Belarus and Ukraine?

[icydawgfish]

I've been trying to figure out why these countries are independent and not a part of Russia following the collapse of the USSR. They both have very strong cultural and historical ties with Russia and as far as I can tell, should have been left with Russia. I can understand the central Asian states, the Baltic states, and the Caucasian states being given their independence as their isn't as strong as a link, but why Belarus and Ukraine?

[Salem1]

I've been trying to figure out why these countries are independent and not a part of Russia following the collapse of the USSR. They both have very strong cultural and historical ties with Russia and as far as I can tell, should have been left with Russia. I can understand the central Asian states, the Baltic states, and the Caucasian states being given their independence as their isn't as strong as a link, but why Belarus and Ukraine?

Those ''strong ties'' were created by destroying this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...th_in_1660.PNG

That's why. But, either the majority or nearly the majority of Ukrainans want to be reunited with Russia if what I have read on this forum is right. Dunno 'bout Belarus. Besides, their reunifications after the Russian Empire fell weren't exactly peaceful.

[CarbEast]

Those ''strong ties'' were created by destroying this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...th_in_1660.PNG

These strong ties were never "created" by anything, since they are just natural consequence of Russians, Belarus and Ukrainians being parts of the same people, which spread across the territories in Eastern Europe around a thousand years ago. The fact that some of them were absorbed by Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth at certain moment of time has nothing do with anything.

As for the original question, the reason is simple - there is no reason. There was very little logic behind anything that happened during collapse of SU, which is why it's called "collapse" in first place. It just so happened that Soviet political system degraded itself to the point of disintegration, so at one moment there was no political system at all. At times like this it's usual that local strongmen take power, with reasons obviously very different from pursuing common good or anything like that, even though of course they brand their coming in power as common good. I remember how in Ukraine people were fooled to believe that by seceding they will turn in Eastern Europe's Switzerland in several years. Now just look how well did it work...

[John I Tzimisces]

Those ''strong ties'' were created by destroying this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...th_in_1660.PNG

That's why. But, either the majority or nearly the majority of Ukrainans want to be reunited with Russia if what I have read on this forum is right. Dunno 'bout Belarus. Besides, their reunifications after the Russian Empire fell weren't exactly peaceful.

The only Belorussians I've spoken to note that Belorussian is distinct (enough) from Russian (maybe in the same sense as Spanish and Portuguese are distinct) and that they have no real desire to see their countries become one, in part because although the political situation is pretty blatantly autocratic, it remains so because of the relatively high quality of life compared to Russia.

[CarbEast]

The only Belorussians I've spoken to note that Belorussian is distinct (enough) from Russian (maybe in the same sense as Spanish and Portuguese are distinct) and that they have no real desire to see their countries become one, in part because although the political situation is pretty blatantly autocratic, it remains so because of the relatively high quality of life compared to Russia.

The irony is that much of this quality is actually bought on Russia's money...

[The Noble Lord]

because of the relatively high quality of life compared to Russia.

I don't know where you got information, the standard of living in Russia is much higher than it is in Belarus. As a matter of fact many migrant workers from Belarus go for work to Russia and prosper there. When they had joint talks in 2002 I think about the proposed union between the two it was Lukashenko that wanted something like the former USSR state, the union between the two equal republics. Putin immediately rejected it saying that we will not create another quagmire of bureaucracy and Belorussian economy is only 2% of Russian economy.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Both Countries should be independent! They aren't Russians! They are Belorussians and Ukrainians!

[pickelhaube]

Ukraine and Belarus have independance today simply because of territorial structure of USSR. When USSR collapsed, every republic within Union got independance. It didnt depend on nationality factor. If there would be republic of Nonsesostan or republic of rotten potato within union right now there would be an independant country with such name. Borders of those republics were drawn for govermental management convenience and arent really that natural.

Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians are closely related nations though. But its silly to think majority of ukraine and belarus population want to unite with modern russia. Its not a very attractive perspective in fact considering russia wars, foreign policy problems, not really impressive economy and wellfare. So reunification is unlikely...

[ivan_the_terrible]

Ukraine and Belarus have independance today simply because of territorial structure of USSR. When USSR collapsed, every republic within Union got independance. It didnt depend on nationality factor. If there would be republic of Nonsesostan or republic of rotten potato within union right now there would be an independant country with such name. Borders of those republics were drawn for govermental management convenience and arent really that natural.

THis is exactly right. Incidentally, it is also the reason why Crimea is part of Ukraine and not Russia, despite ethnicity etc.

Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians are closely related nations though. But its silly to think majority of ukraine and belarus population want to unite with modern russia. Its not a very attractive perspective in fact considering russia wars, foreign policy problems, not really impressive economy and wellfare. So reunification is unlikely...

This is true as well.

@CarbEast

I would say that Russians and Ukrainians are more like Spanish-Catalan than Spanish-Portuguese. Or maybe even more like Castillian-Andalusian.

[Knize.Vladivoj]

THis is exactly right. Incidentally, it is also the reason why Crimea is part of Ukraine and not Russia, despite ethnicity etc.



This is true as well.

@CarbEast

I would say that Russians and Ukrainians are more like Spanish-Catalan than Spanish-Portuguese. Or maybe even more like Castillian-Andalusian.

Mostly I would agree. Just do not trust Russian megalomaniac nationalists ing around with theories like "Ukrainians and Belorussians are Russians."

[Aru]

Their independence is no more unusual then Australia, Canada, Ireland and USA being culturally similar to United Kingdom.
In case of Belarus and Ukraine, geographic proximity, common history and same language group indicate similarities, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same peoples and shouldn't have states. Many areas of Russian Federation are geographically distant, historically unrelated except by Russian conquest at certain time, and linguistically and ethnically unique from the rest of Russia, just like native Americans were in North America. Does that mean they shouldn't be part of Russia and Belarus and Ukraine should? This isn't 19. century when culturally similar peoples united to create nation states. Russia is not a country of ethnic Russians or Eastern Slavs, it is a country of all its citizens, and so are Belarus and Ukraine.

[RO Citizen]

Well, Biellorussians are just provincial Russians, and they're currently very very tied with their Mom, Russia. But Ukraine has a different culture, different language, different history and now a different policy.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Well, Biellorussians are just provincial Russians, and they're currently very very tied with their Mom, Russia. But Ukraine has a different culture, different language, different history and now a different policy.

Belorussians have their own language too.

[icydawgfish]

Well given this, do you think there are any grounds for reunification in the future given if Russia's economy and standard of living improves, or perhaps with an autonomous or semiautonomous status?

[pickelhaube]

Well given this, do you think there are any grounds for reunification in the future given if Russia's economy and standard of living improves, or perhaps with an autonomous or semiautonomous status?

If EU will keep doors closed for these countries its highly likely some sort of union will be formed as long as russia will remain stable and not fall into povertly and instability yet again. But political and economical elites of ukraine and belarus for sure dont need full annexation because they wont prosper from it, nor citizens of these republics..

But yes in age of globalization and being kept away from EU these countries naturally will come to a union of some sort with russia and deeper integration with it.

It happens already in fact.

[Copperknickers II]

Belarus and Ukraine are no more Russian than Australia and Canada are British.

[icydawgfish]

Belarus and Ukraine are no more Russian than Australia and Canada are British.

But they share close proximity to each other culturally and geographically. Scotland is very distinct from England, but they still have a union. To me they just seem like artificial states created as a matter of politics and not people if that makes any sense (i.e. most of Africa).

[The Noble Lord]

Belarus and Ukraine are no more Russian than Australia and Canada are British.

That is not entirely true, you should know better. First Russian state was Kievan Rus and it's capitol was in Kiev! The Kiev is where Russians got its Christian Orthodox faith and up until Mongol invasion in early 1200s the Ukraine was not called Ukraine and it was integral part of Russian princedom.
The name "Ukraine" was added later and it meant 'military frontier' or 'military belt' of protection which was there to fight off the Golder Horde first and later the Crimean Tatars. Only in the late 19 century the ideas of separate Ukrainian nation and entity developed, encouraged and propagated by the Austria-Hungary and Germany to the certain degree.
That view that is being pushed by the Ruthenians and people from around Lvov on how Ukrainian identity is separate and non-Russian is truly pathetic and it's got nothing to do with the actual historical facts!!

[Copperknickers II]

That is not entirely true, you should know better. First Russian state was Kievan Rus and it's capitol was in Kiev! The Kiev is where Russians got its Christian Orthodox faith and up until Mongol invasion in early 1200s the Ukraine was not called Ukraine and it was integral part of Russian princedom.
The name "Ukraine" was added later and it meant 'military frontier' or 'military belt' of protection which was there to fight off the Golder Horde first and later the Crimean Tatars. Only in the late 19 century the ideas of separate Ukrainian nation and entity developed, encouraged and propagated by the Austria-Hungary and Germany to the certain degree.
That view that is being pushed by the Ruthenians and people from around Lvov on how Ukrainian identity is separate and non-Russian is truly pathetic and it's got nothing to do with the actual historical facts!!

You misunderstand the comparison. The reality is that Australia and Canada are pretty similar to Britain, as are Belarus and Ukraine to Russia: they have close relations and share a past under a common ruler, but they have every right to be independent sovereign states as they also have seperate eras of history, and they have clear cultural differences. You say that Kiev was the original Russian state, but what about the Principalities/Duchies of Novgord, Tver and Moscow?

You are more knowledgable on the subject than me in all probability, but I was under the impression that Kiev controlled the East Slavic world for a time, and then after the coming of the Mongols it was sacked and came under the control of Moscow, subsequently the Russian Empire. You could argue therefore that Kievan Rus and the Northern Rus are opposing powers, and that the shift in the balance of power that put Russia on top after the taking of Kiev has simply gone the other way, and Kiev has regained its position as an independent nation that it had in the early middle ages. I'm sure you agree that just because a place was under the control of the Russian empire and speaks Russian, that doesn't make its people and culture Russian, though of course it gives them strong ties.

[The Noble Lord]

You misunderstand the comparison. The reality is that Australia and Canada are pretty similar to Britain, as are Belarus and Ukraine to Russia: they have close relations and share a past under a common ruler, but they have every right to be independent sovereign states as they also have seperate eras of history, and they have clear cultural differences. You say that Kiev was the original Russian state, but what about the Principalities/Duchies of Novgord, Tver and Moscow?

You are more knowledgable on the subject than me in all probability, but I was under the impression that Kiev controlled the East Slavic world for a time, and then after the coming of the Mongols it was sacked and came under the control of Moscow, subsequently the Russian Empire. You could argue therefore that Kievan Rus and the Northern Rus are opposing powers, and that the shift in the balance of power that put Russia on top after the taking of Kiev has simply gone the other way, and Kiev has regained its position as an independent nation that it had in the early middle ages. I'm sure you agree that just because a place was under the control of the Russian empire and speaks Russian, that doesn't make its people and culture Russian, though of course it gives them strong ties.

I see, I get your point now.