visit this site the next time I visit Ukraine. Until then, even a doubting Thomas will have to find this photo sufficient:

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin
     
    How do they know that they were Croats? There's always this problem with ancient Magyar sites, the graves don't speak, and nomad cultures were pretty similar, so until recently they had exactly zero idea how and where those Magyars spent their time in the Eastern European steppes before arriving in Hungary in 895. (Now with DNA and the most modern methods they can track it better.)
  206. @reiner Tor

    look up Horvat/Horvath surname frequency in Slovakia and Hungary
     
    That's interesting. The most common Hungarian surnames list:

    https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggyakoribb_magyar_vezet%C3%A9knevek_list%C3%A1ja

    Of which the following mean an ethnicity:

    Tóth (archaic for Slovak)
    Horváth (Croat)
    Németh (German)
    Oláh (archaic for Romanian, though in that case there's also a type of Gypsy who are also called "oláh")
    Rácz (archaic for Serb)
    Török (Turk)
    Magyar (Hungarian)
    Orosz (Russian - possibly Ruthenian etc.)
    Lengyel (Polish)
    Székely (or Szekler in English, a Hungarian group in Transylvania, not very different from other Hungarians, but at least they have their own name)

    I don't know what the "frequency" ("gyakoriság" on the Wikipedia page) numbers mean (the number from a sample of unknown size), but I guess they are good for comparison.

    Serbian Principality was de iure a vassal of Hungary (King Imre), and Serbian despotate was a vassal state of Hungary. Geza II Arpad was born to a Serbian princess mother, who brought Rama (Bosna) as dowry.

    Serbian despot Stefan received lands from Hungarian kings – Satmar, Nemet, Beckerek, Debrecen and lands in Tamis County.
    The other Serb noble, Mrnjavčević Dmitar was Count of Zarand County and Captain of Vilagos. Serbian despots in exile would receive lands from Hungarian and later on Habsburg kings and settle Serbs in present-day Slavonia and Vojvodina.

    Hunyadi Black Army – mostly Serbs. (G)Hussars and Hajduks – Serb refugees originally, later Haiduk Infantry of Poland and Hungary is not the same thing.

    Szentendre was one centre of Serb settlement in Hungary – 88% Serb in 1720.
    The other centre was Buda, including the period of Ottoman rule. At Csepel Island, there is a settlement Racz Kovin – founded by refugees from Kovin.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Serbian Principality was de iure a vassal of Hungary
     
    Though these usually lasted at most a generation. Romanian principalities started out as Hungarian vassals sometime in the 14th century, but by the 15th they were effectively independent - though they would've liked if Hungary was their suzerain and protected them from the Ottomans. Which Hungary tried, but wasn't very successful, obviously, since the Ottomans eventually subdued them.
  207. @Mr. Hack
    The Croats are mentioned several times within Nestor's 'Primary Chronicle'. That they were a large Slavic tribe that played a prominent role in the ethnogenesis of Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and of course the Dalmatian Croats is an accepted fact. There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin including gords, kurgans, burial mounds and tombs, one of the largest sites is near Stilsko. This site is quite impressive and includes 50 settlements and a fortress including a defensive line of 10 km. This site is especially valuable because it also includes one of the only complete Slavic religious temples dedicated to the god Hors. This was an active Croat center from the 8th - 10th centuries. I'm definitely going to visit this site the next time I visit Ukraine. Until then, even a doubting Thomas will have to find this photo sufficient:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5..JPG/250px-%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5..JPG

    There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin

    How do they know that they were Croats? There’s always this problem with ancient Magyar sites, the graves don’t speak, and nomad cultures were pretty similar, so until recently they had exactly zero idea how and where those Magyars spent their time in the Eastern European steppes before arriving in Hungary in 895. (Now with DNA and the most modern methods they can track it better.)

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    You put together the written chronicles plus the vast amount of settlements where these tribes are written about and voila, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you know of any prominent historians or archeologists that doubt the veracity of White Croat settlements in Western Ukraine? Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too? :-)
  208. @reiner Tor

    There are many excavations in Western Ukraine known to be of Croat origin
     
    How do they know that they were Croats? There's always this problem with ancient Magyar sites, the graves don't speak, and nomad cultures were pretty similar, so until recently they had exactly zero idea how and where those Magyars spent their time in the Eastern European steppes before arriving in Hungary in 895. (Now with DNA and the most modern methods they can track it better.)

    You put together the written chronicles plus the vast amount of settlements where these tribes are written about and voila, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you know of any prominent historians or archeologists that doubt the veracity of White Croat settlements in Western Ukraine? Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too? 🙂

    • Replies: @Epigon
    If we go by Primary Chronicle, those Croats are Pecheneg allies and enemies of Rus/Slavs.

    Non-Slavic identity of Croats wouldn't be a surprise - the Avar, Kutrigur, Ogur hypothesis have been proposed.
    Interestingly, Croat origin myth makes a distinction between Slavs and Croats.


    Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too?
     
    Franks and Byzantines went to war over supposed Croat heartland of Dalmatia in 800-814.
    No mention of Croats.
    Franks were also faced with a large revolt in Pannonia - the leader fled to Serbs, who control large parts of Dalmatia, and killed one of their dukes through deceit.
    Royal Frankish Annals:
    "...Exercitus de Italia propter Lindeviticum bellum conficiendum in Pannoniam missus est, ad cuius adventum Lindevitus, Siscia Civitate relicta, ad Sorabos (quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur) fugiendo se contulit, et uno ex Ducibus eorum, a quo receptus est, per dolum interf ecto, Civitatem eius in suam redegit ditionem, missis tamen ad exercitum Imperatoris Legatis suis, ad eius praesentiam se velle venire promisit."
    , @reiner Tor
    Now I read a long article by a Hungarian historian about the Rusyns. He writes that usually Rusyns are considered more recent arrivals, because most of their subgroups (he names those) have their (larger) counterparts on the other side of the Carpathians. With the implication being that they came from there.

    However, he observes that there's at least one subgroup (he names it) which has no such counterpart. His implication is that it must have been autochthonous. So his conclusion is that while many Rusyns are the descendants of relatively recent arrivals, not all are, and there must have been some back and forth movement of people over the centuries.

    Anyway, I'm sure you're aware how different findings at different locations had been touted as graves of ancient Magyars, when it now appears that those were not.
  209. @Epigon
    Serbian Principality was de iure a vassal of Hungary (King Imre), and Serbian despotate was a vassal state of Hungary. Geza II Arpad was born to a Serbian princess mother, who brought Rama (Bosna) as dowry.

    Serbian despot Stefan received lands from Hungarian kings - Satmar, Nemet, Beckerek, Debrecen and lands in Tamis County.
    The other Serb noble, Mrnjavčević Dmitar was Count of Zarand County and Captain of Vilagos. Serbian despots in exile would receive lands from Hungarian and later on Habsburg kings and settle Serbs in present-day Slavonia and Vojvodina.

    Hunyadi Black Army - mostly Serbs. (G)Hussars and Hajduks - Serb refugees originally, later Haiduk Infantry of Poland and Hungary is not the same thing.


    Szentendre was one centre of Serb settlement in Hungary - 88% Serb in 1720.
    The other centre was Buda, including the period of Ottoman rule. At Csepel Island, there is a settlement Racz Kovin - founded by refugees from Kovin.

    Serbian Principality was de iure a vassal of Hungary

    Though these usually lasted at most a generation. Romanian principalities started out as Hungarian vassals sometime in the 14th century, but by the 15th they were effectively independent – though they would’ve liked if Hungary was their suzerain and protected them from the Ottomans. Which Hungary tried, but wasn’t very successful, obviously, since the Ottomans eventually subdued them.

  210. utu says:
    @Gerard2
    How is your post relevant to here? You can't just post the images without any opinion comment to go with it

    ” You can’t just post the images without any opinion comment to go with it.”

    – No, I can. I thought it was a propos. Is this thread about the election in Ukraine? Isn’t it true that Zelensky is Kolomoisky’s puppet?

    https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/giant-jcc-empowers-jews-in-ukraine/
    Non-Jews sometimes refer to the center as the Kolomoisky building — Igor Kolomoisky, a Jewish billionaire, funded the building with fellow Ukrainian billionaire Gennady Bogolyubov, the president of the Jewish community of Dnepropetrovsk.

  211. @Mr. Hack
    You put together the written chronicles plus the vast amount of settlements where these tribes are written about and voila, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you know of any prominent historians or archeologists that doubt the veracity of White Croat settlements in Western Ukraine? Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too? :-)

    If we go by Primary Chronicle, those Croats are Pecheneg allies and enemies of Rus/Slavs.

    Non-Slavic identity of Croats wouldn’t be a surprise – the Avar, Kutrigur, Ogur hypothesis have been proposed.
    Interestingly, Croat origin myth makes a distinction between Slavs and Croats.

    Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too?

    Franks and Byzantines went to war over supposed Croat heartland of Dalmatia in 800-814.
    No mention of Croats.
    Franks were also faced with a large revolt in Pannonia – the leader fled to Serbs, who control large parts of Dalmatia, and killed one of their dukes through deceit.
    Royal Frankish Annals:
    “…Exercitus de Italia propter Lindeviticum bellum conficiendum in Pannoniam missus est, ad cuius adventum Lindevitus, Siscia Civitate relicta, ad Sorabos (quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur) fugiendo se contulit, et uno ex Ducibus eorum, a quo receptus est, per dolum interf ecto, Civitatem eius in suam redegit ditionem, missis tamen ad exercitum Imperatoris Legatis suis, ad eius praesentiam se velle venire promisit.”

    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Perhaps the Croats hadn't settled in Panonia yet in 814? You're not doubting that they eventually did settle there, are you? :-)

    As to the Avar origins of the White Croats, it's interesting to note that if this is true, they very quickly
    adopted the Slavic tongue and started to worship Slavic gods? This type of conversion usually only occurs at the point of a sword??...
  212. @Mr. Hack
    You put together the written chronicles plus the vast amount of settlements where these tribes are written about and voila, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you know of any prominent historians or archeologists that doubt the veracity of White Croat settlements in Western Ukraine? Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too? :-)

    Now I read a long article by a Hungarian historian about the Rusyns. He writes that usually Rusyns are considered more recent arrivals, because most of their subgroups (he names those) have their (larger) counterparts on the other side of the Carpathians. With the implication being that they came from there.

    However, he observes that there’s at least one subgroup (he names it) which has no such counterpart. His implication is that it must have been autochthonous. So his conclusion is that while many Rusyns are the descendants of relatively recent arrivals, not all are, and there must have been some back and forth movement of people over the centuries.

    Anyway, I’m sure you’re aware how different findings at different locations had been touted as graves of ancient Magyars, when it now appears that those were not.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Magocsi, whom I cite in reply 182 corroborates exactly what your Hungarian historian states:

    Slavs from the north (Galicia) and east (who actually arrived from Podolia via the mountain passes of Transylvania) continued to settle in small numbers in various parts of the Carpathian borderland, which the Hungarians and other medieval writers referred to as the Marchia Ruthenorum - the Rus' March. These new immigrants, from the north and east, like the Slavs already living in Carpathian Rus', had by the eleventh century come to be known as the people of Rus', or Rusyns. The term Rusyn also meant someone who was a Christian of the Eastern (Byzantine) rite.

    Rusyn migration from the north and east, in particular from Galicia, continued until the sixteenth century and even later. This was possible because the mountains, especially in western Carpathian Rus' (the Lemko Region), were not very high and were crossable through several passes.
     
  213. @Beckow

    ...Zelensky might
     
    Zelensky would have to get support in Rada, the parliamentary election this fall is the big one.

    Strategically it is not in Russia's interest to make up with Ukraine now. It would cost them a lot, it would keep them from squeezing the energy markets (the pipelines are almost ready), it would postpone the inevitable confrontation. Zelensky could mess it up if he tries to be 'friends' with Russia.

    The reality is that Western and Russian interests in Ukraine are at this point not reconcilable. Too much has happened since 2013. It can stay as a stalemate or Ukraine could split up. Any premature reconciliation would lead to the next Maidan. It is in Kiev's interest to feign rapprochement with Russia, but it wouldn't be real. The sad thing is that Russia needs to sit back and let this play out - most likely watch Ukraine ride this all the way down. Then they will be ready for a compromise.

    Ukraine is not a sovereign subject either - they are a tool used by the Western sponsors, and Washington has no interest in solving this crisis, it would hurt them. All Russia can do is sit back and wait, and increase the costs for Kiev and Washington-Brussels. It is easier done with a moron like Porky in power. Or if there is internal chaos in Ukraine - like disputed elections. Zelensky is the worst option.

    Nah, I don’t expect better Russian-Ukrainian government-to-government relations. For one thing, Zelensky will have to prove that he is not “pro-Russian.” Besides, Kolomoisky will Kolomoisky and so will other oligarchs. This doesn’t matter much. Nothing that Ukraine can do by itself can hurt Russia now.

    Relationship between the people is far more important in the long term. Even under the current regime, Ukrainians are slowly warming toward Russia. Absent crazy propaganda, this process will speed up.

    Will Zelensky ease up on propaganda? Hard to tell. If he and/or his handlers understand who his voters are they must understand on some level that anti-Russian hysteria helps his enemies.

  214. @reiner Tor
    Now I read a long article by a Hungarian historian about the Rusyns. He writes that usually Rusyns are considered more recent arrivals, because most of their subgroups (he names those) have their (larger) counterparts on the other side of the Carpathians. With the implication being that they came from there.

    However, he observes that there's at least one subgroup (he names it) which has no such counterpart. His implication is that it must have been autochthonous. So his conclusion is that while many Rusyns are the descendants of relatively recent arrivals, not all are, and there must have been some back and forth movement of people over the centuries.

    Anyway, I'm sure you're aware how different findings at different locations had been touted as graves of ancient Magyars, when it now appears that those were not.

    Magocsi, whom I cite in reply 182 corroborates exactly what your Hungarian historian states:

    Slavs from the north (Galicia) and east (who actually arrived from Podolia via the mountain passes of Transylvania) continued to settle in small numbers in various parts of the Carpathian borderland, which the Hungarians and other medieval writers referred to as the Marchia Ruthenorum – the Rus’ March. These new immigrants, from the north and east, like the Slavs already living in Carpathian Rus’, had by the eleventh century come to be known as the people of Rus’, or Rusyns. The term Rusyn also meant someone who was a Christian of the Eastern (Byzantine) rite.

    Rusyn migration from the north and east, in particular from Galicia, continued until the sixteenth century and even later. This was possible because the mountains, especially in western Carpathian Rus’ (the Lemko Region), were not very high and were crossable through several passes.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Rusyn migration from the north and east, in particular from Galicia, continued until the sixteenth century and even later.
     
    Beckow was wondering how Hungarian historians could be so moronic to believe that there was a mass immigration of Rusyns into Subcarpathia. Now I guess we can all agree that at least regarding Rusyns such mass immigration did take place over the centuries. The only possible contention is whether before such mass immigration there had already been a Rusyn population or not.

    By the way, it’s also documented that just after the various Turkish wars and then the freedom fight (abortive war of independence) of Ferenc Rákóczi II, masses of Romanians fled Phanariot rule (which was introduced around the time Rákóczi lost in 1711), and were welcomed by the Hungarian nobles who desperately needed serfs. So the Hungarian population never fully recovered, but partly got replaced by Romanians.
  215. @Epigon
    If we go by Primary Chronicle, those Croats are Pecheneg allies and enemies of Rus/Slavs.

    Non-Slavic identity of Croats wouldn't be a surprise - the Avar, Kutrigur, Ogur hypothesis have been proposed.
    Interestingly, Croat origin myth makes a distinction between Slavs and Croats.


    Maybe the Dalmatian Croats are a hoax too?
     
    Franks and Byzantines went to war over supposed Croat heartland of Dalmatia in 800-814.
    No mention of Croats.
    Franks were also faced with a large revolt in Pannonia - the leader fled to Serbs, who control large parts of Dalmatia, and killed one of their dukes through deceit.
    Royal Frankish Annals:
    "...Exercitus de Italia propter Lindeviticum bellum conficiendum in Pannoniam missus est, ad cuius adventum Lindevitus, Siscia Civitate relicta, ad Sorabos (quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur) fugiendo se contulit, et uno ex Ducibus eorum, a quo receptus est, per dolum interf ecto, Civitatem eius in suam redegit ditionem, missis tamen ad exercitum Imperatoris Legatis suis, ad eius praesentiam se velle venire promisit."

    Perhaps the Croats hadn’t settled in Panonia yet in 814? You’re not doubting that they eventually did settle there, are you? 🙂

    As to the Avar origins of the White Croats, it’s interesting to note that if this is true, they very quickly
    adopted the Slavic tongue and started to worship Slavic gods? This type of conversion usually only occurs at the point of a sword??…

  216. @Beckow

    ...Hungarian historians tend to think that the Magyar invaders assimilated all Slavs and others found in the Carpathian Basin, and that possibly Slovaks (and even more likely Ruthenians and Romanians) were more recent arrivals.
     
    I am sure Magyar historians tend to think that, but it is not true. It is actually nonsense on its face, where in the world would these millions come from in the historical era - without any mention in the historical record? Unfortunately, what you describe is why we couldn't live in the same country. We understand our common history differently.

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region, inhabited since Bronze age. Today it has around 2 million people, many cities, 2 archbishops since early Middle Ages, 40% of Slovakia. The area was the core area of the 8.-10. century Great Moravia state and has remained a core area since then. This is where Byzantine Christianity was introduced in the 9.th century with cyrillic alphabet - it is where Slav Eastern Orthodoxy was initially invented - with eastern Moravia that is now part of Czechia. The region has had a documented Slovak population since then: names in documents, place names, Latin city records, archaic Slovak language used since 15th century. This was also the core region for the Slovak national movement, the leaders came from there, 1848-9 uprising happened there, this is where formation of Czecho-Slovakia in 1918 was very popular. To claim that Slovaks came from 'somewhere else later' makes no sense, where would they come from? And when? How would they maintain the continuity? How come nobody noticed? And who lived there before?

    You are right that large parts of central Slovakia were uninhabited until 12.-13. century, it was a huge mountainous forest. These areas were settled in the late Middle Ages by mostly peasants from the south-west looking for more land and by German miners and others. Eastern Slovakia was different - it always had very strong Rusin population and Kosice (Kassa) was a more Hungarian city - at one point I believe it was the second largest city in Hungary. Even during WWII, Kosice was taken by Hungary to revert back to Slovakia in 1945.

    We distinguish between Magyars and Hungary - we have always called Hungary, 'Uhorsko' and it is a geographic name for the Carpathian basin that includes core Magyar lands, plus Transylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Burgenland, Vojvodina,... In that we differ and will never agree. When we study our history, 'Uhorsko' (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together. My point is that this was the core reason why there is this lingering tension between Magyars and Slovaks - we don't see our common history in the same way.

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region

    Yes, I forgot about it. I read about these issues several years ago, so yes, maybe they don’t consider those regions uninhabited. It’s difficult to tell where was the gyepű, so it’s pretty much possible that those areas were not part of it.

    Let me explain why substantial parts of the country were considered uninhabited.

    Gyepű was a usual defense of nomadic peoples, they left the immediate border regions of their countries intentionally uninhabited, called gyepűelve, and tried to get expel people who happened to live there. Then the regions just behind it, the gyepű proper, were inhabited by tribes designated as border guards. That way, when an enemy army came, they had to move through first uninhabited regions with no population, patrolled by the border guards, then the lands of the border guard tribes themselves.

    Now, we cannot know which regions were those exactly, but there were surely some such regions. There are multiple non-Hungarian sources for their existence well into the 12th century.

    So back to the original point. You wrote that medieval Hungary was a mishmash of multiple ethnicities, for example a heavily Turkish (?) nobility. My point was that the area where Hungarians have lived until this very day was already populated by Hungarians, whereas some of the other areas were either uninhabited, or then inhabited by Hungarians. As a corollary, medieval Hungary was definitely less multicultural than Hungary in 1910. It was, by all accounts, predominantly ethnically Hungarian. Although, ethnically Hungarian was pretty different from the original conquering Magyars.

    When we study our history, ‘Uhorsko’ (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together.

    But it also gets lumped together in Hungarian. There was a historical state, whose laws had continuity (with a part disruption 1849-67), whose elites had continuity, and they were predominantly ethnically Magyars, and they called their country Magyarország (literally Magyar Country). Then it fell apart, and there was a small rump Hungary, which still called itself Magyarország, had the same set of laws, same official language (it had been changed from Latin to Hungarian in 1844 – there was continuity even according to the Slovaks at the time, it didn’t suddenly become a different country that year either), same elite, etc., and now you call it something else. That’s not a very good understanding of history.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...they were predominantly ethnically Magyars
     
    That was only true in the core Magyar areas in the middle, and in Transylvania. Croats had their own nobility and in Slovakia the nobility was mostly of Slovak origin with German, Magyar, Czech, even Polish in-mixture. They had names like Ctibor, Poznan, Jesensky, etc...- clearly not Magyar. They spoke Latin or Slovak/Czech, sometimes German. There was a lot of variance, but the documents by nobility that we have from 17. and 18. centuries in Slovak regions were not using Magyar language.

    The issue is that most Magyars have a blind spot and refuse to acknowledge that Habsburg Empire and its eastern half - Hungary or what we call 'Uhorsko', and so do Czechs, Croats and Poles - was a multi-national country where only in 19th century nationalist tensions emerged and for a while Magyars managed to assert their primacy from Budapest. Then they lost in WWI. We have a shared history, but it wasn't 'Magyar' history - it was our joint history under mostly Austrian kings, where most regions lived relatively independent lives and spoke their own languages. What ties us together was Latin and to some extent German, not Magyar. Even as late as mid-19th century there were complaints at Slovak county assemblies that 'nobody could understand Magyar language'. They demanded to use Slovak (Czech), German or Latin.

  217. @Mr. Hack
    Paul Magocsi, a Harvard based historian has spent the majority of his career researching Ukrainian and Rusyn history and is considered an authority on the subject puts it this way:

    The ancestors of the Carpatho-Rusyns can be traced to Slavic peoples who began to appear in the valleys of the Carpathian Mountains in small numbers during the fifth and sixth centuries. Their presence is related to the question of the original homeland of the Slavs and the invasion into east-central Europe by nomadic peoples from central Asia. Today most scholars agree that the center of the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine. During the 440s, an Asiatic people known as the Huns crossed through the Slavic homeland and burst into east-central Europe, bringing with them Slavic peoples, some of whom settled in Carpathian Rus'. A century later, one of the tribes living in the original Slavic homeland known as White Croats had begun to settle in the valleys of the northern as well as southern slopes of Carpathian Rus'. In the course of the sixth and early seventh centuries, the White Croats built fortified towns to protect their own people as well as the surrounding countryside which still included some Slavic settlers who had settled there earlier during the Hunnic invasions. During the seventh century, many of the Slavic tribes began to move out in various directions from their original homeland. Whereas some White Croats remained behind in Carpathian Rus', most moved southward into the Balkan peninsula. Their descendants are the modern Croats.
     
    http://carpatho-rusyn.org/cra/chap3.html

    scholars agree that the original homeland for all Slavic peoples was the region just north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is today eastern Poland, southwestern Belarus, and northwestern Ukraine.

    This theory originate in the 19th century – mostly among Czech historians in Prague (Palacky, Niederle), and others picked it up. It was an attempt to find an acceptable explanation for the very large number of Slavs in the region without offending German sensibilities too much. Germans really insisted on ‘this was our home‘ – and from Joseph II to Hitler they were rather pushy about it. It is jokingly referred to as the ‘Pinsk marshes theory – millions of Slav speaking people suddenly emerged out of the remote marshes deep in eastern Europe and somehow within 200 years took over around 40% of Europe. And, mind you, without any historical record describing it. Incredible and very sneaky (maybe Brennan genetic theories are on to something :).

    Nothing in historical documents describes this. What documents say is exactly the opposite: the Primary Chronicle specifically says that Slav tribes originate and spread from the Carpathian basin (it says from ‘Danube’). Medieval Polish, Czech, Frankish, papal and Byzantine documents all say that Slavs were originally living in the broader Carpathian regions and were known by different names at different times. They moved down south to the Balkans starting in the 5th century, but the original ‘homeland’ was clearly much larger and more longer lasting – not just the east Poland-western Ukraine, but at least the northern half of the Carpathian basin and today’s Poland and E Germany.

    There are also linguistic, geographic and DNA reasons why the original homeland was larger and further to the south and west: local rivers and mountains have Slavic names, old tales of ‘bogatyrs’ have them live in rocky mountains and killing ‘dragons’ in caves. Slavs were farmers and farming spread from the Carpathian basin towards north-east and not vice-versa.

    As we get more DNA data, the more autochthonous explanation looks more likely – the ancient DNA shows continuity with today’s population in the Carpathian basin. There were movements by some tribes, but the German-centric explanations don’t look right. They exist to please a certain kind of ‘dungeons and dragons‘ people who like to live their mounted knights fantasies and would like the damn Slavs to know their place.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Except for attributing the quote in your reply to me, I think that it was from AP, I have no problem with your argument.
  218. @reiner Tor

    One example that completely refutes you: south-western Slovakia, the valleys of rivers Vah and Nitra, is a densely populated, fertile region
     
    Yes, I forgot about it. I read about these issues several years ago, so yes, maybe they don't consider those regions uninhabited. It's difficult to tell where was the gyepű, so it's pretty much possible that those areas were not part of it.

    Let me explain why substantial parts of the country were considered uninhabited.

    Gyepű was a usual defense of nomadic peoples, they left the immediate border regions of their countries intentionally uninhabited, called gyepűelve, and tried to get expel people who happened to live there. Then the regions just behind it, the gyepű proper, were inhabited by tribes designated as border guards. That way, when an enemy army came, they had to move through first uninhabited regions with no population, patrolled by the border guards, then the lands of the border guard tribes themselves.

    Now, we cannot know which regions were those exactly, but there were surely some such regions. There are multiple non-Hungarian sources for their existence well into the 12th century.

    So back to the original point. You wrote that medieval Hungary was a mishmash of multiple ethnicities, for example a heavily Turkish (?) nobility. My point was that the area where Hungarians have lived until this very day was already populated by Hungarians, whereas some of the other areas were either uninhabited, or then inhabited by Hungarians. As a corollary, medieval Hungary was definitely less multicultural than Hungary in 1910. It was, by all accounts, predominantly ethnically Hungarian. Although, ethnically Hungarian was pretty different from the original conquering Magyars.

    When we study our history, ‘Uhorsko’ (or Hungary) and Magyar are not the same. In English it gets lumped together.
     
    But it also gets lumped together in Hungarian. There was a historical state, whose laws had continuity (with a part disruption 1849-67), whose elites had continuity, and they were predominantly ethnically Magyars, and they called their country Magyarország (literally Magyar Country). Then it fell apart, and there was a small rump Hungary, which still called itself Magyarország, had the same set of laws, same official language (it had been changed from Latin to Hungarian in 1844 - there was continuity even according to the Slovaks at the time, it didn't suddenly become a different country that year either), same elite, etc., and now you call it something else. That's not a very good understanding of history.

    …they were predominantly ethnically Magyars

    That was only true in the core Magyar areas in the middle, and in Transylvania. Croats had their own nobility and in Slovakia the nobility was mostly of Slovak origin with German, Magyar, Czech, even Polish in-mixture. They had names like Ctibor, Poznan, Jesensky, etc…- clearly not Magyar. They spoke Latin or Slovak/Czech, sometimes German. There was a lot of variance, but the documents by nobilit