|
|
Post by Lonevolk on Dec 8, 2007 17:47:45 GMT -5
I can't see any big problems with a Russian-Belorussian union, assuming it will happen......next stop Ukraine  .....although there it will be much more difficult |
|
|
|
Post by Jarovit on Dec 9, 2007 9:15:03 GMT -5
What do Russian's and Belarussians think of this Union state? Personaly (though i am not part of these ethnic groups) believe this sounds like a good idea. I never hear anything about Belarus, but if it joins with Russia, this means more strengty to Russia as a counterweight to USA and stronger Slavic ties. By the way, what are the big differences between Russians and Byelorussians? Doesn't 'Byelorus' just mean 'White Russian'? Look up Русь (Rus' / Ruthenia, of which Беларусь - Byelarus' is a direct descendant) and Росси́я (Russia). Big difference. Byelarus literally means "White Ruthenia", and ethnicaly has nothing to do with Russia besides the fact they're both Slavs. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexandrus on Dec 9, 2007 9:34:31 GMT -5
What do Russian's and Belarussians think of this Union state? Personaly (though i am not part of these ethnic groups) believe this sounds like a good idea. I never hear anything about Belarus, but if it joins with Russia, this means more strengty to Russia as a counterweight to USA and stronger Slavic ties. By the way, what are the big differences between Russians and Byelorussians? Doesn't 'Byelorus' just mean 'White Russian'? Look up Русь (Rus' / Ruthenia, of which Беларусь - Byelarus' is a direct descendant) and Росси́я (Russia). Big difference. Byelarus literally means "White Ruthenia", and ethnicaly has nothing to do with Russia besides the fact they're both Slavs. In Russian and ukranian Русь=Early Easter Slavs, there's no such things such as ruthenians or rusyns in the language. Maybe there's such a thing as carpathian Rus, and both beylorussians and russians are eastern slavs so they are more closely related then poles and macedonians. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Dec 9, 2007 10:28:36 GMT -5
LOL! What a bunch of BS! Rus = Ruthenia? Yeah, right, whatever they teach in the west these days...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarovit on Dec 9, 2007 10:32:57 GMT -5
I apologize for a case of mis-translation. Yes, it is true that most of my information on ethnicity does in fact come from the west, and the official "western" term for Русь is "Ruthenia". Care to present your version (which I will gladly believe rather than foreign information) instead of calling me a liar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexandrus on Dec 9, 2007 10:54:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kat on Dec 9, 2007 11:23:22 GMT -5
I apologize for a case of mis-translation. Yes, it is true that most of my information on ethnicity does in fact come from the west, and the official "western" term for Русь is "Ruthenia". Care to present your version (which I will gladly believe rather than foreign information) instead of calling me a liar? Hence the reunion of Belorussia and Russia is matter of close future some people are just pissed off and they try to damage this process of unification as much as possible. Dont you think "Jarovit"? |
|
|
|
Post by Jarovit on Dec 9, 2007 12:00:06 GMT -5
Thank you, and I can understand Russian just fine. So "Руте́ния" should only be applicable to Karpastkaya Rus', and not Русь as a whole. My sources use Rusь and Ruthenia interchangeably, which seems to be the problem here with our translation. Again, thank you for clearing that up. And Jarad, yes, I agree that there is no reason why Russia and Byelarus should be re-united. The more Slavic unity, the better! |
|
|
|
Post by Alexandrus on Dec 9, 2007 12:22:34 GMT -5
And Jarad, yes, I agree that there is no reason why Russia and Byelarus should be re-united. The more Slavic unity, the better! LOL ! Yeah right... |
|
daver2
Leytenant
Rzeczpospolita
Posts: 288
|
Post by daver2 on Dec 9, 2007 12:55:18 GMT -5
Thank you, and I can understand Russian just fine. So "Руте́ния" should only be applicable to Karpastkaya Rus', and not Русь as a whole. My sources use Rusь and Ruthenia interchangeably, which seems to be the problem here with our translation. Again, thank you for clearing that up. And Jarad, yes, I agree that there is no reason why Russia and Byelarus should be re-united. The more Slavic unity, the better! United? Give me the year when Belarus was united with Russia (commie time doesn't count). There was no Belarus in the past. Its lands were always shattered. And the results of this state were always tragic for its people. Under the Polish and Russian rule they were losing its culture, language and faith. Why do you now want to finish with this country once and for all? |
|
|
|
Post by vara on Dec 9, 2007 13:00:47 GMT -5
Firstly, "Ruthenia" is Latin. There is a "Ritus Ruthenienisis" in the papist church, which literally means the "rite of the Russians". Prior to the 19th century, the terms "Ukrainian" and "Rusyn" did not exist. Thus, one saw "White Russia", "Little Russia", "Sub-Carpathian Russia", and "Kievan Russia". Many of the present nationalistic terms did not exist, and people identified themselves primarily by religion.
To further complicate matters, one had the aggressive Magyarisation polices in the Hapsburg prison-state. This was particularly vicious in Slovakia and Podkarpatska Rus (Sub-Carpathian Russia). To make a murky situation even more cloudy, many of the Eastern Slavic ethnic groups in the region lacked an intelligentsia, being comprised almost completely of peasants. The only Eastern Slav groups with a coherent pre-19th century intellectual tradition were the Russians and Poles.
In short, this situation is far beyond the scope of an internet post. Nevertheless, there is little difference between Russians, Byelorussians, and Ukrainians (I can hear the howls of the UPA sorts now!), and it would be easy to construct a united state based on these nationalities. It would be much harder to incorporate a group such as the Poles, and even harder to incorporate Czechs (because of the large German component in their culture).
Russia and Byelorussia uniting? Yes, indeed, only a matter of time. Russia and Ukraine reuniting? Again, yes, and sooner than the Galician nationalists think. Do remember that 45 percent of the "Ukrainian" population is actually Russian!
Vara
|
|
|
|
Post by jaropolk on Dec 9, 2007 13:12:41 GMT -5
Thank you, and I can understand Russian just fine. So "Руте́ния" should only be applicable to Karpastkaya Rus', and not Русь as a whole. My sources use Rusь and Ruthenia interchangeably, which seems to be the problem here with our translation. Again, thank you for clearing that up. And Jarad, yes, I agree that there is no reason why Russia and Byelarus should be re-united. The more Slavic unity, the better! United? Give me the year when Belarus was united with Russia (commie time doesn't count). There was no Belarus in the past. Its lands were always shattered. And the results of this state were always tragic for its people. Under the Polish and Russian rule they were losing its culture, language and faith. Why do you now want to finish with this country once and for all? The culture of Bjelorus is Russian from the beginning. And Poland has created all the differences. Especially in language, which was a bad thing for Slavic culture, because Polish is the least Slavic language. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarovit on Dec 9, 2007 13:15:52 GMT -5
United? Give me the year when Belarus was united with Russia (commie time doesn't count). There was no Belarus in the past. Its lands were always shattered. And the results of this state were always tragic for its people. Under the Polish and Russian rule they were losing its culture, language and faith. Why do you now want to finish with this country once and for all? The culture of Bjelorus is Russian from the beginning. And Poland has created all the differences. Especially in language, which was a bad thing for Slavic culture, because Polish is the least Slavic language. Agreed. Poland has degenerated into an EU lap-dog recently, anyway. Do you want to preserve that? |
|
daver2
Leytenant
Rzeczpospolita
Posts: 288
|
Post by daver2 on Dec 9, 2007 13:19:47 GMT -5
United? Give me the year when Belarus was united with Russia (commie time doesn't count). There was no Belarus in the past. Its lands were always shattered. And the results of this state were always tragic for its people. Under the Polish and Russian rule they were losing its culture, language and faith. Why do you now want to finish with this country once and for all? The culture of Bjelorus is Russian from the beginning. And Poland has created all the differences. Especially in language, which was a bad thing for Slavic culture, because Polish is the least Slavic language. You make me laugh you childish ignorant. The least Slavic language, haha. You are PATHETIC. |
|
|
|
Post by vara on Dec 9, 2007 14:03:03 GMT -5
Actually, Polish is further from Staroslav than Russian, Rusyn, or Slovak is! This is the legacy of Poland coming into Christianity via the papist church in 966.
In fact, in the medieval Rzespublika, the language of the educated classes was Latin, and this influenced the development of early modern Polish. On the other hand, Russian is an organic development from Staroslav, and some argue (I think rightly) that Rusyn and Slovak are somewhat closer.
Of course, this could lead into a discussion of the Rzespublika and how it changed due to the Jesuits and the Counter-reformation, but, there is no space now for that. Poland lost its struggle with Russia for the position of the leading Slavic state when it attempted to push the Unia down the throats of its Orthodox subjects. Part of the reason that occurred was the increasing estrangement of the Polish language form the remainder of Slavdom.
Vara
|
|
.....although there it will be much more difficult
