EDITORIAL: Russia on the Verge of Religious War

EDITORIAL

Russia on the Verge of Religious War

Orthodox Priest Daniil Sysoyev

From his earliest days in the Moscow Kremlin, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s chief claim to fame has been that he brought peace to Russia’s relations with Chechnya and its growing Muslim population (it’s predicted that within the next century Russia will become a majority-Muslim nation).

That absurd propagandistic lie got yet another harsh jolt of reality last week when Orthodox Priest Daniil Sysoyev, Russia’s most active proselytizer in the Islamic world, was shot dead in Moscow.  Sysoyev crusaded to bring Orthodox Christianity to the Russia’s Tatar region, and aggressively confronted Russia’s Wahabi Islamic sect with his Christian views.  He had written, for example:  “In contrast to the opinion of many  both the word of God and the rules of the Church condemn marriages between Christians and followers of other faiths.”  One Russian Orthodox clergy leader responded:  “Father Daniil, his message, and martyr’s end will become a symbol of the rebirth of missionary activity of our Church.”

It appears, then, that the forces of Islam have now struck back, and that Putin’s Russia stands on the brink of holy war.

Paul Goble writes:

In an essay on the Chaskor.ru portal, Sergey Taranov says that one “would not like to think that” those fighting over ideas, political or religious, are now willing to pursue “the physical destruction of opponents. But alas, the second such murder [in Moscow this week] points toward precisely that conclusion.”

He continues:

Since Aleksandr Men was killed in September 1990, he notes, 21 Orthodox priests have been killed in Russia – and even more Muslim religious leaders in the North Caucasus – and the armistice among the faiths has nonetheless held.  If Taranov’s fears prove correct, religious and political figures in Russia could face even more violence in the near term, especially because both the supporters and opponents . . . Sysoyev have exacerbated tensions by the manner in which they have discussed the victims and those they believe are responsible for their deaths.

This doesn’t even consider, of course, the outrage felt by Russia’s Muslim population over the wholesale slaughter of women and children by Russian forces in Chechyna.  It doesn’t consider the outrage felt by Russia’s Muslim population generally at the pandemic racism directed at all dark-skinned people or the shameless way in which the Orthodox Church dominates the Kremlin’s religious attitudes, with the Orthodox Pope brought in an a consultant.

Russia is, in other words, a ticking religious time bomb.

16 responses to “EDITORIAL: Russia on the Verge of Religious War

  1. This is a very difficult subject to comment on, as: by religion, I am Russian-Orthodox (but not part of the Kremlin controled Moscow Patriarchy, apparatus), I do not know the full story of this MP priest’s recent unfortunate murder (apparently, by the hands of Moslems???….but who really knows the perpetrators, as this may well be the provocative act of Putin’s, to be used as a new excuse to crack down on Moslem dissidents, or?), but too, I cannot automatically take the side of all Moslems, as members of that religion have been murdering and persecuting Orthodox Christians, Jews, Hindues and Buddhists and Animists, and others who would not ‘submit’ to their Allah, etc. And too, in general, both as an Orthodox Christian and as….an American, I cannot support the vile KGB gangster Putin government, or it’s appendaged state ‘church’, the captive Moscow Patriarchy. Thus, I find myself in a painful dilemma, learning of this tragic murder of this MP priest.
    I also grieve over the endless murders and destruction of the persecuted Moslem populations from Putin’s military.
    As far as, trying to ‘convert’….anyone, to ANYONE else’s religion: that has been going on, in all parts of the world, as long as human history.
    Islam, however, does not permit it’s adherents to freely choose to change religions. That, is a historical problem, that goes way way back, to the founder of that extremely intolerant religion, Muhammed.
    I believe, that EVERYWHERE, all people should be free to practice what religion THEY want to, or no religion at all, in freedom and safety.
    Putin and crew, are USING their captive version, of ‘Russian Orthodoxy’ to promote THEIR political agenda, pretending that it and they, are…preserving ‘Russian Culture and Religion’, and ‘restoring the glory of Russia,’ etc.
    And, that is all, total rubbish!
    God grant the day, when Russia will be a truly free and prosperous a modern nation, where every person who resides there, can live in freedom and dignity!…no matter what the colour of their skin, their religion, or their political beliefs.
    Just my thoughts…….
    Reader Daniel

    • In 1992, Kirill strongly opposed pressure to create a church commission to clarify links between KGB and the church. The commission, however, was formed and concluded that most of church leaders, including Kirill, had provided information to the security service.

  2. psalomschik, I am certain that you understand that a state run religion replaces the omnipotent patriarch with a cult figure based on government control.

    This is very typical, you are living in a godless society. I am reaching out to you because I believe you can understand my logic.

    Religion itself was created to offer an alternative to tyranical dictates. When God is offered as an alternative to collectivist dogma it is ridiculed, sarcasm is the most notable form of condescension, but in the worst case scenario you can expect ethnic cleansing.

    These forms of dictatorial conformity are exclusively perpetrated by atheistic control freaks that are unwilling to recognize that man does not understand the true nature of physical science and can never hope to understand the future.

    God did not establish government, a government sponsored religion is not desirable.

    God, for lack of a better word is more powerful that any government. Your only obligation is to hold onto what you know is true.

    There may be religious conflicts, they are allowed when it suits the objective of the government.

    Government is not a suitable replacement for god.

  3. I guess I ‘d more if this “his message, and martyr’s end” quote was about Viktor Popkov ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Popkov ) for actually saving many lives (of Russians and non-Russians, Christians and non-Christians alike) and all the humanitarian work. Of course, this won’t happen – and not only because he was a religious dissident.

    Btw, the Russian term “Wakhhabi” (it should be written this way for the Russian one) has a quite very different meaning than the actual term Wahhabi in the rest of the world – it’s any for Muslim not in the state-controlled “official Islam”. An example of the modern Russian newspeak really – like in Russia militiamen/paramilitaries are called either “volunteers” (“good guys”) or “bandits” (“bad guys”), while the policemen are called “militiamen”. In Russia a “Wakhhabi” may be an actual Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi alike, it doesn’t matter, it’s just an officially-recognized religious slur (while the government is enjoying an excellent relationship with the really Wahhabi kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

  4. FAMOUS ESSAY by Rafael Lemkin, New York, NY, 1953

    Going along with this attack on the intelligentsia was an offensive against the churches, priests and hierarchy, the “soul” of Ukraine. Between 1926 and 1932, the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, its Metropolitan (Lypkivsky) and 10,000 clergy were liquidated. In 1945, when the Soviets established themselves in Western Ukraine, a similar fate was meted out to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. That Russification was the only issue involved is clearly demonstrated by the fact that before its liquidation, the Church was offered the opportunity to join the Russian Patriarch[ate] at Moscow, the Kremlin’s political tool.

    Only two weeks before the San Francisco conference, on April 11, 1945, a detachment of NKVD troops surrounded the St. George Cathedral in Lviv and arrested Metropolitan Slipyj, two bishops, two prelates and several priests. [3] All the students in the city’s theological seminary were driven from the school, while their professors were told that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had ceased to exist, that its Metropolitan was arrested and his place was to be take by a Soviet-appointed bishop. These acts were repeated all over Western Ukraine and across the Curzon Line in Poland. [4] At least seven bishops were arrested or were never heard from again. There is no Bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church still free in the area. Five hundred clergy who met to protest the action of the Soviets, were shot or arrested.

    Throughout the entire region, clergy and laity were killed by hundreds, while the number sent to forced labor camps ran into the thousands. Whole villages were depopulated. In the deportation, families were deliberately separated, fathers to Siberia, mothers to the brickworks of Turkestan, and the children to Communist homes to be “educated”. For the crime of being Ukrainian, the Church itself was declared a society detrimental to the welfare of the Soviet state, its members were marked down in the Soviet police files as potential “enemies of the people.” As a matter of fact, with the exception of 150,000 members in Slovakia, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has been officially liquidated, its hierarchy imprisoned, its clergy dispersed and deported.

    These attacks on the Soul have also had and will continue to have a serious effect on the Brain of Ukraine, for it is the families of the clergy that have traditionally supplied a large part of the intellectuals, while the priests themselves have been the leaders of the villages, their wives the heads of the charitable organizations. The religious orders ran schools, took care of much of the organized charities.

  5. Dear A,

    You stated:

    (mostly Ruthenians, and it’s debatable whether Ruthenians are Ukrainians).

    This statement shows that at least you are trying to learn some history. The Ukrainians have had many ethnonyms over the centuries. Texans and New Yorkers are still Americans.

    Due to the kremlin’s GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, language, culture, traditions, etc – the kremlin decided to call the Ukrainians – Little Russians.

    There is uptown, midtown and downtown Manhattan, but it is still New York City; Lesser and Greater Poland are still polish people. Ukrainians and moskali are distinctly separate nationalities. The only similarities that the moskali have are what they stole from the Ukrainian people, or what they forced the Ukrainian people to do.

    >> 988 Slavic tribes inhabited modern-day lands of Ukraine from ancient times, and were dominant by the fifth century AD, founding the city of Kiev—later capital of a powerful state known as Kievan Rus’. Kniaz Volodymyr I of Kiev adopted Christianity in 988 and proceeded to baptise the whole Kievan Rus.

    Muscovy [moskali] stole the name Rus from the Ukrainian people. So, when you say Kievan Rus, you are referring to the present day Ukraine.

    The very name “Russia” reflects its nomadic nature. From earliest times their northern tundra was known as Muscovy. It was not until Muscovy started building its wannabe “European” empire that Muscovite propagandists adopted the name “Russia” as part of their efforts to hijack neighboring Ukraine’s history (Kyivan Rus’) as their own. In fact, the name “Russia” has nothing whatsoever to do with the “Rus’” of Kyivan Rus’.
    “Russia,” pronounced “Rass-I-ia” in Russian (NOT “Roo-ssI-ia”), derives from the Ukrainian verb “rozsiyaty,” meaning to scatter, as with the sweeping movement of the arm when seeding a field with grain. The early Ukrainians described their northern neighbors as “Rossiiane” – “the scattered ones” – which in fact, with their small nomadic settlements scattered all over the cold and forbidding northern tundra, they were.

    http://cybercossack.com/?p=1408

    Ukrainian is an East Slavic language spoken in Ukraine and in Ukrainian communities in neighboring Belarus, russia, Poland, and Slovakia. Ukrainian is a lineal descendant of the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus (10th–13th centuries).

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613050/Ukrainian-language

    The word ukraina is first recorded in the fifteenth-century Hypatian Codex of the twelfth and thirteenth-century Primary Chronicle, whose 1187 entry on the death of Prince Volodymyr of Pereyaslav says “The Ukraina groaned for him”, ѡ нем же Оукраина много постона (o nem že Ukraina mnogo postona).[1] The term is also mentioned for the years 1189, 1213, 1280, and 1282 for various East Slavic lands (for example, Galician Ukrayina, etc),[2

    Since the middle of the seventeenth century the modern name Ukraine (Ukrayina) (first found in the twelfth century chronicles) was used sporadically, until it was reintroduced in the nineteenth century by a conscious effort of several writers concerned about the awakening of the Ukrainian national awareness.[12] It was not until the twentieth century when the modern term “Ukraine” started to prevail while Little Russia gradually fell out of use.

    Stealing other peoples’ culture, traditions, heritage, etc. is a common policy, procedure and practice of the kremlin. The GENOCIDE [and stealing] of the UKRAINIAN people, UKRAINIAN language, UKRAINIAN culture, and UKRAINIAN traditions, has been ongoing, for centuries!

    Since the middle of the seventeenth century the modern name Ukraine (Ukrayina) (first found in the twelfth century chronicles) was used sporadically, until it was reintroduced in the nineteenth century by a conscious effort of several writers concerned about the awakening of the Ukrainian national awareness.[12] It was not until the twentieth century when the modern term “Ukraine” started to prevail while Little Russia gradually fell out of use.

    Stealing other peoples’ culture, traditions, heritage, etc. is a common policy, procedure and practice of the kremlin. The GENOCIDE [and stealing] of the UKRAINIAN people, UKRAINIAN language, UKRAINIAN culture, and UKRAINIAN traditions, has been ongoing, for centuries!

    After the moskali occupied Ukraine, in the 17th century, the moskali decided to call themselves’ “greater rooshan”, and Ukrainians “Little Russians”. That is when the kremlin’s GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, history, language, culture, and traditions – began.

    President Yushchenko has put a halt to this GENOCIDE, and has tried to curb the further malicious russification of Ukraine. This is the main reason why the kremlin tried to assassinate President Yushchenko, and promotes daily disinformation about him and Ukraine. The kremlin constantly rewrites history to make themselves “greater”.

    As Ukraine and its people underwent the process of nation-building in the last eleven hundred years, Little Russia, even in the historic context, can only loosely be considered as merely a contemporary equivalent for the word Ukraine. The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context is considered strongly offensive by Ukrainians, as it often used to imply the denial of a separate Ukrainian national identity, an opinion not uncommon among Russian nationalists.

    >> In the sixteenth century, both Polish and Ukrainian sources used the word Ukraina (see: Kresy) with specific reference to the large south-eastern Kiev Voivodeship, including the voivodships of Bratslav after 1569 and Chernihiv after 1619.

    >> 1708 muscovy changes their name to russian empire.

    >>1710 Pacta et Constitutiones Legum Libertatumque Exercitus Zaporoviensis) was a 1710 constitutional document written by Hetman Pylyp Orlyk. It established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. The Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council.

    Pylyp Orlyk’s Constitution was unique for its historic period, and was one of the first state constitutions in Europe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk

    Orlyk’s basic law never entered into force, and is, by contemporary standards, a simplistic text. Yet, in its time, this document gained recognition as a serious document, and served as a blueprint for future constitutional designs.

    Articles 1-3 dealt with general Ukrainian affairs. They proclaimed the Orthodox faith to be the faith of Ukraine, and independent of the patriarch of Moscow. The articles also recognized the need for an anti-Russian alliance between Ukraine and the Crimean Khanate.

    >> 1720. Peter I’s ukase banning the publication and printing of books in Ukrainian.

    It began centuries earlier when Peter the First – I will not call him Great – decided to create an Empire by inventing the Myth of Russia. In order to turn his frozen back woods outposts into a credible empire, he needed a history, and a church to bless it.

    Ukraine had all that — so he conquered it. Ukrainian history became Russian history. The head of the Ukrainian Church was arrested, marched off to Moscow and declared to be to head of the Russian Church. Suddenly, Russia had an empire, a history and a church to bless it all.

    The only problem was those pesky Ukrainians who just wouldn’t cooperate and become Russian. That began a centuries long effort by Russia to destroy the Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian national identity.

    >> 1722 When the Austrian monarchy made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials ***REALIZED*** that the local East Slavic ***PEOPLE WERE DISTINCT*** from BOTH Poles AND Russians. Their own name for themselves, Rusyny, was similar in sound to the German term for Russians, Russen. Austria ADOPTED the ethnonym Ruthenen (Ruthenians), and continued to use it officially until the empire fell apart in 1918.

    Some 200 years ago and times prior to that, Ukrainians were usually referred to and known as rusyny (Ukrainian: русини, commonly translated as Ruthenians).

    >> 1800’s The resurgence of Ukrainian national consciousness in the nineteenth century was fostered by a renewed interest among intellectuals in Ukrainian history, culture, and language and the founding of many scholarly, cultural, and social societies. The Russian government responded by harassing, imprisoning, and exiling leading Ukrainian intellectuals. Ukrainian academic and social societies were disbanded. Publications, plays, and concerts in Ukrainian were forbidden. Finally, the existence of a Ukrainian language and nationality was officially denied. Nevertheless, a Ukrainian national movement in the Russian Empire persisted, spurred partially by developments in western Ukraine, where Ukrainians in the more liberal Austrian Empire had far greater freedom to develop their culture and language.

    http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12488.html

    From 1840 on the term “Little Rus” for Ukrayina and “Malorosy” for Ukrainians began to fall out of fashion. In the 1880s and 1900s, the popularity of the ethnonym Ukrainian spread and the term “Ukraine” became a substitute for “Ruthenia” among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Russian Empire. In time the term “Ruthenian” became restricted to western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.

    >> 1954 December 31, 1954 The 83rd Congress [USA] 2ed session, SPECIAL REPORT NO. 4, stated, “The Ukrainian people who have suffered greatly from the aggression and GENOCIDAL policy ……………….. moscow has resorted to all possible measures to deny their national existence as a people with their own distinct culture. …………

    [I typed this from the original thirty-six (36) page report that my father gave me.]

    During the 19th century the Austrian Empire policies encouraged the influx of many immigrants such as Germans, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, and Ukrainians (that time referred to as Ruthenians) from Galicia. By 1900 the Romanian population decreased to roughly 40% of Bukovina, with significant Ukrainian (including Hutzuls) (especially in villages in the northern half), German, Jewish, Polish (especially in towns), and Hungarian (several villages) minorities. To reflect this ethnicity shift, in 1843 the Ruthenian language was recognized, along with the Romanian language, as ‘the language of the people and of the Church in Bukovina’.[4]

    Bukovina Handbook, prepared under the Direction of the Historical Section of the British Foreign Office No.6. Published in London, Feb.1919. :

    The Ruthenians or Little Russians in 1910 numbered 305,100, or 38 per cent. of the population. With them are included the Hutsulians, who speak their language, though there are grounds for believing that they are of different, possibly of Scythian, origin. The Ruthenians form a solid mass in the north and west, but they are also found almost everywhere among the Rumanians, notably along the lower Sereth. The country round the sources of the Czeremosz, the Suczawa, the Moldova, and the Moldawitza, as well as the whole north-western mountain region, is inhabited by the Hutsulians. The Ruthenians, who speak Little Russian (or rather the dialect of it known as Red Russian) have dwelt in the Bukovina from a very early date; and a number of them have probably been assimilated by the Rumanians. The Ruthenian element predominates among the lower classes: they are members of the Orthodox Church.
    Compact bodies of Rumanians appear to have settled along the eastern slopes of the Carpathians, where Little Russians or Ruthenes were already established, while the plains were still held by various Tatar tribes who were not expelled until the second half of the fourteenth century.

    When Austria entered into possession in 1777 the country was almost denuded of population (this having sunk to about 70,000)

    A document of 1843 recognized Ruthenian as being with Rumanian ‘ the language of the people and of the Church in Bukovina ‘.

    http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/bukovina/buk001.html#Decline%20of%20Rumanian%20Nationality

  6. LES, I have reservations about bringing this conversation (which originated in another discussion thread) all over this blog, but some of your comments need a response.

    I never disputed the ethnic and linguistic differences between Ukrainians and Russians. That is irrelevant to my argument. My comparison referred to certain disturbing common traits in ultra-nationalist mythology and in the treatment of occupied populations.

    As for your website on Bucovina, which has no bibliography, it does make some vague and unsupported claims like “the Ruthenians have dwelled in Bucovina from an early date” but the historical facts it refers to only confirm my arguments: that Bucovina had an overwhelming majority until the Austrian occupation, that the Slavs were settled there as immigrants in the 19th century, and that despite this long process of anti-Romanian ethnic engineering, Romanians continued to be the largest ethnic group right until the Soviet invasion.

    Some of the information you give is also inaccurate: Austrians occupied Bucovina in 1774, not 1777, and according to the Austrian census of 1775 the population was 86,000 not 70,000 (and that’s a normal population for a small, predominantly rural area in the 18th century), out of which 85% were Romanians, and Ruthenians were only an insignificant minority. For more info, I guess you can just start with wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucovina

    So as I’ve clearly shown, Bucovina’s indigenous population is Romanian, it was ethnically and culturally Romanian throughout history, and it is currently occupied by Ukraine thanks to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and the Soviet invasions of 1940 and 1944.

    Interestingly enough, not even the Soviets made any legal, historical or ethnic claims when they invaded Bucovina in 1940:

    Following the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum demanded from Romania the northern part of Bukovina, a region bordering Galicia (the latter annexed by the Soviet Union at 1939 Poland’s partition in 1939). The Soviet demand for Bukovina surprised Nazi Germany, though it did not formally oppose it. In the first Soviet ultimatum addressed to the Romanian government, the partly Ukrainian populated northern Bukovina was “demanded” as a minor “reparation for the great loss produced to the Soviet Union and Bassarabia’s population by twenty-two years of Romanian domination of Bassarabia”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucovina

    And one more thing: you may be right about “cultural genocide” by the Russians and Yuschenko trying to stop that, but the Ukrainians are still doing the same thing to the NATIVE population of their occupied territories (Northern Bucovina, Hertza, the Hotin area, Southern Bassarabia). So again, Ukrainians are acting no better than Russian imperialists.

  7. Yes LES, my humble “thanks for that” also.

    • And my thanks to LES too, for confirming my arguments that Bucovina has always been Romanian, and that Ukraine has no legitimate claims to it :)

      • Hi A,

        You have made insulting comments, false statements, and your conclusion is that I confirmed them? This is the standard procedure of a kremlin propagandist!

        Bukovina

        A small territory between the middle Dniester River and the main range of the Carpathians, Bukovina had formed part of Kievan Rus and the Galician-Volhynian principality. In the 14th century it was incorporated into Moldavia, which in the 16th century became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. At the time of its annexation by Austria in 1774, the population, Orthodox in religion, was binational, with Ukrainians predominating in the north and Romanians in the south.

        http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612921/Ukraine/30071/Ukraine-under-direct-imperial-Russian-rule#

  8. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO LR AND ALL THE READERS OF LR (yes, even the kremlinoids).

    For the Americans that forgot, and friends from other countries, (yes, even the ignorant kremlinoids) here is the origin of Thanksgiving:

    Proclamation.

    The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

    In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

    Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

    By the President: Abraham Lincoln

  9. Dear A,

    At:

    https://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/ryzhkov-on-the-berlin-wall/#comment-61724

    You stated:

    **Some of the info on that website is inaccurate, but overall it doesn’t contradict what I said. **

    So, which info is inaccurate? And, please do not try a spin-doctor response like you gave me above! – when you stated:

    *Some of the information you give is also inaccurate: Austrians occupied Bucovina in 1774, not 1777 *

    I did not give you this information. It came from a historical Jewish website, quoting “Bukovina Handbook, prepared under the Direction of the Historical Section of the British Foreign Office No.6. Published in London, Feb.1919.

    Because a British or Jewish historical genealogy typist might have made a typo and typed 1777 instead of typing 1974, you call me inaccurate?

    Compact bodies of Rumanians appear to have settled along the eastern slopes of the Carpathians, where Little Russians or Ruthenes were already established, while the plains were still held by various Tatar tribes who were not expelled until the second half of the fourteenth century. So, how are Rumanians indigenous; when they fled from the Tatars, the Ukrainians were already there. And, the Ukrainians did not kill them, but shared.

    **FACT: There were barely any Slavs in Bucovina prior to the 19th century. (according to the Austrian census, Romanians were 85% of the population when the area was annexed by Austria; up until the Soviet invasion the Romanians were the largest ethnic group) **

    This is another false statement that you made. The link that you provided states:

    Beginning with the 6th century, Slavic populations entered the region and influenced the locals in respect to language and certain agricultural methods (e.g. burning the forests to increase the cultivated land).

    In the 15th century, Pokuttya, the region immediately to the north, became the subject of disputes between the Principality of Moldavia and the Polish Kingdom. Pokuttya was inhibited by Ruthenians (predecessors of modern Ukrainians) and Hutsuls; the latter also reside in western Bukovina.

    Also:

    >> Second half of 13th century:

    >> Halych-Volhynia (14th c.)

    The Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia or Galich-Volhyn’ or Galicia–Vladimir, was a principality in post-Kievan Rus in the late 12th century and existed until the middle of the 14th century. It is also called Galicia–Volynia, Halych–Volhynia, Galicia–Volyn, and Galich–Volyn.

    Pope Innocent IV allowed Daniil to be crowned king, although his realm continued to be ecclesiastically independent from Rome. Thus, Daniil was the only member of the Rurik dynasty to have been crowned king. Daniil Romanovich was crowned by the papal archbishop in Dorohychyn 1253 as the first King of Rus’ (Galicia–Volhynia) (1253–1264).

    According to the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, Galicia-Volhynia’s King Daniil was the last ruler of Kiev preceding the Mongolian invasion and thus Galicia-Volhynia’s rulers were the only legitimate successors to the Kievan throne.[3] Until the end of Galician-Volhynian state, its rulers advanced claims upon “all the land of Rus’.” The seal of King Yuri I contained the Latin inscription domini georgi regis rusie.[3]

    The color blue of the Ukrainian Flag represents the color of the sky, and yellow symbolizes the lush golden wheat fields of this country. These two colors, blue and yellow, have been associated with Ukraine from the times before the introduction of Christianity. Now they are incorporated into the flag of Ukraine.
    The roots of Ukrainian national symbols come from before Christian times when yellow and blue prevailed in traditional ceremonies, reflecting fire and water.[1]

    In Kievan Rus’ times, yellow and blue continued to be popular. These colors were used on the banners of the Halych-Volhynia principality in the 13th–14th centuries.

    The “Ethnic map of Romania (census 2002)” clearly still shows parts of northern Rumania which is Ukrainian. If Rumania wanted to secede from these territories and return them to Ukraine, I am sure that President Yushchenko would not object.

    **FACT: Romanians are the indigenous population of Bucovina. Virtually the entire Slavic population was transplanted there in the 19th century, and then in greater numbers after 1944. **

    The link that you gave shows the division of Bukovyna here :

    It was divided along ethnic lines, (Although many Ukrainians were still south of the border).
    Transylvania in 1570:

    The kingdom of Rumania in 1600 AD was:

    Also, my prior comments contradict what you stated. Therefore, you are making multiple false statements, again.

    **FACT: Bucovina belonged to the Romanian principality of Moldavia (until 1774), to the Austrian Empire (1774-1918) and to the Kingdom of Romania (until the Soviet invasion). Ukraine or Russia don’t figure anywhere on the list. Prior to 1991, Ukraine only existed as an internationally recognized independent state once, and even the short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic recognized Bucovina as part of Romania. **

    The above link states: Bukovyna taken from Turkey and merged with Galicia 1775.

    Also, I gave prior links and info about when Western Ukraine (which included Bukovyna) and Carpatho-Ukraine existed, and Stepan Bandera declared an independent Ukraine a few days after the Nazis entered Lviv, but the Nazis sent him, and other Ukrainians to Nazi concentration camps immediately.

    Also, my prior comments and links clearly show that you keep making false statements, and you post anti-Ukrainian statements just like a kremlinoid.

    **So please educate yourself, instead of making a fool of yourself by emitting opinions on issues you know nothing about. Thanks.**

    Why do you insult Gordon after he posted a link? You keep repeating false statements, claim that they are facts, and start a personal attack on Gordon?

  10. Oh, yes LES my humble “thanks for that” once again!

    You certainly showed up “A” for what he is – a wasted space!!!

    Boy does he have a vivid imagination.

  11. I’m tired of arguing with ignorant, uneducated and delusional Little Russian ultra-nationalists, who are in denial even about basic, universally accepted historical facts. LES posts endless block quotes but (s)he never refutes in any coherent way any of my arguments (maybe that’s a product of the Soviet education system, where kids were taught to learn stuff by heart, rather than develop argumentative or analytical skills).

    So for example, what does the fact that part of what is now Bucovina was at some point occupied by the Kingdom of Galicia (nothing to do with Ukraine) have to do with the fact that the Romanians were the native population, and that according to all statistics the Slav population until immigration in the 19th century was a negligible minority? (and don’t give me some obscure text from 1919 claiming that Slavs “appear to have settled there” at some point, without giving any details or any basis for that claim) And even the small number of Slavs who did live there were mostly non-Ukrainian, and they settled there after Romanians (after all, Romanians predate the Slavs by a few centuries).

    But leaving ethnic arguments aside, what legal or historical arguments does Ukraine, a country with virtually no history before 1991 (and only a brief period of internationally recognized independence around 1919-20) have over Bucovina, Hertza (which is still over 90% Romanian) and Southern Bassarabia? The cold hard fact remains that those territories were given to Ukraine by RUSSIA after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet invasion of Romania. None of those territories had ever belonged to any Ukrainian state before and that is a fact.

    I really hope delusional extremists like Bohdan and LES are only specimens of a fringe element in Ukrainian society and a product of Soviet indoctrination. Otherwise, it would mean Ukraine deserves the “Little Russia” tag and has a long way to go until it can be considered a European country (but I hope it’s not the case).

  12. BTW the map of the Kingdom of Romania c.a. 1600 you gave not only includes what would later be called Bucovina, but also other territories that are currently occupied by Ukraine :) Do you even read your sources before you post?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s