Anyone who knows the former Soviet space well understands the crucial difference between “grazdanstvo” – citizenship – and “narodnosc” – nationality. It featured on all identity documents, including passports, in the Soviet Union and on post Soviet national passports, at least until countries joined the EU.
I don’t know if it is currently retained on Ukrainian passports, or if not when it was dropped – perhaps someone might advise.
Everybody in the post Soviet sphere knew the distinction. In Uzbekistan, an inhabitant of Samarkand would almost certainly enter their citizenship – grazdanstvo – as Uzbek and their nationality – narodnosc – as Tajik, for example.
There has been a strange failure to counter the myth that the inhabitants of the Donbass are mostly Russian. They are not, and have not been so for many centuries.
The last census in Ukraine was in 2001, conducted under the pro-Russian president Leonid Kuchma. These are the narodnosc results as percentages for the regions Putin has just annexed.
Donetsk Region
Ukrainians 56.9
Russians 38.2
Greeks 1.6
Belarussians 0.9
Tatars 0.5
Armenians 0.3
Jews 0.5
Azerbaijanians 0.2
Luhansk Region
Ukrainians 58.0
Russians 39.0
Belarussians 0.8
Tatars 0.3
Armenians 0.3
Kherson Region
Ukrainians 82.0
Russians 14.1
Belarussians 0.7
Tatars 0.5
Moldavians 0.4
Armenians 0.4
Crimean Tatars 0.2
Zaporizhzhia Region
Ukrainians 70.8
Russians 24.7
Bulgarians 1.4
Belarussians 0.7
Jews 0.2
Armenians 0.3
Tatars 0.3
Georgians 0.2
In none of the regions Putin has just annexed were Russians a majority in 2001, let alone a 99.7% majority. Apparently 6.4 million Ukrainians have simply vanished.
For completeness here were the 2001 results for Crimea:
Russians 58.3
Ukrainians 24.3
Crimean Tatars 12.0
Belarussians 1.4
Tatars 0.5
Armenians 0.4
Jews 0.2
Poles 0.2
Moldavians 0.2
Azerbaijanians 0.2
There is an extremely important validation of these results available. They only show small changes from the last Soviet census in 1989. In all of these regions (bar Crimea) a majority identified their nationality as Ukrainian in the Soviet census too. So it is not a factor of Ukrainian independence.
Here is the region with the highest concentration of Russians – Donetsk – in the Soviet census in 1989.
Donetsk 1989 Soviet Census
Ukrainians 50.7
Russians 43.6
Greeks 1.6
Belarussians 1.4
Tatars 0.5
Armenians 0.2
Jews 0.5
Azerbaijanians 0.1
As I said, there has never been a Russian majority in the Donbass.
There may have been a slight Russian speaking majority. 14.8% of those, Ukraine wide, who identified their nationality as Ukrainian, gave Russian as their first language. This was higher in the East and lower in the West. But those who self-identify as Ukrainian but speak Russian as their first language, are no different to English speaking Scots. Russian speaking was advantageous in the Soviet Union.
There has never been a Russian majority in the Donbass. Never. The Russian minority in Donbass is mostly derived from the great population movements of 1946, when the Polish city of Lvov became Ukrainian and German cities like Breslau and Posen became Polish.
The Russian minority in Donbass is heavily urban, concentrated in the cities. The Ukrainian majority in the Donbass is heavily rural. The Russians are thus much more concentrated, visible and easy to mobilise. That is why it is genuinely possible to mobilise a pro-Russian demonstration in the cities of Luhansk or Donetsk. It is why journalists visiting those cities get a false impression of the wider population of the region.
That urban/rural split is of course not absolute, and just one factor in patchiness of distribution. Some eastern portions of the Donbass probably did have a Russian majority population.
Farmers cling to their land, and a surprising number of rural Ukrainians remained even within the minority proportion of the lands of the Donbass that became a Russian military enclave post 2014. Most of the land of Donbass, outside the Russian controlled areas, became even more Ukrainian as some population exchange between the areas occurred.
The majority of the territory of Donbass has been conquered by Russia only within the last six months and the population there certainly remains majority Ukrainian. Only in the easternmost areas, the post 2014 enclaves, is there at this moment almost certainly a Russian majority. But even they still have some Ukrainian rural populations.
The notion that the entire Donbass voted 99% to join Russia is just so ludicrous that I don’t know what to say to people who believe it, except that they are so blinded by ideology and hatred of western governments that they have quite literally stopped thinking.
I probably dislike western governments in a deeper and more informed way than they do; it just does not lead me to the ridiculous illogicality of believing that because the west is bad and run by warmongers, rival warmonger Putin and his oligarchs must be better.
You see Vanessa, I do know better. I speak Russian and Polish, have lived in St Petersburg and Warsaw, and have almost certainly both spent more time in Ukraine than you, while I have very definitely forgotten more Ukrainian history than you will ever know.
The idea that in Zaporizhzhia – where 24% of the population self identify as Russian – or Kherson, where 14% are Russian, 97% of the population voted to join Russia is so ludicrous that I can’t believe I find myself explaining it. I have friends in Kherson.
Equally ludicrous is Vanessa Beeley’s idea of election observation. Knowing nothing of the country or its history – and I am quite certain she has no idea of the above census facts – you cannot fly in for a few days and judge a democratic process free and fair.
There are international rules for election observation, long established by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and more recently by the United Nations. These include that observers should not be funded by the host country or by any party involved or be dependent on either for logistics, transport, accommodation and communications. Observers should not be accompanied by any officials when observing.
I have asked Vanessa a few questions on the absolute basics of international referendum observation 101. Let me expand on those a bit here:
What electoral register was used? When was it taken?
What was the supervising body of the referendum? Where are its published rules? How independent was it?
Which people or organisations represented each side of the referendum question? How were they registered?
How long was the campaign period?
What broadcast debates were held?
How was equality of airtime on local broadcast media implemented? how did the observers monitor it?
What were the spending limits for each campaign? How much was spent? How was it audited?
Was each side able to campaign freely without fear and intimidation?
How were the observers dispersed geographically? How many in rural how many in urban areas? For how many weeks?
What campaigning was seen? Where is the observers’ photographic evidence of democratic campaigning by each side?
That is the basic work of any monitoring mission. Democracy is a process, not merely a vote. Only after that do we get to secrecy of the ballot, access to voting, intimidation at polling stations, security of the count etc.
The plain truth is that I resemble a Ducati motorbike more than what happened in Ukraine resembled a democratic process. Anybody who claims otherwise is simply an appalling liar. I was amused by a comment from Eva Bartlett, for whom I generally have much respect, who said she did not meet anybody opposed to the annexation.
If you think carefully, Eva, that is not the win you think it is.
These annexations are deeply unhelpful. They go way beyond anything to which Russia can have the slightest reasonable claim. I could see a negotiated settlement around Ukraine acknowledging Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and perhaps those parts of the Donbass within the control line as at February 2022.
But by declaring as Russian territory large regions of Ukraine to which Russia has no valid claim whatsoever, Putin has made a negotiated settlement almost impossible. He has also bitten off far more than he can chew. As I keep explaining, Russia is not the military superpower NATO wants us to believe in order to keep us fueling the military industrial complex.
Putin is playing into the hands of the United States’ strategy, to bleed Russia and degrade its military whilst expending only Ukrainian lives. Western military technology is vastly superior to Russian. Putin is sending 300,000 conscripts into a meat grinder. As more and more of that western weaponry reaches Ukraine and becomes operational, the Russian conscripts will neither see nor have a chance to fight the person killing them from way over the horizon.
The dangers of escalation towards the nuclear are becoming very real. I fully acknowledge and condemn the toxic nature of much Ukrainian nationalism, the glorification of Nazis, the banning of opposition parties and of Russian language teaching and media. I utterly oppose NATO expansion. Of course it was not Russia who blew up the Nordstream pipeline or shelled the nuclear power station they were themselves occupying.
I absolutely get all of that.
But unless Armageddon appeals to you, and if you have the slightest respect for truth over ideology, the cheering on of Putin has to stop.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I have come to really appreciate Mark Sleboda’s analysis.
He admits he is not impartial as his wife is Crimean with relatives in both Eastern Ukraine and Odessa.
In an interview the other day he reminded me of the ridiculous amount of army and navy that swapped sides in 2014. It was these forces that twice beat the Ukrainian ATO forces which resulted in Minsk 1 and 2
Ukrainians now have many reasons to vote to become part of Russia
Actually they didn’t swap sides, they stayed loyal to the democratic government of Ukraine. The successor republics in Donbas are composed of Ukrainian loyalists.
Ritter is right, it doesn’t matter at all if we in the west do not see these referendum results as fair or democratic.
Russia does and will now act accordingly. NATO’s support of Ukraine brings us ever closer to a direct war with Russia, a war where nobody wins. Next stop WW3 and monetary system collapse? Was it worth it?
Is this the same Ritter that came up with the Kyiv feint? (and has been wrong on virtually every other aspect of this war). Is this the same Ritter as the twice convicted and once imprisoned pedophile? (high chance that he could be being blackmailed to espouse kremlin talking points). Invoking the specter of Ritter is reason enough for deep skepticism.
Whether Ritter was convicted of anything is neither here nor there. His opinions are based on his experience as a Marine officer, not on his criminal convictions. And as he has already been convicted and released, what would he be blackmailed about? As for the Kiev feint, that makes much more sense than your implied alternative. Your post is prejudiced nonsense.
Andrew H – Ritter being wrong, then admitting it, is a sign of learning. Further, it is a fundamental logical error to attack the messenger. If a bad person screams FIRE! do you dismiss their report just because they are a bad person? Perhaps you wish to ignore Ritter’s messages, to somehow reduce your cognitive dissonance?
Fredi,
“Was it worth it?””
Ask Putin. He started it.
No, he didn’t. The US started it – try reading a bit more, without prejudice.
Do you suppose that Ukraine Azov attacking the Donbass for the last 8 years might have anything to do with how people voted in those two Oblasts, regardless of whether they identified as Ukrainian, Russian, or any other etnia? Do you think that perhaps Ukranians who live in the other two Oblasts might have seen the way the Ukrainian government has been full of corruption for a long time and decided that their own future would be better served by being part of a Russian federation? Why indeed were the Ukrainians, with assistance from NATO, principally USA and Great Britain, attacking their own citizens, using the military and intelligence services? Why did the Ukrainian government outlaw Russian language? Was it not because many Ukrainian citizens, of whatever ethnic group, spoke Russian in preference to Ukrainian? So could it be that those groups also did not appreciate being discriminated against and would have preferred to live under a Russian law and enforcement system?
Is there something special about your claimed knowledge of history and languages that makes you an authority on whether or not people would have voted in favor of living as part of Russia? When USA, United Kingdom (yes, you live in a kingdom) and NATO decided that Kosovo could declare itself independent, where we you? Was that a fair decision according to international law? Why can’t the four oblasts do so now?
You sound like Trump protesting that the election was rigged. On what basis? Where’s the evidence? You are a fair distance from there and your knowledge of the area comes from a fair amount of time ago. You can’t seem to take off your “diplomat’s” hat and put away your “straight-down-the-middle” approach: if you say the west is bad, well, so is Putin. (When will you start on China? Perhaps you already have with the CIA-linked Dalai Lama followers, especially his brother; and with the color revolutions that have been attempted in Xinjiang. You may well be still mourning the souls of the Falan Gong.)
they who have been bombarded and abused for 8 years also know that azov have the full imprimatur of the liberal west. if they had stayed in ukraine they knew they would have been regarded as deplorables no matter what the nazis chose to do to them. azov are right up there now with the idf as marvel comic book heroes in the eyes of western liberals.
I suppose Putin has been observing the declaration of independence (not even an attempt at a referendum) in Kosovo, entirely acceptable as legitimate by the US and thought, well I’ll at least attempt to be more ‘democratic’. This is what happens in the US ‘rules based’ order. Just make up the rules that suit you and sod international law when it doesn’t…like terror attacks on nuclear power plants and blowing up other peoples pipelines (the US has form). I suspect many ethnic Ukrainians prefer Russia (I’ve seen a number of interviews with ethnic Ukrainians in Donbas who are very much pro Russia) maybe not least because their pensions double under Russia and the Nazi militia abuses stop and the hope of peace seems more likely with the Kremlin than Kiev’s shambolic ‘democracy’ under Zelensky. I saw a very telling interview with some young Ukrainian girls today in ‘liberated’ Izyum. They seemed indifferent to Ukraine’s takeover and then inadvertently started to say how their mum had got wages in Rubles with the Russians (she hadn’t been paid for months under the Ukrainian regime) the shops were open and there was food and water which wasn’t the case now etc. Not what the interviewer wanted to hear no doubt…the young women interviewees looked decidedly uneasy for liberated people.
I think you make an important point about pension doubling under Russia. The People of Ukraine and the Donbas especially, have faced a shitty life threatening and economic situation for many years and want peace and easier lives. A Moldovan neighbour of mine remarked that many people there would be happy to join Russia for the pensions, cheap housing, food and energy and access to good education and work opportunities. With an attractive carrot, the stick may not be needed. I suspect Vanessa Beeley and Eve Bartlett on the ground will have a much better sense of this. From Putin’s speech the other day it is clear Russia is in this for keeps. It will be a long drawn out war and the last thing Ukraine needs is for its suffering people to see the quality of life of its former citizens go up. All we are seeing is that “might is right”. It nearly always has been, and always will be. The “rules based order” never really disguised that fact. That is why negotiations based on mutual respect (which is in short supply) and a realistic understanding of the needs, strengths and weaknesses of both sides is the only way to settle this and stem the already horrific bloodshed on both sides. It seems negotiations between the Germans and Russians were stymied by the blowing up of Nordstream I and II. Who could it be that is not interested in a peaceful resolution of this? Someone who sees massive strategic opportunities arising from it perhaps?
In Britain most people holding a British passport , use the advantages of the passport to describe themselves on Official paperwork, travel etc as British. Most of the electorate in East Ukraine have availed themselves , for protection from Kiev ,, of Russian passports.
Therefore the answer to the question on the form is the same as we do here. I am British. Even if they come from another country.
The occupiers made Russian passports compulsory.
I think you’re being disingenuous.
I find it very probable that a large number of russian-speaking, ukraine-identifying citizens want no part of the Zelensky regime.
If the choice for these people is binary – to renounce ukraine and embrace Russia, or to remain “Ukrainian” under the dystopian leadership of Kyiv/zelenkski, I have little doubt that a very large percentage would choose to join Russia.
Regardless of your history and contacts in the region, I’m convinced it is you – and not Beeley – who is out of touch.
You’re right, not accepting a 99% referendum result is clearly the product of Craig being disingenuous. Jesus…
Mr Murray,
Thank you for this article.
I have published an article in support of the referenda. I have added to its sources a link to this article. It is important to consider wider narratives. You base your argument on censor statistics which provide weight.
My article can be found at:
https://yesxorno.substack.com/p/thorn-in-my-side-sovereign-integral
Regards,
YesXorNo
Facebook remarks of you, ”A hostile non-state opinion service, ” so you must be on the correct path!
Facebook can remark all they want.
The newsletter describes itself as:
“This little newsletter is an attempt to publish informed opinion, with links to sources.
The sources are a wide array of independent voices, both journalistic and opinion based. This work is closer to the later, but hopefully the provided reference material will align it a little with the former. I hope that posts here are at least interesting.”
The author describes themself as:
“A student of life, history, philosophy, science, logic and music, with a keen interest in geopolitics and geoeconomics.”
And adds:
“A hostile non-state opinion service, with source references and often a musical reference.”
Goodnight.
Yesxorno
Stopped reading in the first paragraph when you describe the Ukraine as an “unelected, coup-installed government”.
Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 with 73.22% vote share.
If you want to be taken seriously, maybe don’t veer into fantasy in your first paragraph.
Zelensky got 73.22 per cent of the vote because he promised an end to the hostilities with Russia. Immediately after winning the election he reneged on this and continued down the path to the current disastrous conflict. Just another “democratically” elected liar who conned the people into supporting him. The West is in no position to throw stones.
Bramble, oh, so that’s why tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people deserve to die. Thanks for clearing that up.
Shouldn’t you be addressing that remark to your hero Mr Zelensky?
Ukraine had its last inclusive democratic elections in 2012. All elections since have been a parody.
Following the US-sponsored Maidan coup, many opposition parties were barred, independent media outlets closed and independent journalists killed by far right militia (see Oles Buzina case). Furthermore, Ukraine did not allow any of 3 million+ Ukrainian citizens living in Russia to vote (yet those living in other countries were encouraged to vote). I don’t consider any of this as evidence of democratic process.
It is true that Zelensky got the majority of the last vote, but he reneged on the key promise (working with russia on acheiving a peaceful end to the hostilities in the east) as soon as he got into the office. How democratic is this?
The OSCE and UNHCR reports show that officials from Kyiv couldn’t get into the ‘People’s Republics”. Journalists and observers were kept out , some of them with violence. They do show abuses on both sides but not in the same proportion.
I don’t know of any news agencies reporting from the Russian occupied areas. If you do, we would like to know.
See RT.
Or Eva Bartlett. Roman Kosarov, from RT, has done excellent reporting. He has been in Donbas for over eight years. While Russel “Texas” Bentley is a partisan of the DPR militia, his reports on military matters have been reliable. In the wider sphere Scott Ritter and Raymond McGovern are useful sources.
“Truth is the first casualty of war”, so treat all sources with a little skepticism.
I except Eva Bartlett from this dictum. She is deadly honest and backs her commentary with detailed evidence and referencing.
The full quote from the article is:
“The unelected, coup derivative government installed in Kiev, Ukraine in 2014 outlawed the teaching of Russian in Ukrainian schools as a component of its nationalist agenda.”
Either you can’t read or are just spouting rubbish. I assume the latter.
One word of advice: choose your battles carefully. If you wish to battle with an author, prepare yourself well with accurate facts.
This entire situation starts to look increasingly like Graham Greene’s ‘Brighton Rock’ with the (admittedly) bad guy being pushed to ever wilder excesses by the (sanctimonious) good guy and everything ending up in utter disaster. Now with nukes. Good luck to all involved.
“The red dawn of Xi’s imperial age comes at a bad time for the world, given all that’s going wrong globally at present – and it raises a worrying, existential question: could anyone possibly be more scary than land-grabbing, nuke-wielding Vladimir Putin?
Answer, yes: an insecure Chinese communist megalomaniac with mummy issues.”
From an article in the British Intelligence In-house magazine, the Guardian. Now these are the types of intellects that dominate public discourse in the Imperial West. It worries me that Craig has not yet been able fully to divest himself of ideological vestiges of his previous service in HM’s government, for his is one of the few places that still offer rational debate, and I shall now certainly begin a subscription. I cannot fathom why others would cancel. I have decisive theoretical issues with Craig (e.g, he still seems to believe the UK is a democracy and not an oligarchy), but look above for what the alternative is: in this case Yellow Peril nonsense.
Simon Tisdall wrote that in the guardian. All sorts of journalists and commentators write all sorts of things in the guardian. It’s called free speech (perhaps a concept you’re unfamiliar with in your country?).
Identifying the writer as Tisdall and the journal as the Guardian does nothing for your argument. The Guardian sold its soul down the Establishment river quite some time ago. Ask Julian Assange.
Bramble, you are “on point”.
Tisdall is a particular war-monger. He is not balanced.
”Free speech” in the Guardian? Try posting something criticising Israel’s creeping genocide of Palestinians in their comments page!
“The idea that in Zaporizhzhia – where 24% of the population self identify as Russian – or Kherson, where 14% are Russian, 97% of the population voted to join Russia is so ludicrous”
What also is fairly ludicrous is the idea that the overthrow of their democratically-elected government to be replaced by a on supported by another country thousands of miles away well known for going round the world stirring up trouble, the ensuing civil war in their own country and the election of a president on a peace ticket who then becomes even more of a warmonger than his predecessors would have no effect on whether a population feel they want to be ruled by Moscow or Kiev.
What is also fairly ludicrous is he idea that the “official” figure of 97% is really somewhere lower than 60%, unless it is being suggested that the referendum never happened and that the figures are totally bogus. If you were going to rig a referendum, wouldn’t you fix the result at around a “reasonable” 75%, instead of an “ludicrous” 97%? This is just more “Banana republic Russia” propaganda.
Bayard, yes Zelensky is such a warmonger isn’t he? Not like your hero, nice Mr Putin.
Given that Putin, when he could have opted for war, several times opted for peace instead and Zelensky, when he could have opted for peace, instead opted for war, then yes. Putin has only just this year gone to war in Ukraine. Zelensky has been waging a civil war against his own population for his entire presidency.
How many people did Russia murder in the Ukraine from 2014 to 2022? We know that around 14,000 were murdered by the Ukranian armed forces in that period so I would really like to know.
We enjoy ridiculing the braindead statements by Neil.
I am completely against censorship. How about establishing a page for Neil and thus confining his idiocy to a singe space and us not wasting our time reading his rubbish?
Ethnicity is not included in the current Ukrainian passports.
As you correctly stated, Ukraine has not had a census for over 20 years. The reason for this is obvious – there has been a drastic reduction in a population (Ukraine is one of the world leaders in this), which would if confirmed by census, could lead to reduction in investment and ability to raise funds internationally.
I would be careful about generalising census outcomes. There are many anecdotal stories of children with parents of non-Ukrainian ethnicities being convinced or brainwashed to stating their ethnicity as Ukrainian. Like in many other ex-republics of USSR there is a pressure to be seen as a part of the main ethnic group. This has been partly achieved by tyranny of “renaming” of the citizens, e.g. if one is called Nikolai there is no way to keep this in official documents in Ukraine – is renamed into Mykola (which is equivalent of every John being renamed to Ian upon Scotland gaining independence). Of course, this activates a certain framing effects, I.e. one is more likely to claim Ukrainian nationality if one lives in Ukraine and is called Mykola, not Nikolai.
With focusing on old census result you have created a strawman. What matters is whether people want to be part of the given state, rather what their ethnicity is (you can probably see some parallels in Scottish or Catalan scenario). I would put it to you this is not neatly split along ethnic lines in Ukraine and is very much influenced by the events in the country (e.g. larger proportion would have wanted to leave after Maidan than before). It is ridiculous that such a large and diverse country as Ukraine is not a federation.
What an arrogant thing to say Craig. “I know better because I speak Polish and Russian and have lived in Warsaw and St Petersburg” I am a former Brit who has fond memories of St Pete when it was still Leningrad, was married to a Russian for 20 years and has worked alongside Russian and Ukrainians from both the Western and Eastern parts for longer. I have been closely following the news from Donbass in both the English and Russian Media, but I was not in the Donbass so, unlike yourself, I am in no position to critique how Eva and Vanessa interpreted the referenda.
It could be as you imply that they were hoodwinked by their minders like in the old cold war movies, but US and British reporters like Graham Philips, who has been reporting from the Donbass for years, supports their interpretation. Have the minders being chaperoning him all this time or is he just a commie traitor?
There are several logical reasons why >90% of Donbass residents and about 68% of Kherson residents could have voted to join Russia.
While the population of the industrial and mining towns retain some of their communist roots and consider the civil war a rematch of the Great Patriotic War, you are correct that much of the rural population identified as Ukrainian in 1989. However, this population tends to be deeply religious and prefers the Moscow patriarchy to Kiev. In addition Kiev has been selling off farmland to Western agribusiness to pay the IMF, which does not go down well with Kherson farmers. The Kiev government is not popular in Ukraine, because Zelinsky did the opposite to what he was elected to do. They remain in power because they banned and imprisoned or killed the opposition. You may not believe this if you get your news from BBC reporters sitting in Warsaw, but the people of East Ukraine, who get their news from Russia, do. They also have the experience of being shelled more often by the Ukrainian army than by the Russian army.
Of course there is also a more sinister reason why the residents of the Russian occupied areas of these oblasts and republics made certain they went out and voted to join Russia. If the referendum failed and the Russians withdrew like they did in the Kharkov Oblast, the returning Ukrainian forces would be taking retribution. Which could be why the devious Russians withdrew from Kharkov.
There are plenty of Ukrainians from the South and East who support Kiev and the Maidan “revolution”, but the main reason they supported Maidan was because they wanted to live in the EU. Thanks to Putin they have got their wish and you’ll find them now all over the EU, where they will tell you tales of Russian oppression in return for your hospitality. They did not see the need to go back to vote.
“you are correct that much of the rural population identified as Ukrainian in 1989”.
Of course I am. It is indisputable from the Soviet census. You somehow neglected to notice that even more of them identified as Ukrainian in the census under Kuchma in 2001. And that they constitute the majority of the population of the Donbass.
I have nowhere suggested that Beeley and Bartlett were duped. I think they are blinded by ideology into believing something which is patently untrue and discordant with all known historical fact..
Mr. Leakey,
I believe your stated credentials and concur with your analysis.
My analysis is that the error in Mr. Murray’s argument is not the age of the census, but the effect of 8 years of civil war. You correctly highlight this demonstrable fact. How many daughters’ deaths does it take to cause one to seek protection?
Voices like yours, Mr. Leakey, are dearly needed. All praise to you.
97% of people who turned out to vote voted “for”. Those who would have voted against have either long fled into territories where the referendum was not held or simply did not turn out for various reasons (possibly including fear).
This wasn’t a clean referendum like the one you are hoping for in Scotland, but by multiplying voter turnout and 97% the majority support is quite clear. And importantly it’s impossible to do it cleaner – such a referendum would never be permitted by Ukraine and the only body that could force it – UNSC – would also never allow it because it has pro-Western majority. You could argue that it’s bad, but if you can’t propose something better then it’s pointless (for the record: “not hold any referendum at all” doesn’t count, since it defeats the purpose of the argument).
That simply is not true. Up until March this year Russia only occupied a small portion of the Donbass. The Ukrainian majority in the larger portion was even larger, due to the population movements you rightly identify.
Half a year of war is enough for that movement to occur.
“you cannot fly in for a few days and judge a democratic process free and fair.”
At least she flew in. And what she recorded fits 100% with what Gonzalo Lira has been saying: Donbas’ Russian-haters left when the SMO started and, “I notice that they haven’t returned”.
Anyway, why would anyone who had been shelled for 8 years hesitate to escape by voting?
You cannot fly in to Donbass except as a client journalist of Russia. So don’t talk rubbish.
Mr. Murray,
While I disagree with your argument, I acknowledge that it is well founded. For this reason I included it as a reference in an article I penned which provides a different narrative.
I can see in these comments that you have received a little “pushback” from your community. Two things are to be celebrated.
Firstly, that you state your opinion so well, and secondly that the community finds its voice in partial opposition. This dialogue is the definition of western democracy, which we are losing. You, Craig, are to be praised on both counts: for speaking your mind and supporting this public dialogue.
I know you as a man of principle. I can easily disagree with your argument and still support you as a man I respect.
Discussion is essential.
With deep respect, sincerely,
YesXorNo
PS: For a cultural reference, I have been absorbed by Arlo Guthrie’s rendition from his 1972 album “Hobo’s Lullaby” of “The City of New Orleans”. I commend it to you and your audience as a partial relief from the troubled times in which we live. https://youtu.be/qSeqrkRT1t0
Wow, just wow. If I didn’t have such respect for your work and your history, I’d be getting some serious fascist vibes from this article.
I could go on, but basing the outcome of an election on some 30 year old RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS is utterly bizarre…
There are plenty of ethnic Ukrainians who ONLY speak Russian. What do you think they’re going through after finding out that their language/culture is banned? And schools closed down, etc?
The answer is – the border is in that direction. Your bus will pick you up tomorrow.
That’s not how to resolve issues in a multi-ethnic country. In fact, it is a recipe for a civil war. Which makes me wonder if you take the view of those who want the conflict to continue?
Let’s do a little thought experiment. What if Belgium or Canada did the same to their French speakers or Finland to their Swedish speakers?
Or the English to the Scots in the case of independence?
Why do you put in inverted comments a word – “ethnic” – which appears nowhere in my article? Particularly when I explain in my reply to Tatyana’s comment that the word “narodnosc” means more than ethnicity, it means national identity with all the cultural associations that involves.
Why do I think that a majority who self-describe their national identity as Ukrainian rather than Russian would wish to be in Ukraine rather than Russia? I think that is such a ludicrous question I shall not bother to answer it.
“Particularly when I explain in my reply to Tatyana’s comment that the word “narodnosc” means more than ethnicity, it means national identity with all the cultural associations that involves.”
“Narodnosc” cannot mean “citizenship” or “citizenship” would not have been put as a separate category, however, in English “nationality” does, in most cases, just mean citizenship and is used as such in official documents. In the UK census, you are not asked about either nationality or citizenship, you are asked about ethnicity, so from the way “narodnosc” is used it seems clear that “nationality” is an inexact translation for it, carrying associations that the original Russian did not possess.
point 5 Sam.
If you think all the rape and torture is on one side, have a look at that and make your own conclusion
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/29thReportUkraine_EN.pdf
I am sure that the people who were being raped and tortured would have been comforted by being told that their own side was doing the same.
some would be very happy the same is being done to them.
The wider point is that there is abundant evidence that the separatist forces have been been committing atrocities. Some people posting here want us to believe it is only the Kyiv forces. As Craig has pointed out people who see the world from an ideological perspective will take that sort of view.
“some would be very happy the same is being done to them”
The number of people who would be happy to be raped under any circumstances whatsoever is so small as to be statistically insignificant or are you the sort of person that thinks that women secretly enjoy being raped?
“there is abundant evidence that the separatist forces have been been committing atrocities.”
Of course there is, such evidence is easy to manufacture and difficult to disprove, regardless of which side it supports.
Ian Stevenson, there are no reports of “rape and torture” by the Russian’s in the link to 29thReportUkraine_EN you give:
“X. Conclusions and recommendations para 136. In the context of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation to the Government of the Russian Federation: a) uphold its obligations as duty bearer […] b) ensure proper and unimpeded access of international human rights monitoring missions […] c) end the practice of forcible transfers and deportations of protected persons, […] d) refrain from compelling residents of Crimea to serve in the armed forces of the Russian Federation”
There are reports of torture by Ukraine:
“X. Conclusions and recommendations para 134 To the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and self-proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’: c) immediately halt the practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees…”
If russia were to occupy all of the ukraine and then announce that any ukrainian who wished could have russian citizenship and move to the parts of ukraine that russia intends to keep, how may people would be left in the rump ukraine?
Also, I say again, The most likely explanation for the result is that pro-ukraine people didn’t vote, on the instructions of the ukrainian government.
Or Ukraine gets back its territory and says, if you want to be Russian, Russia is in that direction. We will bus you to the border.
Aden…..
“Or Ukraine gets back its territory and says, if you want to be Russian, Russia is in that direction. We will bus you to the border.”
Presumably once that has happened, you will issue the same statement but with the word Ukraine replaced by The Palestinians, and Russia(n) replaced by Israel(i)?
Or you could simply give us a definition of double standards……
A solution used by the Israelis against the Palestinians all the time. Thousands of people booted out of their homeland to Jordan, in particular. I’m sure that, given the opportunity you would sanction Israeli for that.
Thanks for the article Mr. Murray.
I notice that none of the Putinist posters have noticed that the RA is retreating or in some cases routed from their positions.
When the RA has been forced back inside the internationally recognised borders of Russia, all this braggadocio about the Russki Mir and Novya Russya (spelling?) will be clearly exposed for what it has always been – an imperial dream.
You’d do better to be sceptical of the inflated military claims. Today’s is that Ukraine has the Russians on the run in Kherson, because they’ve taken 2 villages, after two months of being stopped dead, at probably high cost. When Russia took two villages, the Ukrainians claimed the Russians were making no progress at all.
Zero evidence on who blew the pipelines. I wonder why. Ah yes you have none.
Here’s an idea. I was the Greens that blew the pipeline up. Extinction rebellion. Must be correct. They have the motive after all.
Why do I think a military operation in the EEZ of a NATO state, carried out when NATO naval forces in the Baltic are numerous and at the highest state of alert, was not an undetected naval operation by Russia? I can’t imagine.
An operation against a pipeline – in peacetime – by (say) the USN would be difficult to keep secret.
Loose lips sink ships – as it were….
There have been quite a few loose lips. Radek Sikorski, for one. Biden said they would do it.
Craig
I did see one opinion which involved the undersea internet cables and their vulnerability. The Minister of Defence, Ben Wallace, announced a few days ago that two ships are being constructed for their defence. The opinion was that the Russians might be demonstrating they could do even more damage if NATO escalates its efforts.
It would only need a few frogmen from a small submarine to blow a few holes in a pipeline. It could well have been detected if so, why not prevent it? Well, attacking the sub or the frogmen would be an escalation they are not willing to do. Why not make it public? I suppose because it might expose the vulnerabilities of the internet cables , which they don’t want to for internal political reasons, or they want to confine military action to Ukraine.
The EU are saying there was sabotage but I have not seen any perpetrator named so far.
I really don’t know the answer
Funny how you do not countenance that the Americans could have done it despite them being the obvious beneficiaries and having publicly signposted their intention to do it.
and them having conducted underwater exercises in the are just previously (BALTOPS). No it couldn’t possibly be the US.
Frogmen – I doubt it, look at the depth and consider the support that would be needed. I’d suggest an unmanned drone was used to place a timed, or remote controlled, explosive device. Could only have been a state sanctioned action.
Parts of the Baltic are quite shallow but if I was doing it , I’d use an undersea drone which could be controlled from a fishing boat.
Damaging subsea infrastructure is a dangerous development.
Frogmen and mini-submarines is very James Bond, although possible in shallow waters. However, subsea communication cables in particular, stretch for thousands of kilometres in deep ocean, often lying exposed on the seabed. There are a small number of countries with the technology and expertise to really mess them up if they choose. I rarely look at the MSM, but I’ve just been enjoying reading the Independent and Express re-assuring their readers that Ben Wallace’s 2 boats, sorry “Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ship (MROSS)” will protect the UK’s communication infrastructure. I imagine they might effectively police a subsea cable to the Isle of Wight. The Atlantic, a global common beyond EEZ, would be quite a challenge.
And much as everyone hates oil & gas companies; if anything happend to the main Forties pipeline then the economic consequences for the UK would be considerable. You can find it on the Admiralty charts…
The first act of war the British carried out against the Germans in 1914 was to cut their subsea telegraph cables. This isn’t new neither does it require much in the way of hi-tech equipment.
Where security services are involved the evidence may be hard to come by. However, it is worth remembering elites of which countries did all they can to stop Nordstream 2 (if you forgot, I will remind you it was USA, UK and its acolytes in Eastern Europe) to appreciate who will benefit the most from this sabotage and thus most likely culprits.
Zelensky and Poroshenko both got themselves elected as peacemakers and then instantly became warmongers. I can well understand the vast majority of Donbass etc wanting to get out of the toxic Kievan nightmare.
Let us not fool ourselves, Ukraine lost its independance in 2014 and became a US/NATO colony designed to destabilise Russia regardless of the appaling economic and military consequences for the people of Ukraine.
I hear the point but I just have a hard time accepting Ukrainian is a narodnosc to begin with when historically there has not been a Ukraine before the 19th century for sure. Just like Belgian is a grazdanstvo, but not a narodnosc. (Even calling Flemish or Walloon narodnosc is a stretch). But let’s assume you’re right on that, it doesn’t matter.
What do we do? How do we get things back to the negotiating table?
Here’s my twopenn’orth Craig. The Donetsk and Luhansk regions were part of the SSR of Ukraine from 1922, I believe it was. So, 3-4 generations later, in 2001, with the «euphoria« of no longer being part of the USSR, it’s not too surprising that those people wanted to be seen as Ukrainian nationals – in the majority (av. 57.5%). However, after 2004 & 2014-15, it’s also not too surprising, in the circumstances (8 years of being regularly shelled by their «fellow nationals« and other bad stuff) if the balance had shifted and a majority, had there been a census, would have ticked the box for Russian. In reality, how many would have liked to have been labelled as rabid, unforgiving, fascist nationalists, I wonder. I think your «ideal world« scenario is a touch naive, albeit, it has to be said, strictly correct. Had there been a «proper« referendum, the most likely outcome still would’ve been a majority for Russia. It doesn’t matter if it was 97% or 57% – a majority is a majority.
According to the Telegraph Admiral Sir Tony Radakin KCB announced “Russia could wage war on the United Kingdom from space” – Telegraph, 30 Sep 2022 (Pay-Wall)
Interestingly I believe from a canary he has responded to my previous allegation here that the ‘war in space’ design was examined at Northwood as means of disabling Russian real-time missile navigation leaving only inertia guidance pre-programmed to a fixed location or a state-of-the-art false flag operation targeting an obsolescent US satellite that would cue a space war.
The same question arises. What is the basis for this judgement on the Russian military and its equipment? The referendums allows Russia, according to its constitution, to escalate from a “special military operation” to an “anti-terror operation”, which allows it to use the full weight of its military power. Russia has escalated slowly but steadily. We may finally get a chance to assess the calibre of its forces at full throttle. As I understand it, US guidelines for use of nuclear weapons are more lax than Russian, but neither is backing down. It’s getting seriously scary. Also, a question about the population of Donbas. Before Lenin created a Ukrainian Republic, was Donbas considered Ukrainian? I recall reading that inhabitants in Donbas identified themselves by their district and as subjects of the Tsar. In elections since ’91, Donbas has consistently voted for closer ties with Russia rather than the West. It seems the situation is more complex than either side pretends. The last eight years plus these pseudo-referendums make it impossible ever to get at the truth. So, my two questions: how does our author feel able to judge the quality of the Russian military; and does he believe the census a useful measure of inhabitants’ wishes? (I have to say, in selfish terms, I would vote, not for a failed state, but a fast-improving one – one that escaped the collapse of the ’90s, not one that continues to repeat the cycle.)
Sorry but these assumptions are a bit dubious. They’re contradicted by the survey from Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (2004) mentioned on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine
“According to a 2004 public opinion poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the number of people using Russian language in their homes considerably exceeds the number of those who declared Russian as their native language in the census. According to the survey, Russian is used at home by 43–46% of the population of the country (in other words a similar proportion to Ukrainian) and Russophones make a majority of the population in Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine:[30]
Autonomous Republic of Crimea — 97% of the population
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — 72%
Donetsk Oblast — 93%
Luhansk Oblast — 89%
Zaporizhia Oblast — 81%
Odessa Oblast — 85%
Kharkiv Oblast — 74%
Mykolaiv Oblast — 66%”
97%… 93%… 89%… These numbers do fit with the results of the referendums. And it totally makes sense that “Russophones” would vote towards Russia.
“The last census in Ukraine was in 2001, conducted under the pro-Russian president Leonid Kuchma. These are the narodnosc results as percentages for the regions Putin has just annexed.”
Apart from the fact that an awful lot has happened since 2001 for people to change their mind how they feel about whose rule they would like to live from, this census is not relevant to the recent referendums in another way. Certain “nationalities” (and the English concept of “nationality” covers a wide range of types of groupings, which it appears the Russian concept of “narodnosc” does not) tend towards the “ethnicity” end of the spectrum (Tatars) and others towards the “citizenship” end (Ukrainians). Ethnicity is much more likely to be an indication of voting intentions, although it depends how well defined those “ethnicities” are, but to lump all types of “nationalities” together is an error. In addition, the one reasonably well defined ethnicity that was present in eastern Ukraine, the Cossacks, aren’t even given as an option. Ukraine is not Africa or Central Asia. The Russians and Ukrainians are not separate tribes, with a tribal history going back centuries that would be an indicator of their voting intentions. Nor are Russians or Ukrainians ignorant tribesmen who would only vote for leaders from their tribe regardless of their qualities. Even if they were, would not the Cossacks then prefer to be together with their fellow Cossacks in western Russia?
But how else does the choke hold of the Great Dream of Taking Russia and EurAsia into the bosom of Western Financial Embrace – one that has tended to squeeze to death every part of the World it has occupied for centuries – ever end?
I don’t know why, but as some who may have studied it, have access to the direct history or were part of the system that should know – why exactly did Lenin, inexplicably, in 1922 partition some states into The Ukraine – which as far as I understand it was not ever such a ‘nation state’ of that magnitude.
And why again in 1952 did the Crimea, again inexplicably, suffer the same fate?
Does that not seem to indicate there was some ‘contract’ at these times?
It is insane that several thousand are being killed and wounded daily in a tactical folly when of course the peace course was denounced and rejected by our Governments and Bozo’s bum-chumming and cocaine snorting in Kiev with the jester.
What happened to the Istanbul peace process?
What happened to the grain for the poor people?
Why are the fertiliser ships still blockaded?
Why is my electric bill treble it was two years ago?
I haven’t even turned the central heating on yet.
When it comes to over the horizon, hypersonic glider, sci-fi, new weapons and mass destruction capabilities – I don’t expect they are unilateral. Anyone telling me that is so and we could smite down Putin, Xi, Iran and the SCO with impunity is not reassuring.
Great nation geopolitics Craig, it has never been about democracy and transparent elections.Surely you know what. Of course the official tally from the 4 regions was false. Did it, however, grossly misrepresent the will of the people of those regions? I suppose we might never know. One thing is clear, however, all of this is a small part of a much bigger game being played towards a denouement in a few short years, one that will radically transform the look of our global society. And don’t worry about nukes, that is not a part of anyone’s plan.
The problem about seeing it in geo-political terms is that it can miss the vast social changes that take place. Putin has been in power for 20 years. When he declared Russia’s recognition of the two Republics Luhansk and Donbas, we saw his relationship with his ministers. The FSB man’s body language told us all we need to know. The downside of this is that the ‘leader’ becomes cut off and surrounded by people who don’t contradict him.
Putin writes he does not accept Ukraine is a real country. He lauds philosophers like Ivan Ilyin with their mythical notions of nationhood. In other words ideology overrides reality.
Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. The people have been able to travel in the west and have the internet. The younger people have different ideas. It is not the country Putin imagines. In his mind the Russian soldiers would have been greeted as liberators. The ferocity of the defence took them by surprise. His apologists talk of a strategic feint to draw Ukrainian troops away from the south east. No, it was an over confident attack which was repelled. He has miscalculated. If the attack was to increase Russia’s security , it has failed to do so. Two more countries have joined NATO, the country is facing sanctions, tens of thousands are trying to evade the conscription despite the heavy censorship and jingoism.
That also suggests he didn’t really see the defensive formations of the Ukrainian armed forces as an existential threat to Russia. They have had to plead for offensive weapons – tanks, fighter aircraft, long range artillery – to try take back their own territory.
A Ukrainian I met this spring told me they had been brought near the Russian border. Was fluent in both languages and had never been discriminated against when she spoke Russian. Her grandfather fought with the Red Army and she is horrified that such a war is happening in Europe in the 21st century.
Whatever the situation in the Donbas, this is a war of Putin’s choosing. There are other factors in which might have prevented it and for which Ukraine has some responsibility. But It looks like an old fashioned war of annexation which western Europe has assumed no longer applies. Putin don’t see it like that.
What kind of ‘free and fair elections’ do you think Russia is duty bound to hold when the state to which those regions (now formerly) belonged was created as part of US-backed coup in 2014, a coup designed specifically to turn all of Ukraine against Russia? Indeed, what level of ‘free and fair’ elections would be required for the coup-junta in Kiev and their Washington masters to accept the outcomes?
I think you’re being very naive here Craig. It makes no sense to continue to adhere to democratic norms in a fight where your opponent has long since dispensed with such quaint anachronisms.
Two wrongs don’t make a right despite what you might think.
False equivalence Pears Morgaine: two very unequal wrongs, certainly favour the lesser wrong as being more right.
Surprised and disappointed, Mr. Murray, by your misogynistic and patronising comments both in the article and BTL on page 1. I’ll be charitable and put it down to a surfeit of Lagavulin on a quiet Sunday afternoon in Auld Reekie.
Yes. You can take the man out of the FCO but not the FCO out of the man.
“Western military technology is vastly superior to Russian “
Western military technology is vastly more expensive than Russian .
Fixed that error for you Craig .