But it is certainly not about comprehension. It's just that our dear brother Isa Al-Misry, being frustrated because of what he, an oddball, a half-Norvegian and half-Arab, and a former Evangelical Protestant, percieves as some kind of assault on his "tue Orthodoxy" from what he thinks are "Greek Philetists" (and other Philetists), pulls his half-witted "knowledge" of "history" (and just what THAT is...?), to "prove" that all "nationalism" is BAAAAAAD. O.K. Thanks Heorhij. Funnily that would explain the multitudinous and disjointed attacks on Ukrainians (i.e. well Russians want this part of Ukraine, Romanians this part, Khrushchev - the only thing in common to any of this being the poster's negativity to things Ukrainian). I almost thought he actually had something personal to explain his behavior or his anti-Ukrainian comments.
Although your ad hominem attacks against me personally have explained all
, I'm going to nonetheless going to reply anyways.
He is "misinformed" in many other claims he is making, beginning from showing pictures from cartoonish Bolshevik propaganda and calling them "history."
Ialmisry is just misinformed, probably: Romany and Ukraine have signed a "Basic Treaty" (Tratatul de baza romano-ucrainian) more than a decade ago (IIRC) by which all territorial claims were officially put to rest, except maybe, for the Snakes' Island.
Btw, Ukraine has Northern Bucovina, and the Romanians want it back, along with other territory that Khrushchev gave Ukraine.I am not sure whether you are just misinformed, or whether you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, but Romania has clearly stated that it has no territorial claims to Ukraine. (What many Romanian politicians do want, is to annex Moldova). Romanians in Ukraine have guaranteed minority rights, and both countries are fine with the current situation. (And so are Ukrainian Romanians themselves, because they make quite some money with smuggling Vodka and other things).
Yes. Me too. Statements by some here like Romanians want Bukovyna "back" (sic) are not only factually incorrect but seem only to be aimed at denigrating Ukrainians and/or the Ukrainian state. They are also absolutely unrelated to the OP as well. Ukrainians, like many European nations in Eastern Europe, had to undergo "nation-building" so to speak without benefit of a state for some time. This is true for many nations in Eastern Europe. It doesn't matter to some however. I am kinda still new here but am slightly surprised at the animosity of some posters to things Ukrainian, and find it hard to reconcile with Christian virtue or love.
ALL of Ukraine is within the canonically recognized boundaries of the Patriarchate of All Rus'Can you give proof for this statement, please?
Really, I do not understand how people completely underlated to the question have so much contempt for Ukraine...
I'm pressed for time right now, but since we're all h-bent on "being informed," I'll stop holding back, when I get back. I look forward to seeing more cartoons from the Bolshevik propaganda archives (like the storming of the Winter Palace by heroically-looking masses armed with rifles) and you calling them "history."
Well there was plenty of propoganda about Romania Mare "Greater Romania" when I was there in '93, when anything to do with borders or Ukrainians/Russians/Communists (many Romanians do not distinguish) brought up Northern Bucovina. The Party by that name (Romania Mare) joined the government in that year, but left in '95, two years before the Romania-Ukraine treaty mentioned above was finalized. Yet in 2000 Corneliu Vadim Tudor, its candidate for President, came in second with a third of the vote in the second round and a fifth of the seats of parliament, where it was the second largest party (he has fallen since then, a decline that settled in in part with leaving the Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty (ITS) group (leading to its demise) in the European Parliament, over remarks Il Duci's granddaugher Alessandra Mussolini made calling all Romanians (who see themselves as siblings of the Italians) criminals.
I have a map like this I got in '93:
except it had cultural attractions, landmarks, etc. marked instead of administrative divisions, in a cartoonish way: the Serpents Island, for instance, is exagerated. (Yes, that dispute went to the International Court of Justice, for the oil and gas underneath it (Russia is not the only oil and gas empire
) in 2009. There is a hanging threat by Romania to sue Ukraine for sanctions over the Bystroye Channel near the Danube Delta. Both of Ukraine's claims are based on the unratified (by either side) treaty forced on Romania-then occupied by Soviet troops-in 1948). On the right is Historic Moldavia (i.e. the one the irrendentists want) in yellow, with the border written by Khrushchev in black.
The objects of your posts I've linked lie in the Hotin, Cernauti, and Storojineti districts for the most part., what Ukraine administers as the Chernivtsi oblast. Hotin, as may be noticed, is part of Bessarabia, i.e. the Republic of Moldova of today, as are the Cetatea Alba and Izmail districts (which Ukraine administers as part of the Odessa oblast), at least before the Soviet Union took them and gave them to Ukraine.
And then there is Transnistria,
the base that the Soviet Union formed to claim the rest of Bessarabia: the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Respublic (of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), with its captial at the "temporarily occupied city of Kishinev" (Chişinău, where in 1917 the imperial governor turned over legal power to the Provissional Government of Bessarabia when Kerensky took power in Petrograd. A year later, after a failed Bolshevik coup and the Ukrainian declaration of independence, the National Assembly in Chişinău formed the independent Moldavian Democratic Republic. A few months later it procleimed its re-union with the Kingdom of Romania).
I include the map on the right to make Heorhij happy with Bolshevik propaganda: it shows the Soviet Unions' "claims" on Bessarbia in white. Bucovina, north or otherwise, let alone Herta, isn't shown: being occupied by Austria's Kaisser and not Russia's Czar, the U.S.S.R. made no claim until it took it, taking advantage of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to even expand further on Soviet claims, which Ukraine now inherits. Rather zealously.
This last region/republic may prove determinative, given Romanian-Republic of Moldova relations, the constitution of Romania declaring it a "unitary and indivisible National State" whose "national sovereignty shall reside within the Romanian people" "the common and indivisible homeland of all its citizens" and whose "territory...is inalienable," the constitution of the Republic of Moldavia descriibing it as a "unitary and indivisible state" whose "territory is inalienable" "the common and indivisible motherland of all her citizens," and Ukraine's constituional beginning with "The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory. Ukraine is a unitary state. The territory of Ukraine within its present border is indivisible and inviolable," and then declaring "The territorial structure of Ukraine is based on the principles of unity and indivisibility of the state territory" and "Ukraine is composed of...Odessa Oblast...Chernivtsi Oblast..."-all perhaps making this region determinative on the question raised on Ukraine and Romanian irredentism.
to be cont....