Comments Thread For: Photos: Vitali Klitschko Suffers Injury in Wild Ukraine Riot

[Banderivets]

Hey, link that abstract if you can: It should be a great read

Poet

I'll dig it up, its on a different computer at a different place but Ill remember.

[SN!PER]

What's with these boxers trying to be polititians? Vitali and Pacman are ****** rich, they don't care nor understand poverty and people's needs, specially Pacman; too young and too rich to be useful for Phillippines' society.

I don't know about Klitschko, but I'm pretty sure Pacquiao was born into a poor family and had to fight his way out of poverty when he started in the ring.

Anyway, I think they can use their fame and power for good purposes, but running for political positions is probably going too far.

[Poet682006]

I'll dig it up, its on a different computer at a different place but Ill remember.

Thanks my man!

[TaurusJ27]

Are they going to use this injury to postpone his fight this fall?

[Poet682006]

Are they going to use this injury to postpone his fight this fall?

I doubt it. It didn't seem anywhere serious enough for that.

Poet

[Mikhnienko]

Wow.......straight out of the commie history books. Good job mate!

I mean really...

First of you have a very elementary understanding of languages. Every language is a combo of something, it does not evolve in a vacuum. This is like saying spanish is not an authentic language its a combo of some italian dialect and french...

And what is Italian anyway? How is italian an "authentic" language?

Ukrainian unlike Russian (which is the same everywhere) has many dialects.

And where is this Polish influence....So Russian and Polish are "authentic" and Ukrainians decided to take those two and mix them? Complex logic....really....

Honestly I do not even know where to start.


Now back to Rus'. First and foremost, Moscow was ALWAYS the borderland of Rus'. And after Rus' fell the rightful successors to Rus' became the Halytsko-Volyns'ke Kingdom. Not Moscovia who unlike Halych-Volyn' became heavily influenced by the invading forces, who actually completely assimilated into Moscovia and to whom the native mosocovites paid tribute.

Halych-Volyn' never let the mongols assimilate and there were never any on their territory.

When Halych-Volyn' became absorbed into the Polish Lithuanian common wealth, the latter took on most of the old Rus' customs, they accepted their model of society and governance. Hence the real remnants of Rus' remained there, not in Moscow who was always a borderland and on top of that never fought off the mongol invaders. The problem is the modern obsession with names and credits...Who cares that it was not the Polish-Lithuanian-Halych-Volyn Common wealth...is that what you want to hear? No one cared about the napoleonic concepts of nation and peoples. Only thing that mattered was your town/village/family. Especially in Ukrainian culture where the onus is on "my house, my field, my wife kids and my horse..."

Ukrainians were always called "Russyny" ALWAYS, in the west they were referred to as such, because they were the inheritors of Rus'. Even my grandfather under Austro-Hungary was a "Russyn" in his passport.

Ukraine (Ukrainians) is an artificial term created by POLITICALLY CONSCIOUS Russyns after the Treaty of Periaslav, after which the Tsar of Moscovia proclaimed that he was the "Tsar of all Rus'", after which Moscovites started calling themselves Ruskiye. Rightfully Ukrainians were always Rusyns. So your whole theory around the word goes out the window.

Russia has a long history of importing culture...Starting with "tsar vsiya rusi" and continuing with Peter the great....

Hence "Ukrainians" was a response to Russian adoption of the world "Rus".

Even though the treaty of Periaslav was never any kind of union between Cossacks and Moscovites * if you want to know why that is, I wrote a paper on this which I can give you an abstract for.

And lastly, how did MaloRussia come to exist?

It came to exist as the result of oppression in all aspects of life. Oppression of language, and it was Catherin the Great who introduced serfdom to Ukraine, which never existed on the land before.

So to say that its oppressive to "their culture" is really illogical.

So it means oppressing a culture that is the product of oppression in the first place.


Your entire view is very Russo centric and is simply a copy paste of the communist version of history which had a single purpose. "we all one people" for which they pushed out the "reuniting of Rus lands" interpretation of the Treaty of Pereislav.

And lastly, no one except for ethnic Russians (and even for them maybe 25%) care about language laws in the South and East. Go and ask the people...

If you really believe that there is some kind of public unrest that is because you read Russian propaganda or watch RT....Russian media is the biggest joke on the planet....perfect example is RT. Its constantly fabricating enemies and drawing negatives images if anything and everything...Its the kind of journalism that is only appealing to zombified ****soveticus.

Russia is a big a ****hole or even bigger than Ukraine. The big difference being that while Ukrainians are vocal and admit that our entire government is full of crooks and thieves, when the same is said about the Russian government its taken offensively...I do not know who is to blame for this Russian complex without sounding offensive...but it has to be a long history of bowing to the Tsar and long history of absence of any notion private property...which all are the polar opposite of Ukrainian culture.

P.S. I can write all day about the issues with Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture......just as I can do about the Russian, but I happen to be a Ukrainian so its closer to my heart, and I do not want you to think for a moment that Ukrainians are some kind of innocent victims of the great Russian oppressor...Circumstance or not your pave your own roads and Ukrainians have never bothered to really put any effort into truly uniting and creating something for themselves...

But people and specially Russians have a very hard time admitting that in some aspects they simply lack the development...Just admit defeat and superiority of someone else and adapt, and move ahead...Stop telling yourself that you are the **** and you know better.

Your portrayal of Ukrainians being on equal standing to Polish and Lithuanians in their state is very inaccurate and Catherine wasn't the first to introduce serfdom to Ukrainian lands. In Poland serfdom was essenially in effect by 1518 and officially by 1573. In Lithuania peasents were deprived of property rights to Smiliesland in 1557 and in 1588 full bondage not being allowed to leave the estate they belonged to.

Ukrainians were never allowed representation in the Sejm and the Polish never respected Rusyns Orthodox faith which were main contributing factors to the revolution. Language was the one thing that they never made a significant effort to force assimilate on, unlike Russia.

The Russian "history" and writings of men like Karamzin, Pogodin, and Solovev are very much alive still today, sadly. I would enjoy reading your paper on the Pereyaslav treaty too if you get a link at some point PM me.

[Banderivets]

Your portrayal of Ukrainians being on equal standing to Polish and Lithuanians in their state is very inaccurate and Catherine wasn't the first to introduce serfdom to Ukrainian lands. In Poland serfdom was essenially in effect by 1518 and officially by 1573. In Lithuania peasents were deprived of property rights to Smiliesland in 1557 and in 1588 full bondage not being allowed to leave the estate they belonged to.

On the first point its up to debate. From what I was taught in the initial stages there was a respect and adoption of Rus' customs, what came out of it eventually is a different story.
Well at least in the Lithuanian part, after all Belorusians were called Lithuanians till not too long ago. I don't deny that Poland eventually reached a hegemon like status and that by the end of it all Rysuny were reduced to conversion etc.

Halych-Volyn' seized to exist in mid 14th century, as you say serfdom didn't reach the right bank for another 150 years.

But you could argue that Catherin introduced it to what can rightfully be thought of as Ukraine in a more modern context (or just Ukraine for those who ignore the role of Rysuns in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.)

Ukrainians were never allowed representation in the Sejm and the Polish never respected Rusyns Orthodox faith which were main contributing factors to the revolution. Language was the one thing that they never made a significant effort to force assimilate on, unlike Russia.

All true.

[VirusTI]

Wow.......straight out of the commie history books. Good job mate!

I mean really...

First of you have a very elementary understanding of languages. Every language is a combo of something, it does not evolve in a vacuum. This is like saying spanish is not an authentic language its a combo of some italian dialect and french...

And what is Italian anyway? How is italian an "authentic" language?

Ukrainian unlike Russian (which is the same everywhere) has many dialects.

And where is this Polish influence....So Russian and Polish are "authentic" and Ukrainians decided to take those two and mix them? Complex logic....really....

Honestly I do not even know where to start.


Now back to Rus'. First and foremost, Moscow was ALWAYS the borderland of Rus'. And after Rus' fell the rightful successors to Rus' became the Halytsko-Volyns'ke Kingdom. Not Moscovia who unlike Halych-Volyn' became heavily influenced by the invading forces, who actually completely assimilated into Moscovia and to whom the native mosocovites paid tribute.

Halych-Volyn' never let the mongols assimilate and there were never any on their territory.

When Halych-Volyn' became absorbed into the Polish Lithuanian common wealth, the latter took on most of the old Rus' customs, they accepted their model of society and governance. Hence the real remnants of Rus' remained there, not in Moscow who was always a borderland and on top of that never fought off the mongol invaders. The problem is the modern obsession with names and credits...Who cares that it was not the Polish-Lithuanian-Halych-Volyn Common wealth...is that what you want to hear? No one cared about the napoleonic concepts of nation and peoples. Only thing that mattered was your town/village/family. Especially in Ukrainian culture where the onus is on "my house, my field, my wife kids and my horse..."

Ukrainians were always called "Russyny" ALWAYS, in the west they were referred to as such, because they were the inheritors of Rus'. Even my grandfather under Austro-Hungary was a "Russyn" in his passport.

Ukraine (Ukrainians) is an artificial term created by POLITICALLY CONSCIOUS Russyns after the Treaty of Periaslav, after which the Tsar of Moscovia proclaimed that he was the "Tsar of all Rus'", after which Moscovites started calling themselves Ruskiye. Rightfully Ukrainians were always Rusyns. So your whole theory around the word goes out the window.

Russia has a long history of importing culture...Starting with "tsar vsiya rusi" and continuing with Peter the great....

Hence "Ukrainians" was a response to Russian adoption of the world "Rus".

Even though the treaty of Periaslav was never any kind of union between Cossacks and Moscovites * if you want to know why that is, I wrote a paper on this which I can give you an abstract for.

And lastly, how did MaloRussia come to exist?

It came to exist as the result of oppression in all aspects of life. Oppression of language, and it was Catherin the Great who introduced serfdom to Ukraine, which never existed on the land before.

So to say that its oppressive to "their culture" is really illogical.

So it means oppressing a culture that is the product of oppression in the first place.


Your entire view is very Russo centric and is simply a copy paste of the communist version of history which had a single purpose. "we all one people" for which they pushed out the "reuniting of Rus lands" interpretation of the Treaty of Pereislav.

And lastly, no one except for ethnic Russians (and even for them maybe 25%) care about language laws in the South and East. Go and ask the people...

If you really believe that there is some kind of public unrest that is because you read Russian propaganda or watch RT....Russian media is the biggest joke on the planet....perfect example is RT. Its constantly fabricating enemies and drawing negatives images if anything and everything...Its the kind of journalism that is only appealing to zombified ****soveticus.

Russia is a big a ****hole or even bigger than Ukraine. The big difference being that while Ukrainians are vocal and admit that our entire government is full of crooks and thieves, when the same is said about the Russian government its taken offensively...I do not know who is to blame for this Russian complex without sounding offensive...but it has to be a long history of bowing to the Tsar and long history of absence of any notion private property...which all are the polar opposite of Ukrainian culture.

P.S. I can write all day about the issues with Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture......just as I can do about the Russian, but I happen to be a Ukrainian so its closer to my heart, and I do not want you to think for a moment that Ukrainians are some kind of innocent victims of the great Russian oppressor...Circumstance or not your pave your own roads and Ukrainians have never bothered to really put any effort into truly uniting and creating something for themselves...

But people and specially Russians have a very hard time admitting that in some aspects they simply lack the development...Just admit defeat and superiority of someone else and adapt, and move ahead...Stop telling yourself that you are the **** and you know better.

Again, I think you misunderstand me: I think Ukraine is the cultural center of the Rus', NOT MOSCOW(I agree that Moscow is the border of the Rus'!) calling Ukraine "Border land" is offensive to Ukrainians like myself.

Second, you are picking and choosing, saying that Moscow lost the Rus' customs meanwhile the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth let them flourish, is questionable at best. All you have to do is look at the Ukrainian language and see that a lot Polish and Polish customs have been added to the old language.

Thirdly , Ukrainian has so many dialects because we were conquered by all under the sun! From the Polish to the Ottomans, from the Mongols to the Russians.

How can you tell me that no one but ethnic Russians care about the language laws. My Father and and sister in Donetsk care plenty, they like me, are both Ukrainian, but my sister attends a private Russian school! I can't believe that you claim oppression, yet at the same time force people to stop using Russian. All this law does is allow Russian, to be used in Government affairs in parts of Ukraine where Russian is predominant. This does not change the Ukrainian language and allows people to freely use both!

Look man, Ukraine is divided on a civilization fault line. The Western half of Ukraine is different from the Eastern half. From language to culture. From economy to religion. I don't know if that can ever mend, but consistently trying to **** on Eastern Ukraine and on Russia will not get us anywhere.

Lastly, let me say that I am Ukrainian, and I am proud to be a Ukrainian, but our understanding of what a Ukrainian is, is different.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Big Vit is really "The People's Champ".....dude out on the frontline...gotta love it!!

I owe you a green k sir.

[Banderivets]

I would enjoy reading your paper on the Pereyaslav treaty too if you get a link at some point PM me.

Basically it went something like this...I found a rough draft notes on this rig.
====


Through the Pereiaslav agreement Bohdan Khmelnytsky formed a military alliance with Muscovy for the advancement of the Cossack political cause.
Having failed to achieve his goals in the realm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth such as the abolishment of the Uniate Church and the restoration of traditional Cossack privileges, and having reached a stalemate in terms of Polish-Ukrainian relations Khmelnytsky turned to Muscovy in order to break the military and political deadlock that has emerged between the two parties.

The text of the agreement itself implies the formation of a union that leaves both parties with substantial political independence; there is an absence of a common cause. Moscow was reluctant to align with Khmelnytsky. There was a fear of a conflict with Poland, and due to the ideological differences between the two parties some conservative Muscovites where against the formation of a close bond between the Tsardom of Muscovy and Ukraine. Patriarch Nikon can be credited with influencing Tsar Alexei to form an alliance with Ukraine in the pursuit of his own agenda and his wish to reform the Russian Church with the help of Kiev. Under the pretext of protection of Orthodoxy from Polish oppression the Cossacks and Muscovy formed an alliance of mutual gain and benefit.
Khmelnytsky’s ultimate aim was that of Ukrainian independence when he realized that the Polish nobility would not approve of his demands for greater rights for Cossacks who wished for autonomy but within the Polish Kingdom, however after a series of conflicts and inability to reach a compromise Khmelnytsky was beginning to realize that in order to achieve this goal he needed to break relations with Poland.

During the Khmelnytsky uprising of 1648 the Cossacks where largely victories in their battles with the Commonwealth, however having lost an important ally in the Crimean Tatars Khmelnytsky’s bargaining power was compromised.
During a battle in 1649 the superior Cossack army surrounded the king and his forces, the Poles stricken with fear wrote to khan promising to fulfill any of his wishes if the latter would break his alliance with Khmelnytsky. The khan consented and advised Khmelnytsky that he make peace with the king, realizing the danger of refusing to make peace the Cossack hetman accepted the khan’s advice.

Originally Khmelnytsky’s wish was that the union of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches established at the Union of Brest of 1596 be abolished. Cossacks wished for the metropolitan of the Orthodox Church to receive a seat in the Polish senate. However having lost an ally in the Khan, the Cossacks did not possess the power make the Polish nobility conform to their demands. Khmelnytsky might have had the support of the Polish king but this fact alone did not put one in the position to bargain with the state that was essentially ran by the nobility which the King served, bearing this in mind his attempts to install a pro-Cossack king, if ever successful would also be of no benefit to the Ukrainian cause.

Having arrived at this juncture Khmelnytsky realized that the only way to achieve his goals was to “shatter the Polish state to its very foundations.” Such a mission could not have been achieved without some help from the outside; the ambitious hetman needed a competent ally which he found in Tsar Alexei of Muscovy. Khmelnytsky sent numerous requests to the tsar asking for his alliance but was largely ignored.
Initially the tsar was reluctant to form an alliance with the hetman. This reluctance was driven by the fear of a conflict with Poland. Poland as a dominant power in Eastern Europe has invaded Muscovy several times in the seventeenth century and played a key role in Muscovite politics. With these invasions still fresh in minds of the Tsar and his advisors such an alliance was seen as dangerous. There was a renewal of Tatar raids and the potential of Swedish invasion of Livonia, a territory that was of much importance to Muscovy who sought to establish its own ports on the Baltic Sea. In addition Muscovites thought of Ukraine as a place of social and intellectual unrest. A large number of peasants and discontented Cossacks migrated to Muscovite controlled lands fleeing religious persecution and Poland’s expanding manorial system. As many as 20, 000 people emigrated from the Left Bank to Sloboda Ukraine in the decade leading to the revolts of 1648; hence Muscovites became aware of Ukrainian ideals. Ordin-Naschokin Russian diplomat and politician of the seventeenth century had his reservations concerning Ukraine, his objections where shared with the Muscovite elite. Cossack freedoms and the Magdeburg Law were concepts that were foreign to autocratic Muscovy, “…the law and freedom of the Cossacks constituted a breach of faith and betrayal for the Muscovites”. The religious views that came out of Kiev were also seen as foreign and in conflict with Muscovite practices. However for some prominent Muscovites, such as Patriarch Nikon, these ideas were attractive.

Patriarch Nikon wished to establish uniformity between Greek and Russian church practices. For this purpose he needed the services of Ukrainian theologians. Nikon was elected patriarch of Moscow in 1652, and was eager to strengthen the ties between the Muscovite Church and the Greek Orient, “He saw clearly the backwardness of the Muscovite clergy and the need of education for the people, thus welcomed the cooperation of Ukrainian scholars and theologians, alumni of the Kiev academy”. Nikon was a close advisor of tsar Alexei, and had a big influence on the young leader. The tsar lacked experience and had little support from his boyars and in Nikon he saw a man that he could trust. By 1954 Nikon and tsar Alexei built a relationship based on mutual trust and Nikon’s urge to ally with Ukrainians swayed the tsar to finally call for the national assembly to discuss the “Ukrainian problem”. Convinced of the need for religious reform, the Tsar also was persuaded by the potential to recover the provinces of Smolensk and Sieversk taken by the Poles not so long ago, “The Muscovite Tsar, indeed greatly wished to take revenge on Poland for recent losses, but feared to involve himself in war” . With a new ally in the Cossacks this fear and reluctance was replaced by a new attitude of confidence, Alexei saw the weakened position of Poles and finally decided to begin the process of allying with the Cossacks under the pretext of the defense of Orthodoxy.