Who are the east Europeans?

[ESay]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

 

[anotherlife]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

 

[Maggdy]

not really

??

Yugoslavia consisted of many contemporary countries. Serbia is only one of them.

Would Russia want Yugoslavia back?

to my mind, yes, but it is hardly possible. Some of its former parts switched the religion to islam or catholic.That is main reason of cultural difference.

Talking about putting countries back on the map with cultural changes, I wonder what Russians would think about putting Austria-Hungary back on the map. After all, Russia and Austria-Hungary were allies before world war 1 made them enemies. I speculate that a restored Austria-Hungary would be a useful Russian ally today, against the newly constructed Franco-German expansion to the east. What would Russians think about replacing the Central European countries with Austria-Hungary, as a restoration?

I do protest. Austro-Hungarian monarchy was just a moment in history (1867-1918), but it was a huge failure.

" Between 1820 and 1920 over 3,700,000 people emigrated from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to the United States. Only Germany (5,500,000), Ireland (4,400,000) and Italy (4,190,000) had higher figures.

An investigation carried out in 1978 revealled that since 1820 over 4,315,000 people emigrated to the United States from Austria-Hungary. This amounted to 8.9 per cent of the total foreign immigration."
Source: Austrian-Hungarian Immigrants

 

[Sbiker]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

And also burial of Chernobyl

I think, Russia don't need this anti-russian terrirories anymore, because our warriors now are studying from US, how to defend country and national interests from air at any territories outside Russia (like in Syria)...

 

[anotherlife]

??

Yugoslavia consisted of many contemporary countries. Serbia is only one of them.

Would Russia want Yugoslavia back?

to my mind, yes, but it is hardly possible. Some of its former parts switched the religion to islam or catholic.That is main reason of cultural difference.

Talking about putting countries back on the map with cultural changes, I wonder what Russians would think about putting Austria-Hungary back on the map. After all, Russia and Austria-Hungary were allies before world war 1 made them enemies. I speculate that a restored Austria-Hungary would be a useful Russian ally today, against the newly constructed Franco-German expansion to the east. What would Russians think about replacing the Central European countries with Austria-Hungary, as a restoration?

I do protest. Austro-Hungarian monarchy was just a moment in history (1867-1918), but it was a huge failure.

" Between 1820 and 1920 over 3,700,000 people emigrated from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to the United States. Only Germany (5,500,000), Ireland (4,400,000) and Italy (4,190,000) had higher figures.

An investigation carried out in 1978 revealled that since 1820 over 4,315,000 people emigrated to the United States from Austria-Hungary. This amounted to 8.9 per cent of the total foreign immigration."
Source: Austrian-Hungarian Immigrants

But Austria-Hungary was the only solution that didn't force country border walls across people's villages. Currently, languages are weaponized in all of the successor countries of Austria-Hungary, that the communist put on the map. Austria-Hungary didn't weaponized languages, it had only two, German and Hungarian, but mostly German only everywhere. When you bring all government and business administration under one single language like this,that is when borders fall. You can't pretend that some European Union opens borders, when administrative languages are kept border specific. So, for all countries in Central Europe, if they are interested in globalization, as opposed to small fascistic isolation, the correct way to proceed is to reunite under the traditions of Austria-Hungary, at least in the linguistic and financial sense, using only one single administrative language in all offices in all those countries. If they hate German, English would do too, but needs to be compulsory, like it is in India, that follows this model. In the case of Central Europe,a new war may still be needed though to reestablish such a true unification. But hell, even old Ghandi too had to threaten a few of the 19 states of India with war, to establish that country.

 

[Militants]

Austria are central Europeans.

 

[ESay]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

 

[anotherlife]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

 

[ESay]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

??

Yugoslavia consisted of many contemporary countries. Serbia is only one of them.

Would Russia want Yugoslavia back?

to my mind, yes, but it is hardly possible. Some of its former parts switched the religion to islam or catholic.That is main reason of cultural difference.

Talking about putting countries back on the map with cultural changes, I wonder what Russians would think about putting Austria-Hungary back on the map. After all, Russia and Austria-Hungary were allies before world war 1 made them enemies. I speculate that a restored Austria-Hungary would be a useful Russian ally today, against the newly constructed Franco-German expansion to the east. What would Russians think about replacing the Central European countries with Austria-Hungary, as a restoration?

I do protest. Austro-Hungarian monarchy was just a moment in history (1867-1918), but it was a huge failure.

" Between 1820 and 1920 over 3,700,000 people emigrated from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to the United States. Only Germany (5,500,000), Ireland (4,400,000) and Italy (4,190,000) had higher figures.

An investigation carried out in 1978 revealled that since 1820 over 4,315,000 people emigrated to the United States from Austria-Hungary. This amounted to 8.9 per cent of the total foreign immigration."
Source: Austrian-Hungarian Immigrants

"Austro-Hungarian monarchy was just a moment in history (1867-1918), but it was a huge failure."

A "huge failure" because people emigrated

 

[anotherlife]

If the Ukraine gets divided between Russia and Poland, then would Russians want to lay claims to its Zakarpatie territory? That part was a part of Slovakia/Hungary, and if Poland doesn't want it then it would create a Russian island in those mountains. Would Russia still want it as an island?

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

Actually, I suspect, that the Ukrainian people themselves would be a lot happier if the yellow parts on the map were reestablished as the new Kiev Rus. I agree that that is the base identity. Also a good name, since there is already a country called Belo Rus there.

Then the west could easily go to Poland and Hungary, and the east to Russia, or better still, to another new country "Novo-Russia", considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

 

[Igrok_]

considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

really? How do you know that?

 

[anotherlife]

considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

really? How do you know that?

There was a news story about in on F24 in France. But I guess it may be just another propaganda manipulation bullshit though, now that I think of it.

 

[Maggdy]

Yugoslavia consisted of many contemporary countries. Serbia is only one of them.

Would Russia want Yugoslavia back?

to my mind, yes, but it is hardly possible. Some of its former parts switched the religion to islam or catholic.That is main reason of cultural difference.

Talking about putting countries back on the map with cultural changes, I wonder what Russians would think about putting Austria-Hungary back on the map. After all, Russia and Austria-Hungary were allies before world war 1 made them enemies. I speculate that a restored Austria-Hungary would be a useful Russian ally today, against the newly constructed Franco-German expansion to the east. What would Russians think about replacing the Central European countries with Austria-Hungary, as a restoration?

I do protest. Austro-Hungarian monarchy was just a moment in history (1867-1918), but it was a huge failure.

" Between 1820 and 1920 over 3,700,000 people emigrated from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to the United States. Only Germany (5,500,000), Ireland (4,400,000) and Italy (4,190,000) had higher figures.

An investigation carried out in 1978 revealled that since 1820 over 4,315,000 people emigrated to the United States from Austria-Hungary. This amounted to 8.9 per cent of the total foreign immigration."
Source: Austrian-Hungarian Immigrants

But Austria-Hungary was the only solution that didn't force country border walls across people's villages. Currently, languages are weaponized in all of the successor countries of Austria-Hungary, that the communist put on the map. Austria-Hungary didn't weaponized languages, it had only two, German and Hungarian, but mostly German only everywhere. When you bring all government and business administration under one single language like this,that is when borders fall. You can't pretend that some European Union opens borders, when administrative languages are kept border specific. So, for all countries in Central Europe, if they are interested in globalization, as opposed to small fascistic isolation, the correct way to proceed is to reunite under the traditions of Austria-Hungary, at least in the linguistic and financial sense, using only one single administrative language in all offices in all those countries. If they hate German, English would do too, but needs to be compulsory, like it is in India, that follows this model. In the case of Central Europe,a new war may still be needed though to reestablish such a true unification. But hell, even old Ghandi too had to threaten a few of the 19 states of India with war, to establish that country.

The Hungarian language a retired language, but we do not kill it because elderly.
It is possible that the Hungarian language is not weaponize, but fact it older than the English language. Hungarian written regulations also existed before the birth of the English language.

Gárdonyi Géza, Hungarian writer and journalist (1863-1922) : “The most treasured possession of a people is its language. No matter what they lose, they can regain but if they lose their language, not even God can give it back.”

Only a few reviews about the Hungarian language:

Jakob Grimm; Fairytale writer and the first German grammar scientist (XIX century):
" ...the Hungarian language is logical, has a perfect structure and surpasses every other language. ".

1480
MARCIO GALOTTI, a humanist in the court of King Mátyás Corvinus stated with amazement: “The Hungarians may be aristocrats or peasants but they all use the same language.”

1790
JOHANN GOTTFRIED HERDER acknowledged that the Hungarian language is a great treasure: „Is there anything more dear to the people than their own language? Their whole way of thinking lies in their language, their past and their history, their beliefs, and the basis of their whole life, their whole heart and soul.”

1830
SIR JOHN BOWRING, English traveler and writer, visited Hungary and published an anthology in English of the work of Hungarian writers and poets. „The Hungarian language goes far back. It developed in a very peculiar manner and its structure reaches back to times when most of the now spoken European languages did not even exist. It is a language which developed steadily and firmly in itself, and in which there are logic and mathematics with the adaptability and malleability of strength and chords. The Englishman should be proud that his language indicates an epic of human history. One can show forth its origin; and all layers can be distinguished in it, which gathered together during contacts with different nations. Whereas the Hungarian language is like a rubble-stone, consisting of only one piece, on which the storms of time left not a scratch. It's not a calendar that adjusts to the changes of the ages. It needs no one, it doesn't borrow, does no huckstering, and doesn't give or take from anyone. This language is the oldest and most glorious monument of national sovereignty and mental independence. What scholars cannot solve, they ignore. In philology it's the same way as in archeology. The floors of the old Egyptian temples, which were made out of only one rock, can't be explained. No one knows where they came from, or from which mountain the wondrous mass was taken. How they were transported and lifted to the top of the temples. The genuineness of the Hungarian language is a phenomenon much more wondrous than this.”

1840
N. ERBESBERG, a world famous professor from Vienna: “The structure of the Hungarian language is such that it appears that linguists could have created it with the purpose of incorporating in it every rule, conciseness, melody and clarity and besides all this it avoided any commonness, difficulty in pronunciation and irregularities.”

1848
N. SIMPSON: “Letters from the Banks of the Danube.” In this series of articles, he wrote about the Hungarian language in the exciting days of March, (during the 1848 Hungarian Freedom Fight against the Hapsburgs). “The Hungarian language is very poetic, rich and spirited, . . . it is full of enthusiasm and strength and is suited to all kinds of poetical work. It is strong and yet gentle and very pleasing in sound. It is melodic and its expression is clear.”

1840
WILHELM SCHOTT, an outstanding German scientist: “ In the Hungarian language there is a fresh, childish, natural view and it cannot but be suspected that there is the possibility of development hidden in it like a bud. It contains many beautiful soft consonants and its vowels are more clearly pronounced than in German. It can be used for short statements and also for powerful oratory, in short, every type of prose. It is built on matching vowel sounds, pleasing rhymes, and its richness and resounding tones are well suited for poetry. This is demonstrated in every branch of poetry.”

1932
EDGAR CLEMENT, German linguist, was so impressed by the musicality of the language that he learned Hungarian. According to him, the Hungarian language had a magical strength, which reflected a deep spirituality and only the highest ranking languages, especially the old classical languages could match up to it."

Ove Berglund; Swedish physician and translator:

"Now that I have an idea of the structure of language, it is my opinion: the Hungarian language is the top product of human logic." (Hungarian National 2003rd XII.)

Edward Teller; Nuclear physicist:
"... Excellent new discovery that ONE language is, that is the Hungarian." (Mai Nap, Budapest, 1991. 9)

 

[ESay]

The issue is more complicated. The question isn’t about Zakarpatie. Take a look on this map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Ukraine_KIIS-Regional-division.png

The map depicts three main cultural regions inside Ukraine (orange – Western Ukraine, yellow – Central Ukraine, and dark/light blue – South-Eastern Ukraine (so-called Novorossia)).

While the orange part could be incorporated into Poland (except Zakarpatie, which is most likely to be in Hungary) and the blue part incorporated into Russia, there still remains a question what to do with the yellow part. The people who live in this part mostly don’t want to join Russia and have pro-European views (though these feelings aren’t as high as in the Western part).

There may be three possible scenarios:
1. Creation an independent state.
Not viable project – land-locked territory, almost without natural resources and significant industrial assets.

2. Joining to Poland.
Too big and culture-different territory to be incorporated fast and easily. There are no economical gains for Poland.

3. Joining to Russia.
There are significant minuses for Russia: the first and foremost – significant part of population has anti-Russian views and feelings of Ukrainian national identity – it makes highly possible that “euromaidans” will be happening in the future; no economical gains. The only positive thing – pride for gaining territories which were parts of the Old Rus’ state and the Russian Empire.

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

Actually, I suspect, that the Ukrainian people themselves would be a lot happier if the yellow parts on the map were reestablished as the new Kiev Rus. I agree that that is the base identity. Also a good name, since there is already a country called Belo Rus there.

Then the west could easily go to Poland and Hungary, and the east to Russia, or better still, to another new country "Novo-Russia", considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

The Ukrainian people would be happier if they lived in undivided country with strong economy, without corrupt thugs who damage the country more than any external enemy.

Take a look at the medieval Kievan Rus and then at the yellow part. Do you see any difference? If you simply call the yellow part Kievan Rus, that won’t make it viable as an economical and political project.

Why nothing can go easily to something else I wrote in my previous posts.

 

[anotherlife]

Very interesting. It would be nice to see the long frozen European borders move again.

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

Actually, I suspect, that the Ukrainian people themselves would be a lot happier if the yellow parts on the map were reestablished as the new Kiev Rus. I agree that that is the base identity. Also a good name, since there is already a country called Belo Rus there.

Then the west could easily go to Poland and Hungary, and the east to Russia, or better still, to another new country "Novo-Russia", considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

The Ukrainian people would be happier if they lived in undivided country with strong economy, without corrupt thugs who damage the country more than any external enemy.

Take a look at the medieval Kievan Rus and then at the yellow part. Do you see any difference? If you simply call the yellow part Kievan Rus, that won’t make it viable as an economical and political project.

Why nothing can go easily to something else I wrote in my previous posts.

This is interesting. I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus. It is true, that the communist in the 20th century invented many countries, today on the map, only to prevent historical borders and hence to create conflict. It is amazingly easy to tell people that you are entitled to give them what is not theirs, and they will then religiously believe in you, without asking if it was yours to give to them to begin with. The communist invented that they are entitled to divide and redistribute any land, and so people religiously believe in them now as a result. The Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation, will most likely become one of the very few people that are capable of escaping this communist mind control. The only other ones are the Hungarians. So, dividing the Ukraine is a good start to eliminate communism in the entirety of Europe.

 

[Maggdy]

Frankly, I didn’t get your remark about borders. But I can add a couple of words to my previous post.

I don’t think that the division of Ukraine will take place. The Western powers aren’t interested in it. Again, there are three reasons for it:

1. Possible “balkanization”. If it happens, the war in Donbas would seem as something quite insignificant.

2. There remains part of Ukraine which cannot be incorporated in any of the neighboring countries without negative consequences (the yellow part I mentioned above).

3. The EU won’t be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland, because there need to be significant hike in allowances being sent to Poland from the EU budget. Also, the Western Ukraine is a heartland of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and this fact virtually guarantees that there will be conflicts on ethnic grounds.

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

Actually, I suspect, that the Ukrainian people themselves would be a lot happier if the yellow parts on the map were reestablished as the new Kiev Rus. I agree that that is the base identity. Also a good name, since there is already a country called Belo Rus there.

Then the west could easily go to Poland and Hungary, and the east to Russia, or better still, to another new country "Novo-Russia", considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

The Ukrainian people would be happier if they lived in undivided country with strong economy, without corrupt thugs who damage the country more than any external enemy.

Take a look at the medieval Kievan Rus and then at the yellow part. Do you see any difference? If you simply call the yellow part Kievan Rus, that won’t make it viable as an economical and political project.

Why nothing can go easily to something else I wrote in my previous posts.

This is interesting. I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus. It is true, that the communist in the 20th century invented many countries, today on the map, only to prevent historical borders and hence to create conflict. It is amazingly easy to tell people that you are entitled to give them what is not theirs, and they will then religiously believe in you, without asking if it was yours to give to them to begin with. The communist invented that they are entitled to divide and redistribute any land, and so people religiously believe in them now as a result. The Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation, will most likely become one of the very few people that are capable of escaping this communist mind control. The only other ones are the Hungarians. So, dividing the Ukraine is a good start to eliminate communism in the entirety of Europe.

In my opinion, not a political or religious conflicts are causing the problem. On the map Ukraine split into three parts. In blue eastern part Russian-speaking people live. In the west side of the Ukrainian-speaking people live. In the central part of the country people speak both languages.

Citizens forgotten their mother tongue in Belarus, there in 90% of the people speak only Russian fluently. (Belarus official name in Hungarian language "White Russia" = Fehéroroszország)

 

[anotherlife]

This is interesting, because the EU engineered exactly these 3 issues to currently happen along all the Hungarian borders, as an example. Okay that one is more like a cold war rather than a hot war, but a war nevertheless.

Again, I don’t understand what you are trying to say by this. I can only say that if we are talking about Ukraine, then it is unreasonable to blame purely the EU or the US for the so-called Euromaidan. Thinking that the Euromaidan was possible only because of a handful of neo-fascists receiving support from the West is fooling yourself. You should begin with the times of Kievan Rus to start from.

Actually, I suspect, that the Ukrainian people themselves would be a lot happier if the yellow parts on the map were reestablished as the new Kiev Rus. I agree that that is the base identity. Also a good name, since there is already a country called Belo Rus there.

Then the west could easily go to Poland and Hungary, and the east to Russia, or better still, to another new country "Novo-Russia", considering that the Krimean Russians are not that happy with their Moscow arrangement any more.

The Ukrainian people would be happier if they lived in undivided country with strong economy, without corrupt thugs who damage the country more than any external enemy.

Take a look at the medieval Kievan Rus and then at the yellow part. Do you see any difference? If you simply call the yellow part Kievan Rus, that won’t make it viable as an economical and political project.

Why nothing can go easily to something else I wrote in my previous posts.

This is interesting. I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus. It is true, that the communist in the 20th century invented many countries, today on the map, only to prevent historical borders and hence to create conflict. It is amazingly easy to tell people that you are entitled to give them what is not theirs, and they will then religiously believe in you, without asking if it was yours to give to them to begin with. The communist invented that they are entitled to divide and redistribute any land, and so people religiously believe in them now as a result. The Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation, will most likely become one of the very few people that are capable of escaping this communist mind control. The only other ones are the Hungarians. So, dividing the Ukraine is a good start to eliminate communism in the entirety of Europe.

In my opinion, not a political or religious conflicts are causing the problem. On the map Ukraine split into three parts. In blue eastern part Russian-speaking people live. In the west side of the Ukrainian-speaking people live. In the central part of the country people speak both languages.

Citizens forgotten their mother tongue in Belarus, there in 90% of the people speak only Russian fluently. (Belarus official name in Hungarian language "White Russia" = Fehéroroszország)

This is probably the best illustration of the crime of the communist. Also, as per your earlier post, Maggdy, loss of language is loss of identity and loss of survival assets, which I think is logical. This is the difference between the communist and an invading marauding army. The marauding army robs and loots you, then leaves. The communist rob and loot you, then convince you to thank for it.

 

[ESay]

I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus.

Actually, it is very easy to do.
File:Kievan-rus-1015-1113-(en).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is interesting. I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus. It is true, that the communist in the 20th century invented many countries, today on the map, only to prevent historical borders and hence to create conflict. It is amazingly easy to tell people that you are entitled to give them what is not theirs, and they will then religiously believe in you, without asking if it was yours to give to them to begin with. The communist invented that they are entitled to divide and redistribute any land, and so people religiously believe in them now as a result. The Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation, will most likely become one of the very few people that are capable of escaping this communist mind control. The only other ones are the Hungarians. So, dividing the Ukraine is a good start to eliminate communism in the entirety of Europe.

Your main mistake, in my opinion, is thinking that so-called historical borders exist. What may be considered as historical borders in this part of Europe? The borders of Kievan Rus as a whole or some certain principalities? Or the borders of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which incorporated significant number of lands that belonged to Kievan Rus? Or the borders of the Tsardom of Russia? Or the Russian Empire?

And I don’t understand what you mean saying “Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation”. What is that?

 

[anotherlife]

I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus.

Actually, it is very easy to do.
File:Kievan-rus-1015-1113-(en).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is interesting. I can understand the yellow part of the map you posted, but I don't know how to obtain a representation of the borders of the medieval Kiev Rus. It is true, that the communist in the 20th century invented many countries, today on the map, only to prevent historical borders and hence to create conflict. It is amazingly easy to tell people that you are entitled to give them what is not theirs, and they will then religiously believe in you, without asking if it was yours to give to them to begin with. The communist invented that they are entitled to divide and redistribute any land, and so people religiously believe in them now as a result. The Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation, will most likely become one of the very few people that are capable of escaping this communist mind control. The only other ones are the Hungarians. So, dividing the Ukraine is a good start to eliminate communism in the entirety of Europe.

Your main mistake, in my opinion, is thinking that so-called historical borders exist. What may be considered as historical borders in this part of Europe? The borders of Kievan Rus as a whole or some certain principalities? Or the borders of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which incorporated significant number of lands that belonged to Kievan Rus? Or the borders of the Tsardom of Russia? Or the Russian Empire?

And I don’t understand what you mean saying “Ukrainians in a Kiev Rus formation”. What is that?

I think you have a point, that shifting borders make it difficult to establish people's properties. From our American point of view, the number one goal is though to show that you can't gain a future by becoming a communist and using that to steal and loot your neighbor. And the Ukrainians are not even the most entrapped in communist sentiment. The Romanians and the Czechs are. For the borders of the new Kiev Rus, probably a good starting point would be to start with the borders that it's first king declared and held, because it is the legal reference to its foundation. After reestablishing that, we could take the second legal step, and evaluate how many of all the other lands within the largest expanse of the Kiev Rus were later reassigned by the communist. Those lands will then need to be evaluated whether they want to join the new Kiev Rus or reestablish themselves as any of the other principalities. The goal is to systematically undo everything that the communist ever did, including what they did through their banking and ww1 land "deals".