There isn’t any Space for Holodomor Propaganda in Russian Donbas

So I ventured to the Atlantic Council and found an article discussing a recent forum held in Donetsk called Russian Donbas, where the head of RT, Margarita Simonyan called for Donbas to be reintegrated with Russia…

There some Lithuanian Russophobe discusses the doctrine of the Russian Donbas, which is the intellectual blueprint for the aims of the Donbas republics, which is the reintegration with the motherland. There he writes:

The Russian Donbas doctrine is the latest example of the Kremlin’s enthusiasm for rewriting history in order to suit its contemporary political requirements. This tendency to distort the past has been central to the information war that has accompanied Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Well, OK…

When Russian forces first seized Crimea in spring 2014, Moscow propagandists were quick to declare that the Ukrainian peninsula had “always been Russian.” In reality, Crimea is an ancient land with a recorded history stretching back almost three thousand years that includes extended periods as part of the Byzantine Empire, Golden Horde, and Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile, Russia’s involvement in Crimea began comparatively recently in the late eighteenth century. Clearly, it is nonsensical to claim that this highly cosmopolitan geopolitical crossroads has “always been Russian.”

Please show me any academic Russian historian that made the claim that Crimea was always Russian. If anything, Crimea was a territory transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks, who have created Ukraine as we know it. I understand that in the Atlantic Council they prefer narratives that would derusify the Russian history of Crimea.

Regardless of whether the authors were Ukrainian, Russian, or Western, most traditional academic histories of the Donbas have tended to focus on three key aspects of the region’s early development. These accounts typically begin with details of how the Donbas was first colonized by Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants, who moved into the borderland regions previously known as the “Wild Fields” following the gradual retreat of the Crimean Khanate.

Next came waves of colonization from different parts of Europe and beyond. This was followed by an extended period of intensive international involvement that fueled the industrialization of the region throughout the second half of the nineteenth century.

Western investors and industrialists were instrumental in the development of the Donbas, bringing vital capital and technologies to the region. The most famous of these was Welsh businessman John Hughes, who founded Donetsk in 1869. The city was called “Hughezovka” in his honor until 1929, when it was renamed “Stalino” by the Soviet authorities.

The Russian Donbas doctrine outlined in Donetsk on January 28 made barely any mention of these crucial factors in the history of eastern Ukraine. Instead, the discussion focused almost exclusively on Russians who played prominent roles in the region’s growth.

The Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants did not have any notion of being Ukrainian. They thought themselves as Orthodox Russians. The region was always international and Russian was the lingua franca that served the people as means of interethnic communication, and the Russian people are an amalgam of ethnicities united by loyalty to the Russian state and the Russian language. Ukrainians on the other hand are an ethnographic subgroup of Russians that aims to build a separate nation and state.

There was no mention of the systematic Russification policies adopted during both the Czarist and Soviet eras, and no room for an honest exploration of the Holodomor, the artificial famine engineered by the Soviet authorities in the early 1930s that killed millions of Ukrainians and ravaged the region. Other Soviet atrocities were similarly ignored.

However, forum delegates did find time to condemn the Ukrainian authorities for recent efforts to return historical names to towns and cities throughout the Ukrainian-controlled areas of the Donbas. This was portrayed as evidence of the Ukrainian government’s anti-Russian policies.

Kremlin efforts to criticize the Ukrainian authorities for the “Ukrainianization” of Ukraine speak volumes about Russia’s deeply entrenched imperial thinking. This kind of ideology has roots stretching all the way back to the Czarist past, an era when Ukrainians were branded “Little Russians” and their language was suppressed as a mere dialect.

The only systematic nationality policy in Ukraine was Ukrainization under the Soviet union, which was presented in waves because Ukrainization always finds resistance from the people. The Russification of the late Tsarist era also came in waves because it encountered resistance in Central and Western Ukraine but it was much less systemic. Obviously, there is no way a Russian patriot would be interested in some Ukrainian nationalist bleating about how bad Russians Russified Ukraine.

Now, the author does show an absence of knowledge of Ukraine. the region itself was only joined to Ukraine by Lenin. It had nothing to do with any Ukrainian state prior to that and the names of cities all appeared during the Late Tsarist and Soviet eras. They either bear the names of the early settlers, communist revolutionaries, or something unrelated to Ukraine. For instance one village was called Novgorodske, and was given back its old name New York, which was probably a remnant of the early British colonization of the region but was renamed in 1951, right at the start of the Cold War. I don’t know where you see Ukrainization in the decision to give this town its old name, not even Ukrainization in inverted commas.

I am glad that the people of East Donbas are free from Holodomor propaganda because Holodomor is hateful hype of anti-Soviet forces. You see, the famine of the 1930s is a real event but Holodomor is something else, it is a spin on that event. In that interpretation, the famine was engineered by the Soviets to kill Ukrainians, and in the modern interpretation Russians are blamed for it. It first appeared in the press of Nazi Germany, which had a strong community of Ukrainian exiles from the Skoropadsky regime and was coaching Ukrainian nationalists to fights against Poland and the Soviet Union.

The story about the artificial famine was widespread in Western Ukrainian circles before WWII and that is why today, we see more people in Western Ukraine believing in Holodomor than in Eastern Ukraine where it actually happened. When I asked my relatives if my great grandmother, who was a Ukrainian peasant, ever spoke about Holodomor, knowing she was no fan of the Soviet government, I was told that she never did. She only complained about being made to work in a collectivized farm. She was not subjected to Holodomor propaganda. Famine was something that she experienced thrice, during the Civil War, during 1930s, and in the 1940s during WWII. My grandfather had to leave Ukraine and fend for himself after the War, he joined the military and moved across Russia.

A Small Gloss on Bilingualism in Ukraine

My personal research into Ukrainian historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth century has shown that the Russo-Ukrainian bilingualism in Ukraine is not a product of forcible Russification of any sort but rather stems from the realization by the ancestors of contemporary Ukrainians that they are in fact Russian, and therefore the literary language of the Muscovites is their own, and not foreign. Meanwhile, Ukrainian language as we know today did not even exist. It existed only in its primordial form of a peasant patois of which there isn’t practically any literary evidence until Kotlyarevsky and Shevchenko.

A Svidomite 8th Grade Geography Textbook Recommended by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education

For those who don’t know. Svidomite is a word that comes from the Ukrainian word for consciousness, national consciousness, which in Ukraine takes rather absurd forms…

Geography, P.O. Maslyak and C.L.Kapirulina

This 8th grade textbook, which is recommended by the Ministry of Education says Belorussians are not Slavs…

The Slavic speaking Russians have Ugro-Finnic roots… those closest to them by language, Bulgarians have Turkic roots. Those closest to Ukrainians by language, Belorussians, and Poles also have differing genetic origins, the Poles come from Slavs, Belorussians come from the Balts.

Also says, Halychyna (also sometimes written as Galicia, region in Western Ukraine and Eastern Poland) has genetically enriched the World.

The Ancient Indian language Sanskrit is close to Ukrainian. Also, geographical names (toponyms) of Western, and Southern places and people such as Galatia, Galilee, France (Gaul), Spanish Galicia, or Portugal (Portu-Gal) shows with certainty that the ancestors of contemporary French, Spanish, Portuguese, Jews and Turks could have arrived in these place from Halychyna.

The Denis Yermak Scandal Proves What I Have Been Saying on This Blog

Whenever, an eavesdropping scandal erupts in Ukraine, an axiom is revealed. The Ukrainian elite uses Russian when in private, and hence the employment of Ukrainian in public is hypocritical and goes against nature.

Efforts to promote Ukrainian at the expense of Russian are really aimed at harassing the lower class idiots. The children of Ukrainian elite speak Russian and get their education in West European languages.

And therefore I think that any attempts to elevate the Ukrainian language are futile, and they will lead to further fragmentation and destabilisation of the Ukrainian society.

Secret Recording of the Ukrainian Prime Minister Reveals Ukrainian Officials Speak Russian in Private

I have republished the video of the recording that might have cost Oleksiy Honcharuk, Ukraine’s prime minister, his seat. I shall give it English subtitles over the weekend… 

The video features a discussion the Prime Minister had with a representative of the central bank about the unnaturally high exchange rate of the Hryvnia which is killing the industry. But I care little about that, note the language of the discussion. What do I hear?

Is that… NO… that’s RUSSIAN!

Let me get this straight, the Ukrainian parliament recently legislated that Russian language instruction in schools be banned. (good luck getting Crimea and Donbass back after this) But here we hear two top officials in the country using Russian.

You will hear these officials speak Ukrainian when addressing the idiots, I mean the nation. They will be reading that off paper or teleprompter. Behind close doors however…

If you think some other swine, like Petro Poroshenko, is any better at this. Think again, I have secret recordings of him too on my YouTube channel.

I don’t even hear a word of Ukrainian from this super-patriot. Not a peep!

Rifle, Grenades, and Tryzub

EEDU5tpXkAE2PEc.jpg

EEDU6X6WkAA_BjM.jpg

The tryzub (trident) is the national symbol of Ukraine. It was likely introduced by the first leader of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, Mykhailo Hrushevsky. The symbol was lifted from the symbols of princes of the Old Rus, that were familiar to the historian, Hrushevsky. Since Ukraine is an amalgam of historically unrelated territories, a neutral symbol of deep antiquity was chosen.

Today, aborigines create tryzubs from a variety of materials…

Tragedy, Ukrainian Cinematography Will Be Defunded

Under Poroshenko, government money was thrown at commercially unsuccessful films, and now the party is coming to an end…

Mykola Kniazhytskyi, Member of Parliament from Poroshenko’s party, now called “European Solidarity” wrote on his Facebook page:

IMG_4827.PNG
Today, at the meeting of the Committee for the Questions of Humanitarian and Information Policy, the politicians of the “Servant of the People” (Zelensky’s party) have voted to remove from the list of subjects that receive government support in the form of reimbursement of qualified expenses of Ukrainians. The state should in their opinion support foreign rather than Ukrainian producers. This evidently is against the Constitution, logic, international practice and the sentiment of the public. I am thankful to those that have not voted for such an anti-Ukrainian decision, and to those members of the ruling party that have voted for this absurdum but in their public appearances are questioning its validity. The danger of having a single majority is in that permissiveness shrouds sober thinking and can lead to numerous errors. Until they understand this, we will argue and prompt them politely.

Source

The issue here is not so much that the new powers that be in Ukraine will defund but that the Ukrainian government pisses away millions of hryvnias for films that never made the money back. And this would not be the worst, Ukraine is a poor place and the people cannot afford to go to cinema very often, so the box office may not be successful with every film. The film performs a propaganda service, and should help promote the Ukrainian language in theory. But the question is whether the Ukrainian films are doing exactly this?

IMG_4824.PNG

Source

Above are the box offices of Ukrainian films last year. In red, the numbers indicate government support for the film. Let me quote some:

Codename “Banderas” is a film about the Donbass war, I call it “Pozyvnoy Pidoras”

It had a budget of 39.3 million HRN ($1.25 million USD), out of which 19,6 million HRN came from the government. It made 1,9 million HRN.

I was interested how much a ticket to see such a masterpiece costs in Kiev, and found out that it is 60 HRN.  If you divide 1 900 000/60 = 31 666,6667. Basically, hardly anyone saw this shit.

Secret Diary of Symon Petlyura is a historical film about a Ukrainian separatist leader in the early twentieth century.

It had a budget of 47.2 million HRN ($1.5 million USD) and it gained only 1.1 million HRN in the box office. If you do the math, you will notice that almost nobody went to see this.

I personally hold a history degree and was never a fan of historical dramas, I also understand that people may be reluctant to see films about a war in a country where a simmering conflict is still raging. But it is not true that films cannot be commercially successful in Ukraine.

Spoiled Wedding (going as Crazy Wedding) is a comedy where a Ukrainian girl studying in France falls in love with a Frenchman but there is an issue… he is black.

Funny though but not very original, can be watched here with subtitles. It had a budget 10.8 million HRN, that is much less than the other two films named, out of which 1.1 million came from the state, and it made 46 million HRN in the box office.

Os’ Bachite Yakiy Shedevr Mistec’tva ya Nashov

“Look what artistic masterpiece I found…”

EECpz51WsAEGrxt (1).jpg
Aeneas was an agile lad… thanks to the gandfather for Aeneid

Turns out, this is the 250 of Kotliarevsky. If you don’t know, who that was, he was a Ukrainian noble of Cossack elder origins, who in late eighteenth century was the first to attempt writing plays in the vernacular of the Poltava region, which would later be developed into the Ukrainian language.

Hardly anything was written in the vernacular before Kotliarevsky and the vernacular was always considered low status. This is a perennial source of much of low self esteem among Ukrainians.

And this is why the first work in the vernacular was a piece of burlesque poetry named Aeneid: Rewritten in the Little Russian Language. Kotliarevsky actually first wrote a similar piece in Russian but thought it would be funny to render it in the language of the common folk.