sign in sign up
<<
Home , 5 Kanal (Ukraine), Albanians in Ukraine, Andrey Kurkov, Bashkirs, Belarusians, Chernivtsi

40 40 Ukraina zaledwie od dwudziestu lat

lszański . a

Tadeusz Tadeusz jest państwem niepodległym, a konse­

Ukrainian issues issues Ukrainian kwencją długotrwałego pozostawania

tudies. His of expertise include include expertise of area His tudies. s ziem ukraińskich w państwie rosyjskim/

astern astern analyst in the Centre for for Centre the in analyst sowieckim jest mieszany etnicznie cha­

rakter społeczeństwa. na Ukrainie obok

ive CT e P ers P new a T a PT TT a n a lszański lszański o . a

Tadeusz Tadeusz Ukraińców mieszkają bardzo liczni ­

e in in e iss age U The lang The janie członkowie innych narodowości b. zsrr, a także wciąż duża grupa ludzi identyfikujących się jako ludzie sowiec­

cy. znacząca część Ukraińców posłu­

policy etc.). etc.). policy guje się w życiu codziennym (zwłaszcza

policy (the symbolic, historical historical symbolic, (the policy identity zawodowym) językiem rosyjskim, znając

role of the “ issue” in Ukraine’s Ukraine’s in issue” “language the of role ukraiński słabo lub nie znając go wcale.

the key key the and

in the media media the in regulations Kwestia językowa jest więc poważnym

(commercial) aspect of language language of aspect (commercial) wyzwaniem dla państwa ukraińskiego

similar publications, such as the trade trade the as such publications, similar i jednym z ważniejszych problemów

which are usually overlooked in in overlooked usually are which ukraińskiej polityki wewnętrznej.

placed on important questions, questions, important on placed

particular focus focus particular a social context, with with context, social Celem tego opracowania jest

its its and

the language issue in Ukraine Ukraine in issue language the zarysowanie problematyki językowej The aim of this report is to outline outline to is report this of aim The Ukrainy i jej kontekstu społecznego,

zwróceniem uwagi na ważne,

politics. politics. a zazwyczaj pomijane w tego rodzaju

significant issues in Ukraine’s internal internal Ukraine’s in issues significant opracowaniach zagadnienia, jak aspekt

one of the more the of one and

the state Ukrainian the handlowy (komercyjny) regulacji

is therefore an important challenge for for challenge important an therefore is językowych w mediach oraz kluczowa

degree not at all. The language issue issue language The all. at not or degree rola „kwestii językowej” w ukraińskiej

a a only to Ukrainian knowing small small polityce tożsamości (polityce

ussian in their everyday life while while life everyday their in ussian use use symbolicznej, historycznej etc.).

significant part of Ukrainians of part significant a oviets. s

people who identify themselves as as themselves identify who people

still large group of of group large still a as well as Union

oviet oviet s other of the former former the of nationalities other Problem językowy na Ukrainie

members of of members and ussians r

very many many very Próba nowego sPojrzenia Tadeusz a. olszański

Ukraine, alongside Ukrainians, there are are there Ukrainians, alongside Ukraine,

i society. mixed ethnically an is state n n analityk w ośrodku studiów wschod­

r the into lands Ukrainian oviet oviet s ussian/ nich, specjalizujący się

term incorporation of of incorporation term ­ of the long the of w problematyce ukraińskiej

and and years 20 only for

the consequence consequence the Tadeusz a. olszański

40 Ukraine has been an independent state state independent an been has Ukraine NUMBER 40 MAY 2012

The language issue in Ukraine An attempt at a new perspective

Tadeusz A. Olszański © Copyright by Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies

Content editors Adam Eberhardt, Wojciech Konończuk

Editor Łabuszewska

Co-operation Katarzyna Kazimierska

Translation Anna Kucińska

Co-operation Furnival

Graphic design Para-buch

DIAGRAMs Wojciech Mańkowski

DTP GroupMedia

Publisher Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warsaw, Phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 Fax: + 48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl

ISBN 978-83-62936-09-0 Contents

Introduction /5

I. INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS /8

1. The role of language in the life of a modern state /8 2. The linguistic norm in the post-modern society /9 3. The immigration-based of Ukrainian society /10 4. /12 5. The terminology problem: the state/ /14 6. The terminology problem: the native language /14

II. THE UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN IN UKRAINE’S SOCIAL LIFE (SELECTED ASPECTS) /16

1. Linguistic identification in the light of sociological research/16 2. Everyday speech in practice /23 3. Schools /24 4. State Institutions /27 5. The media /29 6. Cinema /32 7. Books /33

III. LANGUAGE AS A FIELD OF SYMBOLIC AND IDENTITY RIVALRY /36 IV. AND THE DISPUTE /41 IV. LEGAL REGULATIONS OF LANGUAGE ISSUES /43

1. The /43 2. The law on language /43 3. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages /44 4. The new draft law on language /47

CONCLUSIONS /51 Appendix /54

nation. For this reason the “language dispute” is becoming a dispute over adispute becoming is dispute” “language the reason Fornation. this Russian the from distinct community national Ukrainian opposed the to as defined community” “/Russian the to of belonging declaration litical apo publicis in life Russian use the that believes circles Russian-speaking of the asection on completeelement nigh hand, other importance). the On this granting use language the of (thus its with nationthe to fiesbelonging thought identi national Ukrainian one hand, the On aspects. remaining the solutions in fair and reasonable of the establishment bolic affects one which sym the is aspect The crucial similar. are languages Russian and Ukrainian the as important the least is aspect The first aspect. identity and symbolic the and advertisements) and market, media electronic (the and press, books aspect and systems), legal commercial the the particularly state, the of functioning people),use (the between munication official and formal (com everyday use fouraspects: basic has Ukraine in issue The language Ukrainian languages. and Russian of the (intelligibility) transparency possible mutual duewas the to This . in of spheres public including life, various in ofuse Russian of tolerated the extent awide has beginning the Thefrom state pragmatism. than symbolism of grounds the on language, rather official and oneis state there that of states 1996 constitution Ukrainian the fact, Despite this writing. in particularly and speech in have exclusively Russian used clared of their irrespective state/society: aconsiderable of citizens its section abilingual been has of Ukraine independence its beginning very Since the politics. in Ukraine’s internal issues one more significant of and the state Ukrainian for the challenge important an society. therefore is issue The language gual for state of amultilin amodern functioning stable the of solutions ensure to (whichpolicy e.g. does not in have pursued search to Poland in or ) implement to has alanguage this to Due or not degree at all. asmall only to Ukrainian professional) knowing while (particularly everyday life their in use Russian of Ukrainians part nationality). A significant of their (in terms Soviets as of group people large themselves who identify astill as Union well as former of the nationalities of other members and many very are there alongside Ukrainians, society. Ukraine, In mixed ethnically an is state Russian/Soviet into the lands long-termof the of incorporation Ukrainian consequence the for and independent state only 20 years an been has Ukraine Introduct ion ------

5 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 6 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 sistently implement the state status of the Ukrainian language and to grant to grant and language Ukrainian of the status implement state sistently the con and my option in opinion is maintain to most urgent problem. The optimal itcountry’s not is the Although [language] “The does exist. issue that cently re analysts, stated Fesenko political Ukrainian leading ofOne the the most probable. optionseems first the term short the public in life; from language Russian of the removal consistent and language) or aplanned state equal an as (as long it recognised country as is of the part or in Ukraine of territory entire the orscope in wider a narrower public in in life Russian use the of of bilingualism”, of legalisation present “unofficial state the ating toler following: problemthe language are forThe the possibilities resolving 1 the and centre the in language Russian presence of the increased an to paralleled being is country of south the and east the in life social in Ukrainian stronger a presence of : accompanied by a spontaneous being is life social of Ukrainisation however,(formal) official process of the the that It seems, –it south Russian. is and east the in whereas predominant, clearly is language Ukrainian west the the in : to region from considerably varies Ukraine of language, terms In of people number duction in this. to who admit re of have independence 20years led only acertain to the clusively Russian; or ex mainly uses life daily in citizens A considerableof Ukrainian section solution not yet found. has been aproblem especially agood appears and which to –there Ukraine or – countries bilingual in particularly and as such countries concessions simple groups).tion is for (limited few minority multilingual In solu the Poland or Hungary as such countries monoethnic fundamentally In taught. be to children their want they which in authorities, and institutions state with contacts in including use, to want they which language the choose have to right citizens the and areas symbolic and educational official, in sory is compul which language the imposeand define to country of ademocratic right the between contradiction the reveals Ukraine in issue The language passage of the time. with growing been has aspect this of significance the and rule ideological and a symbolic

sent report. report. sent pre the of the author including people, by numerous made by observations confirmed been has process This at 18.03.2003. visited brama.com/dinamic/i_pub/usual.php?what=8361, http://postup. tebe, vykazuye tvoya I mova Lemko, Ilko in: concerning The examples 1 . ------2 live” country of the citizens of Russian-speaking clusters inplaces level where regional the language at Russian the to status official guage rights. guage of lan its recognition the demanding is which community Tatar Crimean the autonomyformal presence Autonomous of of the the and of , island), an the geographicalmost is relative isolation its (Crimea Ukraine, with region’s of the short-term for the links character four reasons: of Ukraine part remaining the from distinct clearly is area) language the in (also dynamics social its as of question Crimea of the analysis adetailed Ieschew text this In language. of the terms in nised or Russified Ukrai are they which to extent the including minorities, national on Ukraine’s data underway. a new is the law presents which The appendix of draft the including language, the to law relating Ukrainian the I approach country’s for identity. the languages symbolic Finally, Russian and Ukrainian the between rivalry the of significance economic the and life, Ukraine’s social of dimension language of the aspects practical followedThese main are by the nature. but amore general having Ukraine in issue language the derstand un in to order important questions; on I focus general section first the In etc.). policy historical Ukraine’s (the policy symbolic, identity issue” in keyrole “language of the the and media the in regulations of language aspect (commercial) trade the as publications, such overlookedally similar in usu are which questions, placed on focus important aparticular with context, social its and Ukraine in issue language the outline to is report of this The aim –unrealistic. parties all to solution –one apainless satisfactory makes which issue of the identity-related and importance not symbolic for been the it feasibleit be could if had circle; the at attempt squaring an tion” fact in is

www.glavred.info/archive/2011/08/02/081759-0.html, visited at 02.08.2011. 2 . This “optimal op “optimal . This - - - - -

7 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 8 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 this report. report. this of defined go which formally beyondscope comments of the tory the introduc Ihave certain For deemed itetc. reasons appropriate make to these societies contemporary in norm way linguistic of the shaping the and nature the in change to the linked challenges Russian, and of Ukrainian intelligibility society, mutual consequences of the the of Ukrainian part of asubstantial ture na immigration-influenced the among ignored, them problemsNumerous are 3 works of leading of and literature). the to contacts family from life, of spheres social all in operate to (its capacity of possible completeness language degree highest the of this guarantee to forts make nation). also the to of belonging These feature organisations tinctive dis (as the status it symbolic grant to seek They also of medium culture. the as exclusively or used predominantly is considered national is which language the that at ensuring ones –aim (irredentist) independentortions, anti-state organisa – state life national the guage). create which Therefore organisations lan the in expressed be must identity and (culture language therefore and culture by shared acommonly characterised are nations European Modern by spoken aminority. language ed but of exclusive use the not the accept sometimes is bilingualism area latter the In groups. ofguages minority lan and of both life social presence in the limiting education, thus in and circuit official the of in exclusive use one the language to ensure seeks state a modern reasons used. these and commonly For codified) (unequivocal, one it use must common standardised be must medium; army the and courts offices, The public education administration system, of functioning. struments in main islanguage the one of official the state For bureaucratic amodern, 1. documents official write it and use read to can of they question whether the of instead people speak language of question which on the focused sions are Discus terms. anachronistic on currently based largely by is ideology and influenced heavily is Ukraine in situation language about the The discourse I.

The roleThe of life of language the in state amodern to be assessed. assessed. be to Russian and of Ukrainian command written the enable would which data found not I have INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS INTRODUCTORY 3 ------. 4 ten (literary) standard writ placed on the was languages European in emphasis the recently Until 2. tions adopted by both languages (especially numerous Anglicisms—usually of Anglicisms—usually numerous (especially languages adoptedtions by both innova same the through them between distinctions blurring danger: ticular apar to leads Ukraine) with case (as the is co-exist languages similar very two where acountry in norm linguistic of the weakening the that issue on the pears ap reflection that However government counteract. to it unusual the quite is have caused they ) (such as countries several in and thinkers social and of of attention a section journalists to the subject phenomena are The described norm. language administrative even the and norm language written of wavering the accelerates the which language, adopted written in immediately almost are language spoken novations of the 1970s –in the in case not the was normativerole, more –as since so and ing the lost standardis its has language written the in at least It that appears ties. celebri and promoted journalists and by shaped formboth is This nectedness. con much less is concerned about formal and innovations words) slang and borrowed (including neologisms elements, dialectic adopts easily which ing, much more is chang emerged which has norm anew linguistic a result, As world. the describes which guage ofsource knowledge world lan of of consequently, the the teacher and, the as main and first the of as authority school of the weakening tor at the play was The second communication. aform of fac oral are they reality in whereas text, use sense messages aformal in only text which and communicators Internet of arrival by the reinforced been process has this recent years In form. guage lan written the of expense the at increased has – and colloquial more flexible –by nature its of (radio, language spoken media cachet spoken TV), the the to channel transmission main books) role the have (press, as cededmedia their written the as occurred: has change important an 20years last Over schools. al implemented of gener and by teachers lexicographers and by writers above all shaped was education. norm school This particularly and administration, and

The linguistic norm in the post-modern norm the in linguistic The society term of langue lettre d’ term French the literature; to refers unfortunately one Ukrainian the as well as term The English simply means the written form of the language. language. of the form written the means simply 4 which ensured the harmonisation of the legislation legislation of the harmonisation the ensured which ------

9 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 10 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 murdered or were killed in battle in or were killed murdered were died, 10 approximately million of population, its one third lost almost people. it 1933–1944 In million 30–31 approximately was population show the 1930s of the beginning for the estimates and 1926 census ple the to according peo of borders 1938) of apopulation 29 million the had Republic (within cialist So Soviet Ukrainian the research latest the to According makeup. social and Ukraine’s ethnic changed substantially it as has important is which 1940s the of immigration the present paper it the above is in all For examined issue the topic. point out this do no morecome on than Ukraine’s across history Ihave papers the all researched; have cursorily only been structure ethnic the especially and Those whose were,II. dynamics however, migrations internal World until War continued uninterrupted towns port to and of Ukraine east the to particularly immigration, Mass nationalities. representatives of other and , , , , but also Russians and Ukrainians by simultaneously populated ). open time werethe at that These areas but not location of at 1860 in approximately the aformer in established 6 5 18 of end the the towards time first for dwellers town the and ritory, by farmers were populated country’s of ter the contemporary nearly athird of Ukraine, east The and south 3. distinct. languages these make which elements phonetic grammatical and diminishing the and ignoring and origin) American the following decades Ukraine continued to be populated by displaced people by continueddisplaced populated be to Ukraine followingdecades the in Similarly possible immigration. due only was mass to Such arapid increase people. million 42 borders) new its had (within war)the Ukraine after first estimated at 25 million in 1946 in at 25 million estimated

The immigration-based nature of Ukrainian society society immigration-basedThe of Ukrainian nature lands, Basic Books, 2010). Books, Basic lands, Blood title: p. 435(original 2011, Warszawa ziemie, Snyder, Skrwawione Timothy Compare table on p. 178. on p. 178. table 1994, Warsaw wieku, XX na Ukrainie narodowościowe Przemiany Eberhardt, Piotr figures: of the Thesource immigrants. post-war being of them majority overwhelming the million, at 1.2 stood (1954) Republic Socialist Soviet Ukrainian the into of its moment the at of Crimea The population USSR. the into deeper deported were lands of these inhabitants thousand hundred afew later at 6.7 completed) million, was USSR the and Poland between of populations” “exchange the (after 1946 in estimated World of was the War II) termath af the in (annexed of western of inhabitants Thenumber 1946. July in habitants in million 25.4 and of 1941 beginning of at 1938) the borders the (within Republic Socialist Soviet Ukrainian of the inhabitants million 31.6 were there estimates Soviet to According th century and at the beginning of the 19 of the beginning at the and century 6 . Despite this, according to the 1959 census (the 1959 census the to according . Despite this, 5 . The population of the “old” Ukraine” was was “old”. The of population the Ukraine” th century ( was (Donetsk was century ------here from both Ukraine and Russia” and Ukraine both from here not is came autochthonous, population of they the majority overwhelming “the in that writes He also immigration. of this scale the estimate to attempt he does not although of Russians, immigration the to extent alarge to cribes he byas 29%, which grew of Russian number by rose 10% the and Ukraine of the republic increased by 23% republic increased of the population the by 16% altogether grew and of Ukrainians number the whereas by rose 60%, Ukraine in of Russians number 1959–1989 the in that censuses 12 11 10 9 8 7 lion 9mil as many as 1939–1970 in overall and went Ukraine to Russians million 1959–1970 one in approximately that believes Kravchenko Bohdan recognised. commonly is immigration mass it was that though, The fact, researched. been not USSR has of the territories other from Ukraine in ofThe immigration scale Ukraine’s in population. of immigrants proportion the creased in process also The governmentUSSR. latter of by the stimulated was , which other went inhabit to Ukrainians and republics other from assimilation of Ukrainians. In towns in the Kharkiv the in towns In of Ukrainians. assimilation by the explained be partly only can 5.7 which from 7.1 to increased million, and towns of Ukrainian inhabitants among the of Russians number the population the of third as one as much reach could figure this included are grandchildren and children people when their and over to million ten million several from anywhere to amounts post-war (1944–1990) the Ukraine from in period sians) (not Rus only immigrants of “inter-Soviet” number the shows that this All Zaporizhia district by 227% district Zaporizhia the in by and 200%, district Dnipropetrovsk by 192%, the in grew Russians

2000. around population of 30% the for approximately accounted data census the to according descendants) their and immigrants exclusively (almost Ukrainians and sians, - Rus and in that fact the mind in having when particularly implausible, seem not does however it figure, last this justify to possible not it is date of available basis the On B. Levytsky, Politics and Society in Soviet Ukraine 1953-1980, p. 116, 137 n. p. 116, 1953-1980, Ukraine Soviet in Society and Politics Levytsky, B. op. cit op. Eberhardt, Piotr increased at that time by 51%. by time at that increased Ukraine in of Belarusians number the for immigrants, were Russians Not only 1985, p. 223–224. 1985, London Ukraine, Twentieth-Century in Consciousness National and Change Social Kravchenko, B. “’” in both Ukrainian and Russian. and Ukrainian both in “Oblast’” 7 . Piotr Eberhardt states that in 1959–1970 the number of Ukrainians in in of Ukrainians number 1959–1970 in the that states Eberhardt . Piotr 12 . They are mainly concentrated in the large industrial centres in in centres industrial large the concentrated in mainly . They are ., 268. p. 220, 10 . Finally, it stems from the of further of comparison further the from it. Finally, stems 11 . 8 . Borys Levytsky claims that in 1959–1970 in that claims Levytsky . Borys 9 the number of number the - - - - 11 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 12 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 existence has the characteristics of asymmetrical bilingualism” of asymmetrical characteristics the has existence co- this languages, two of of along-term aresult the formed as co-existence have which language the Russian from influences strong featuring and guage lan the speech (…)Ukrainian of on based is a it “type definition Branicki’s described). be Artur to According can governed which by asetofare rules (these not is adialect which communication, form of language adegraded is It area. same the in languages intelligible of mutually two co-existence the to 15 14 13 Surzhyk 4. country’s presidentof immigrants the is the and immigrant an is even now whenunnoticed, Ukraine’s prime goes into account. issue It entirely however, seems, this this that take should identity-related and state sphere) the symbolic and the in (especially language aforeign remains it know well, they even if language, society, Ukrainian the of Ukrainian part since, for“immigrant” the important is tioned question paper, above men the this in examined point issue of of view the From the Ukrainians. not ethnic are they since not is surprising which nation, ethnic Ukrainian the with themselves but state identify few and of them a country as Ukraine with extent a greater to themselves identify descendants, their particularly immigrants, of those section forces.important An armed the with following decades) were linked the in and war the after immediately (both who of arrived those erable part the country. of A consid from other staff to do in it only by sending They were able environment. ahostile basically what was in administration an establish and quickly towns abandoned use”of “make to the had governments The Poles new Jews war were predominant. and where before the Ukraine, ern of west towns the in descendants their 1950s and and 1940s the from grants immi many also There are Crimea. and Kiev of south Ukraine, and east the to sociologists Surzhyk to sociologists

Surzhyk merely a few more serious articles about it seems significant. significant. it seems about articles serious more a few merely written far so have experts language Ukrainian that Thefact phenomenon. of this analysis scientific complex at a the literature world’s in attempt first the work is This p. 14. 2009, Gdańsk Gdański, Uniwersytet by Published iteraźniejszość, Historia Surżyk. Bracki, Artur in a then entirely Russian-speaking environment in Donbas. Donbas. in environment Russian-speaking entirely athen up in brought Russia, and from of immigrants son the is Yanukovych age Viktor of 38. the at Ukraine in settled he family, aRussian in Kaluga, in born was Azarov Mykola (Nikolai) is a Ukraine-specific language phenomenonlanguage a Ukraine-specific is present in Belarus has a similar nature. nature. asimilar has Belarus in present is used daily by approximately 16–18% of the population population of 16–18% by approximately the daily used is 13 . 14 , made possible thanks possible, made thanks 15 . According . According - - - - - the “Ukrussian language” “Ukrussian the Surzhyk of normativisation of the beginning it the would mean occurred, this if of characters); a feature as dialogues (although in it used is instrument anarrative as literature lar has appeared, still escaping the attention of attention sociologists escaping the still appeared, has ones)anew phenomenon Russian by literature, shaped the and Ukrainian the (both norm linguistic of the weakening the and change generational the with 20 19 18 17 16 of pseudonym the under Danylko by Andriy particularly comedians, and artists music influence of commonplaceits use popular the by under ever, changing phenomenon. hidden is,how This ence). ashameful, it recently was Until private in correspond circuit(especially non-official the in albeit writing, “speech”, above mentioned the to term, Surzhyk Contrary Surzhyk called is speech of type offencethis when take they although speak, “just” they languages, two of elements the mix moremore often and at agiven moment; language young people other younger (also the journalists) one of or using aware was and The older genuinely generation bilingual was versions). spoken their (particularly languages two of the distinctiveness the –“more 42% and Russian” or less correct Ukrainian” less correct country, of the “more where 40% use part or central the in mainly of Ukraine, main threat linked to it. to linked threat main the is which norm, alternative an not establishing while norm linguistic ian Russian” “ because writing in used be to it has and language ian Surzhyk that announced 2000 in early as Oles as Doniy who such as politicians noticed by being several is tendency This it writing. consent use to in political especially and of social lack by the hampered is which alanguage, such create to seeking instinctively is society

visited at 11.01.2005. at visited www.molodaukraina.org/news.asp?IdType=12&Id=229, surzhyk!, zhyve Doniy,Oles Khaj culing Serduchka, her way of living and speaking but as a result of this it was ennobled. ennobled. it was of this aresult but as speaking and of way living her Serduchka, culing at ridi aimed was songs of his kitsch The ostentatious career. stage successful enormously and independent an launched he Later for Pryvatbank. spots advertising in woman ian Surzhyk –aprimitive, of Serduchka character the popularised Danylko private talks. talks. private in expressed generation, young of of Kyiv’s the opinions writers the to here referring I am chuk, Dve Ukrainy, Wrocław 2004, p. 39. p. 39. 2004, Wrocław Ukrainy, Dve chuk, Mykola Riab and at 11.04.2011 visited http://2000.net.ua/2000/aspekty/slovo/72876, See: The term coined by Kyiv’s writer Volodymyr Arenev (Zobrazit’ meni ray, p. 136). meni Kyiv 2009, (Zobrazit’ Kyiv’s by Volodymyr Arenev coined writer The term 20 . For the time being, however, being, . For time the 18 . For the time being Surzhyk being . For time the 19 and the emergence of a new linguistic standard – standard emergence of anew the linguistic and . It cannot be ruled out that a section of a section Ukraine’s out that ruled be . It cannot is a legitimate variety of the Ukrain of the variety alegitimate is Surzhyk is only blurring the Ukrain the only blurring is has not appeared in popu in not appeared has Surzhyk 17 is also employed also is in ; a weaker sense of sense ; aweaker -speaking Ukrain -speaking is better than than better is 16 . Together . ------13 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 14 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 surveyed it refers to the language of the nation they belong to; they nation for of it the 24% the language is itthe to refers surveyed for freely; 32% of those talk and think they which in language the to referring “native” term the as of 34% understand respondents that ous—surveys reveal not is unambigu term this themselves Russians and of view Ukrainians the In . approximate an only is this that mind in borne be to has “native word is used the but present language” it text the In “familiar”. also and minorities. remaining of the languages the against discriminate necessarily will and constitution of the amendment the implemented be through only can this sphere, bilingual; symbolic the in would become, state also the that means The second languages. demand minority other several to regard with ly also applied and local constitution the to implemented amendment be an without status), can which bilingual institutions these (granting Ukrainian to equal as schools and offices, courts public in would administration introduced be Russian “secondthat of the language”.means official/state demand first The status the it granting of the demand tion language”,from different is which “second of the official/administra status the language Russian the grant – to into English translate to difficult is – which demand the explain These reasons language. state the from different be can tion and Russian Russian yazyk sudarstvenny first language learnt. The word “ learnt. language first “native the lated as language”. the mean However, does not necessarily term this 21 “ terms Russian and The Ukrainian 6. derzhavna mova (in Ukrainian language state the ence between however differ is aclear there Russian and Ukrainian In of functioning. its spheres all in state the in compulsory is which language the means language” “official term the whereas “state seldom is used, language” term the English In 5.

The terminology problem: terminology The native the language language state/official the problem: terminology The which are intelligible only in the , have been altered or removed. altered been have language, Polish the in only intelligible are which excerpts, some parts following the in Also readers. for English-speaking adaptation but an text Polish of the translation exact an not are sub-chapters following the and The present uriadovy yazyk ), and the official language (in Ukrainian ofitsiyna mova Ukrainian language(in ), official the and ) which denotes the language used by the administra by the used language denotes the ) which ridny / rodnoy ridny rodnoy yazyk /rodnoy mova ridna ” denotes both “native”,” denotes both “family” ” are usually trans usually ” are , in Russian go Russian , in 21

, in , in ------person subject to the census ( census the to subject person of the at spoken home family language by the ways.1920the it In was various in defined was notion native language of the the censuses Soviet certain In censuses. recorded in language the and nation the with of identification degree on the data the of value all the above all term, this to accordedrespondents significance the examining without native language the looks into which research of all results the into question calls ambiguity This ed record be family the in used they or which best knew they language the that ordered it when was considered native doubts arose and they language which determine to right the were granted purposes forpeople census interviewed native ( the perceives as interviewed person ( uses usually or best commands census the to subject person the which language sidered the con was native language . 1926 bythe spoken the In language the be to 23 22 mostoften use they for and language 9% it parents; the is of their language Russian). was family where nobody the in families in at used home also language the as declared generally was Russian families (in mixed spouses of their or that ality nation declared their to tive (used everyday) linked but not it necessarily was people the who to considered it na also and everyday life, in used necessarily not it even if was nationality) declared of the language it the native (in general people the who deemed both to ascribed was agiven language Thus censuses in

23 Zerkalo Nedeli emotsiy, Zerkalo bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy V.I. Kozlov, Nacyonalnosti SSSR. Etnodemograficheskiy obzor, 1982, 236n. p. obzor, 1982, Moscow Etnodemograficheskiy SSSR. V.I. Kozlov, Nacyonalnosti . Similar rules were used in the last Soviet and the first . census. Ukrainian first the and Soviet last the in were used rules . Similar golovny rozgovorny yazyk rozgovorny golovny yazyk vbytu yazyk ), in 1939 it was the language which the the which ), language 1939 the in it was ) and in mixed families it was taken taken it was families mixed in ) and rodnoy , nr 34, 2010. 34, , nr ) language, in 1959–1979 the 1959–1979 in the ) language, 22 - - - - . 15 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 16 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 only 0.2 million said it was Ukrainian. Additionally, 23.2 million Ukrainians Ukrainians million Additionally, 23.2 Ukrainian. it said was million 0.2 only and native language their was Russian (98.9%) that million declared 11.1 sians among Rus whereas (5.6%) Russian, it was million fornative language, 4.6 their be to (84.3%) million considered Ukrainian 32.8 Ukrainians the Among 25 24 language state communication”, the of inter-nationality was fact in which “language of the status and title the gained but Russian primacy formal were granted languages The USSR. “republican” ofend the the until changes larger without pursued was policy by a which taken “repressive” andthe was place its ceased Russification policy. Stalin’s language Soviet aboutdeath the After facts of areview certain ing mak it worth is Ukraine, in situation language the weBefore proceed outline to 1. II. including 37.4 million Ukrainians (72.7%) and 11.3 million Russians (22.1%) Russians 11.3 (72.7%) and million Ukrainians 37.4 million including inhabitants, 51.5 had million of Ukraine 1989 census Soviet last the with line In republic. particular their of language “titular” the not did learn or Ukraine) in Polish schools (e.g. for schools from minorities USSR were not the taught, children within from languages two since and, for used teaching non- with schools all in compulsory also was teaching Russian regions. various from migrants together grouped sites which building industrial on great franca gua lin anatural and army the in used language only the USSR, ofpopulation the of the majority of the language the was Russian that encouraged fact bywas the of non-Russian life communities the in language Russian of the The dominance life. of spheres social all from ousted systematically was language Ukrainian the consequence, In huge of immigrants. because the of and Russian number other each to were close languages two the because mainly republics Transcaucasus or Baltic in than resistance a weaker met with process was ples”. this Ukraine In of peo community new historical the nation, “Soviet emergence ofabout the the thesis the to corresponded which USSR, of the ond of native citizens language” “sec the is language Russian the aconcept that passed appeared country. time As

Linguistic identificationLinguistic thelight in sociologicalof research and language. language. and nationality concerning declarations on other data Ioverlook text the in further and Here The USSR constitution of 1977 did not define the state language or the official language. language. official the or language state the define not did of 1977 constitution The USSR (SELECTED ASPECTS) ASPECTS) (SELECTED LIFE SOCIAL UKRAINE’S IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGES AND UKRAINIAN THE 24 , and to an increasing degree the administrative language across the the across language administrative the degree increasing an to , and 25 - - - - - . RUSSIANS According to the Ukrainian census of 2001 census Ukrainian the to According 1989 and 2001 and 1989 D 28 27 26 intensified. also identification language-state –the reasons similar for –and Similarly grounds. on opportunist also cases several in cent census, re the in identity USSR but Ukrainian the under nationality Russian declared who identity national unstable people and with Ukrainians some opportunist solely due processes. It to by rather migration is explained be cannot Russians of “census-recorded” number the in decline important Suchan ly increased. substantial has nation-state identification the a decade within seen, be can As www.ukrcensus.gov.ua Source: same about Ukrainian the said Russians 3.7and fluently” million “speak Russian they that claimed about the command of a was not asked in that census that in not asked of was asecond language command about the (absolute notwere published). figures 3.9% Ukrainian question The it said was only and Russian it 95.3% was declared among Russians whereas Russian, it was said 14.8% and native language their as Ukrainian recognised 85.2% Ukrainians (17.3%). (77.8%) 8.3 Russians and million 37.5including Ukrainians million Among [98.9%]

22.1% iagram 1. iagram [5.6%] Moscow 1991, p. 78–79. 1991, Moscow naseleniya, perepisi vsesoyuznoy dannym po SSSR naseleniya sostav Natsyonalny After: After: www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results,After: visited at 4.08.2004. to us will be made available not earlier than in the second half of 2013. of 2013. half second the in than earlier not available made be will us to of interest area the in results its therefore 2012, for scheduled is census Another Natsyonalny sostav naseleniya SSSR po dannym vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya, Moscow 1991; 1991; Moscow naseleniya, perepisi vsesoyuznoy dannym po SSSR naseleniya sostav Natsyonalny 1989 –51.5millioninhabitants Ukraine’s ethnic-linguistic structure according to censuses from from censuses to according structure Ukraine’s ethnic-linguistic others 5,2% 26 . UKRAINIANS considering Russiantobetheirmothertongue 72.7% 27 27 Ukraine had 48.4 million inhabitants, inhabitants, million 48.4 had Ukraine [14.8%] RUSSIANS [95.3%] 17.3% 2001 –48.4millioninhabitants others 4.9% 28 . UKRAINIANS 77.8% - - 17 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 18 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 Ukrainian, 31% Russian) only Ukrainian, only declare (52% extent equal to an native languages their are Russian and Ukrainian that recognise respondents 16% language: of Ukrainian the with lar D , 11% with and 7% with European culture) European with 7% and culture Russian 11% with culture, Ukrainian with (56% culture Soviet with mainly connected as thought ofents themselves 27% qualified themselves as “both Ukrainian and Russian” Ukrainian “both as themselves qualified 27% only”, only”, “Russians 11% as almost whereas “Ukrainians ceive as themselves per 56% only surveyed of shows those that which quotes data Wilson 32 31 30 29 Nedeli Zerkalo Source: identifications) regional of macy pri the declared respondents remaining group; nation/ethnic the of their members 3% as of Ukraine, citizens formeras USSR (41% sawthe themselves of citizens above all considered themselves respondents 13%as of Ukrainian many as 2002 In present. still are and have options occurred such that dicates in research sociological identification, whereas or language nationality dual or of nationality Soviet declaration the one admitted Ukrainian nor the suses cen Soviet Neither asked. However, questions dependent on the are answers

iagram 2. iagram a given region member ofnation/ op. cit. op. Shpangina, L. After: Andrew Wilson, Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, New Haven and London 2000, p. 219. 2000, London and Haven New Nation, Unexpected Ukrainians: Wilson, Andrew Zerkalo Nedeli Zerkalo raste, voz wperekhodnom igrazhdanakh gosudarstve Ostrane, Shpangina, Lyudmila After: of Ukraine and the company Socis, after: Den after: Socis, company the and of Ukraine of Academy National the of Sociology, Institute the by conducted was The research citizen of 43% Who Iabove allconsidermyselftobe Institute of Sociology, the of Sciences of Ukraine and the company Socis; Socis; company the and of Ukraine of Sciences Academy National the of Sociology, Institute 3% , no 31, 2006 31, , no How Ukrainians identify themselves identify How Ukrainians citizen oftheformerUSSR , no 31, 2006. 31, , no 13% citizen ofUkraine 32 . 41% 29 . In a different survey 16%respondthe survey of adifferent . In with Russian , 11.12.2002. culture 11% with European culture 7% Which cultureIamabove alllinkedto other answers 10% 31 . The case is simi is . The case with Ukrainianculture with Soviet culture 16% 56% 30 ------. sian more than doubled 13 from 28% to more than sian percentage who ofRus the used those and 42% to 51 from fell time same the at home at of use Ukrainian the declaring percentageless, of the Ukrainians Neverthe 22%. to 32 from declined languages both using of those share the and 39 to 35% from decreased percentage who of only Russian the used those 2010, 1992 and between 3742% to from grew life family their in Ukrainian only using percentage of the citizens that reveals Long-term research options. social of the , volatility not of use different the from stem to seem research particular between disparities the and stable quite are divisions depending on the circumstances in everyday life (that is family life family (that is everyday life in circumstances on the depending languages of use both or the of use Russian the of use Ukrainian, the clared evensplit of three-way who afairly respondents de was there hand, other

36 35 34 33 21 of the beginning at the tive language na the regarding research various to According census. last the presented in than however are different issues quite to here, the not referred research, sociological body of other the light of what mentioned the is also In above and never lower than 51% never lower than was Russian stating those 49% and than never higher was Ukrainian stating percentage of the those whereas 56% from to 54%, slightly fell period over this of use Russian 1998; 46% 1991 the in in and of use Ukrainian the declared 44% parts: equal into almost division stable avery observe speak). Herewe can to mostcomfortable the was (which chose language they language which but daily used they language or which native language not aboutasked their respondents were howeverits different; are preferences slightly language search recorded 2% declaration of peoplesearch their who hesitated with however minorities, one re of mentioned national languages remainder the and Russian it (32–36%) said was one third Ukrainian, indicated surveyed

visited at 15.07.2011. at visited http://zgroup.com.ua/pront/php?articleid=4844, mova, rokiv: 20 Ukraini Solchanyk, Roman http://postup.brama.com/dinamic/i_pub/usual.php?what=8261, visited at 18.03.2003. at 18.03.2003. visited http://postup.brama.com/dinamic/i_pub/usual.php?what=8261, street; 4% aton the work, at8% home, Ukrainian spoke of them 24% 2003 Kyiv: in of inhabitants of the language the into research of the results the in is for this The evidence The research conducted by the of Social Research, after: Den after: Research, of Social Institute Ukrainian the by conducted The research Russkiy yazyk v Ukraine bez emotsiy,cit. op. bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy 36 . 35 st . Results of into long-term. Results research century over half (52–65%) of those (52–65%) over half century , 31.08.2000. , 31.08.2000. 33 . On the the . On 34 ). Both Both ). - - - - -

19 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 20 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 37 questionthis answer to 2007), difficult it was 2% that (2% 2007) of in declared respondents 2007), in (22% by 2007), (41% 18% 45% in both (35% by 35% in and Russian at used work education in was by by and 15% (22%both 2007). in Ukrainian 2007), in at of and (37% 40%),stood respondents by 37% used was Russian figure at this used home of (in 2007 respondents by was 47% language ian Ukrain Group the of 2011 Donetsk’s pointin out R&B that The research latest Source: Source: D

iagram 3. iagram & Russian & Russian Ukrainian Ukrainian http://www.rb.com.ua/rus/projects/omnibus/7859/, visited at 3.11.2011. & Russian & Russian Ukrainian Ukrainian 22% only Russian 22% only Russian only Russian only Russian 23% 23% http://www.rb.com.ua http://www.rb.com.ua 37% 37% 35% 35% Everyday language of Everyday Ukraine’s language citizens difficult tosay difficult tosay 37 . 2% 2007 2007 2% 2007 2007 What languagedoyouuseatworkorwherestudy? What languagedoyouuseatworkorwherestudy? What languagedoyouuseathome? What languagedoyouuseathome? only Ukrainian only Ukrainian only Ukrainian only Ukrainian 40% 40% 41% 41% only Russian only Russian 37% 37% only Russian only Russian & Russian & Russian Ukrainian Ukrainian & Russian & Russian Ukrainian Ukrainian 35% 35% 18% 18% 16% 16% difficult tosay difficult tosay 2% 2% 2011 2011 2011 2011 only Ukrainian only Ukrainian only Ukrainian only Ukrainian 45% 45% 47% 47% - volume of passenger transportation in Ukraine halved) Ukraine in volume of transportation passenger the and 2005 1990 (between mobility social in decline asignificant with link of sociologists asection which matters, symbolic preferences)guage other and lan views (not language of on declared only differentiation regional tion of the intensifica an indicates research sociological It that added be to here needs sus lived in ; respectively 47% of Ukrainian-speakers lived cities in of Ukrainian-speakers 47% respectively lived villages; in sus cen the in Russian-speakers 13% themselves peopleOnly of the who declared big in cities. Russian and towns small in and villages in above used all is tricts) dis the western in from (apart visible:clearly Ukrainian also is differentiation Russian was used at home by as many as 91% at as surveyed used home of many those by was as Russian 43 40 42 41 39 38 district Donetsk the in 75% to district petrovsk the 32% from in of towns), east: the in inhabitants mainly are these it 10% is (and districts central In native language. their be to 2001) Russian of census considered (according the to post-war of 5% only inhabitants time, the from population amigrant are Russians where ethnic districts western In Surzhyk expect to or about Surzhyk writing in language the none use to of it capacity about however the research; body ofa large other asks by confirmed is picture This bilingual. be to of themselves people who declare group of ashrinking and stabilisation of aclear apicture paints research This Ukrainian well and 82% claimed they knew Russian well. Results from the the from Results well. Russian knew they 82% and claimed well Ukrainian knew they claimed 74% survey of a2002 Ukrainians In well. Russian and ian Ukrain know they claim of majority Ukraine’sThe inhabitants overwhelming in inter-regional contacts inter-regional in 21% in southern districts 21% southern in and districts eastern 16% the in districts, central 62% the in districts, western in or by population exclusively 89% used of the mainly is Ukrainian concerned,

country. own their of the to been had they time first the it was that Revolution the of participants the of part significant for a that by observation confirmed been/was It has modernizatsii, vrakhuwannya mizhnarodnoho dosvidu, Kyiv, p. 94. dosvidu, 2004, mizhnarodnoho vrakhuwannya modernizatsii, shlahy etnopolityky: vitchyznianoyi pytannya [in:] Aktualni etnopolityky derzhavnoyi izavdannya vUkraini protsesiv etnonatsionalnykh Dynamika Nakhmanovych, Vitaliy Polityka iKultura Polityka rossiyan, dla Ukraina op. cit op. Shpangina, L. op. cit op. Shpangina, L. After: Russkiy yazyk w Ukraine bez emotsiy,cit op. bez wUkraine yazyk Russkiy -speakers to admit they speak it in sociological research). research). it sociological in speak they admit to -speakers . 39 . 43 . According to different data in the Donetsk district, district, the Donetsk in data to different . According . , no 25, 2000. 2000. 25, , no . (a further problem is that it is difficult it problemdifficult is that is (a further 38 . As far as everyday language is is everyday language as far . As 42 and thus a decrease adecrease thus and 40 . The social . The social 41 . ------21 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 22 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 tant: in 2001 only 7% thought that it needed resolved thoughtto be that 2001 only 7% in immediately tant: impor as issue language do not seethe The of Ukraine’s majority inhabitants language. this and teaching for documents official and iting private correspondence, court in us between finally and culture of for high communication, purposes sional level, profes in higher and intermediate at an it orderuse to forin learning enough it well knowing between and everyday life in alanguage using tween be adifference There is surveyed. of views subjective those the only measures research for a“good this of of alanguage, criteria lack ever, the command” with support needed any languages of the neither –that 28% and supported be to Russian state’s needed the was 21% thought that support, Ukrainian that claimed ents 10 years later 70% did not notice this problem 70% later at not10 did all years notice this and 34% supported this in selected districts while 17% of those surveyed were surveyed of 17% those while districts selected in this supported 34% and the whole in country Russian in officials with of communicating possibility the question, 43% backed respondents of different aslightly 2010, answering while 49 48 47 46 45 44 at 2%’ standing for Russian figure the with knowledge of Ukrainian no 4% Finally, claimed about Russian. same the at 16% alow level stating with Ukrainian knew they 22% of claimed respondents that revealed survey same moved from this circuit moved this from re it entirely be said should 17% only and communities by local expressed wish the circuit following would appropriate be give to itofficial access the to by 40% 39%itof whereas said respondents, siderable: declared it 2002 in was con is language state equal of an status the Russian The for support granting question formulated in this way artificial, unjustified way artificial, this in formulated question 30% deemed as the many as and it not 26%a worse had changed situation, that in it was that improved, 6% claimed independentUkraine an in Ukrainian

Den, 28.05.2003. Den, after: Ukraine, APN Psychology Social and of Sociology Institute the by conducted Research After: www.from-ua.com/adds/print?phpvoice/ea41a956b72cf, visited at 23.02.2011. visited www.from-ua.com/adds/print?phpvoice/ea41a956b72cf, After: 3/2003, p. 36–39. 3/2003, &Defence Security [in] National Ukraine in Situation Language the to People’s Attitude Den after: Ukraine, APN Psychology Social and of Sociology Institute the by conducted Research ology at the Kyiv-Mohylan Academy, after: Den Kyiv-Mohylan Academy, at the after: ology of soci faculty the and of Sociology Institute Kyiv International the by conducted Research Ukraine and Socis, after: Den, after: Socis, and Ukraine of of Sciences Academy National of the of Sociology Institute the by conducted The research , 31.01.2004. , 47 . A year earlier 27% of those surveyed believed that the position of the that believed surveyed of those 27% earlier . A year 49 . Later research shows the stability of this division: in in division: of this stability shows the research . Later 12.11.2002. , 10.04.2002. , 46 . In 2004 44% of respond 44% 2004 . In 48 . 44 . How . 45 and and ------posed to the Ukrainisation of their children of their Ukrainisation the to posed not op are but they Russian-speakers extent alarge to remain to want they state; the to a loyal/conformist attitude displays community Russian-speaking manities hu the from those (particularly of intolerant approach the cal, radi the to in contrast is question, which language the to attitude indifferent have atolerant- of Ukraine’s majority the inhabitants that indicates Research there. following important an has The second also prevalent. option, though, are language of state status the granted advocates being of Russian districts eastern in and dominant tion are 51 50 younger undergoing is the generation that moreing Hereit visible. mainly is Surzhyk and Lviv,even in Russian presence of both the year each country, west of the the in time same aprofessional to At career. the a is of Ukrainian acommand that cool”; aware becoming young also people are “un viewed to be as ceasing is language of use this the and now disappearing commonplace was over which ago, a dozen years is Ukrainian, to use ability in of the demonstration the east slowly is the In west fading. of Ukraine the and east the between language colloquial of use the dichotomy the in clear the that reveal text) author of by the made this those (also observations Numerous munication. oral com in difficulties of lack the confirms this common, and quite is using” feel more comfortable they language “everybody the ment that speak should conversations argu and the research sociological In Russian. use others and Ukrainian use some (Ukraine’s members Verkhovna parliament) Rada the in that fact by the to caused no problems are Furthermore, nois translation). there receives Russian; and replies in Ukrainian in questions asks a journalist situation: (a media typical the in languages proven ofcommon use both by the is which intelligible, mutually are Russian and Ukrainian Spoken colloquial Ukraine. in everyday life in notThere is communication a problem with 2. it against totally

Everyday speech in practiceEveryday in speech Russkiy yazyk v Ukraine bez emotsiy,cit. op. bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy Zerkalo Nedeli Zerkalo emotsiy,cit op. bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy ), both Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking. A substantial section of the of the section Asubstantial Russian-speaking. and ), Ukrainian- both , no 43, 2011. 43, , no 50 . Certainly, in western districts proponents of full Ukrainisa proponents of full districts western in . Certainly, ., also: Oksana Onishchenko, Igry v patriotov, vpatriotov, Igry Onishchenko, Oksana ., also: 51 . is becom is ------23 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 24 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 schools which taught in Russian did children study Ukrainian. Ukrainian. study children did taught Russian in which schools afew only in whereas literature, Russian and Russian learn to compulsory schools) it was minority as (as well were taught Ukrainian in where subjects 53 52 Ukrainian in studied district Donetsk the in 3.3% to district however the in was 97.6% enormous: from children differentiation regional the were more or less equal, Russian and Ukrainian in studying schools secondary and of primary pupils in numbers 1991In the 3. at age school literature great with by contact ensured was correctness language recently Until version of Russian. distorted and impoverished an using are Russians of Ukrainian number ing agrow that fact point the to Russian, and Ukrainian authors,Numerous both Ukraine. in language Russian colloquial of the degradation contributed the to it has though, hand, other the On Ukrainian of use correct increased an and of use Surzhyk the in of led education aslightlimitation to has The Ukrainisation exclusively Russian-language. almost is Ukraine in which culture by mass influence thesuccessstories of promoted under extent large to a Russification, is notis much better. it on some Surzhyk borders in cases media, the in poor Ukrainian use exceptionthe intellectuals) of public(with figures other and of politicians Russian). and The majority Ukrainian both present in expressions words and intention of eliminating clear the with version language of the Galician but the norm linguistic Ukrainian doesnot standard presswhich promote the tionalist na the in seen mainly (they are rare also pressare the in guides style rare, are (except for correctness manuals) promote school which language Publications language toof correctness. concern notice for signs it difficult is Ukraine In comprehensible amerely in way. contentbeing speak to or negligence, “laziness” language more more people and share hand other the “popsa” songs (so “shanson”), called popular and in On become more dominant. present strongly slang, criminal as such of forms language, degraded general, in teaching school in of literature status lowering of the the literature, Russian

Schools Schools op. cit. op. Eberhardt, Piotr ture/2011/05.25/79321/view_print, visitedat 30.05.2011). (http://life.pravda.com.ua/cul of Ukraine of Sciences Academy National phy at the of Philoso Institute of the head the Popovych, of Myroslav opinion e.g. the Compare , p. 247, complete data for each district. district. for each , p. data 247, complete 52 . Now with the reduced scope of teaching reduced scope of the teaching . Now with 53 . For all children from schools schools from children . For all ; “TV” Russian Russian ; “TV” - - - -

tests against the closures of schools in general (in defence professional of general the of in schools closures the against tests speaking schools (in the east) or Russian-speaking schools (in the west) (in the schools or Russian-speaking east) (in the schools speaking close Ukrainian- down to but want they 139,000 schools) places in but first pupils 64,500 currently are there Donetsk in of (for schools number instance overall the limit to seeking for which are governments economic reasons trict of dis hands so”. hethe leaves of in decisions majority time the same At the places wish “where in parents Russian in of teaching schools number the in increase an who Tabachnyk supports Dmytro Russophile by well-known over of taken education was ministry the tor Yanukovych election, won the Vik After preventative measures. case) take to the frequently is this though al orientation, state and pro-Moscow the to political equivalent necessarily orientation (which not is cultural apro-Russian with politicians caused and communities Russian-speaking from local off sparked situation This pupils studying in Ukrainian grew to 82.1% to grew Ukrainian in pupils studying percentage 2010 In of the asubject. as Russian majority) learnt the still though were 11 schools which taught in Ukrainian and four which taught Russian four in which and taught Ukrainian in which schools were 11 of there 2011 beginning at the district), (the Luch of town Krasny the but for in even example there, dominant clearly schools Russian-language the are Donbas in families). Only Russian from percentage of the children than (we do not know, nationality lower Russian however, also is declare this if which percentage population of the the much lower is than taught Russian in being who are of children number the districts southern and eastern for the 58 57 56 55 54 were taught Ukrainian in 67.4% as of children many schools). Russian-language in 1999as In classes ment of Ukrainian-language establish ones or the into Ukrainian-language schools Russian-language the of transformation due the to was this (in general taught Ukrainian in which of schools number the in increase asharp was there followingyears the In ber of pupils attending Russian-speaking schools dropped to 50.5% to dropped schools Russian-speaking ofber pupils attending num the districts southern and eastern the In remain. schools such six only Russian-speaking, is population of the where half at least of 3million a Kyiv, In districts. bythese pupils 2.7% from were attended they and mained re taught Russian in 2010which in schools 26 merely of Ukraine part of this 16 districts in entirely: almost disappeared schools Russian-language country

Volodymyr Lytvyn, Ukraina na mezi tysiacholit, Kyiv, p. 287. 2000, tysiacholit, mezi na Ukraina , Russkiy yazyk v Ukraine bez emotsiy,cit op. bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy Donetschyna mozhe zalyshytys bez ukrainskykh shkil?, Holos Ukrainy bez mozhe ukrainskykh Donetschyna zalyshytys Ibid op. cit op. Solchanyk, Roman . . . 55 . In the west and the centre of the of the centre the west and the . In 54 and not all of them (al of them not all and , 11.02.2011. , 56 . Except 58 . Pro 57 ------. 25 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 26 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 exam became obligatory in 2012 obligatory in became exam 61 60 59 minority languages at colleges seven in exams entrance as well as them it possible take to make however, he did, form of exams; this nyk, not did despite eliminate pressure, Tabach Minister of rent. were asource corruption leaving exams school cause but be grounds not on –again “language” teachers from vehement protests move met with This at was . exams for used entrance language the became taught); they which in similarly, Ukrainian language the in by schools were organised (earlier they Ukrainian exclusively in Ukraine, in introduced out outside were schools, carried leaving exams, school standardised 2007 In mounting. be to seems Russian in for learning opportunities the increase to pressure the and inevitable is naturally, decreasing been has population the where for over network 15 Ukraine, of of in years the schools optimisation the problem not settled: the was Nevertheless, schools. of the part down closing status “language fended quo the who de politicians and intellectuals by the countries) were backed other in convenience and aphenomenon known offor teachers parents, also interests day Russian used by young used Ukrainians day Russian above mentioned level contributed the to lowering of of the every further and of Russian teaching of the limitation added the to This literature. of Ukrainian the knowledgelevel not did of influence and known it to which was extent the diminished Ukrainian) in on lessons (taught worldclasses literature usually in literature The of inclusion Russian foreign literature. and literature sian Rus literature, were taught: Ukrainian subjects three Ukraine in schools in 2000 taught. Until is literature way Russian comes identity the from cultural development the A huge and education of on pupils’ system the both impact

several colleges in their original regions. original their in colleges several at only however , and to privileges certain it grants consideration into taken are system education Ukrainian of the possibilities the when and way evident an in Russian to preference gives solution This at 8.11.2011). visited ti-ministerstva?start=68, php/ua/pro-ministerstvo/normativno-pravova-baza/normativno-pravova-baza-diyalnos http://www.mon.gov.ua/index. website: on the link of 8.08.2011, no. 946 Minister Education of the resolution (the Romanian and Russian Hungarian, Polish, Moldovan, Crimean-Tatar, , geography, chemistry. biology, and physics of Ukraine, history mathematics, or German), Spanish French, (English, language aforeign literature), Russian (without , and language Ukrainian obligatory: are subjects following the 2012 from exam leaving school mock the to relating resolution quoted above the with line In of the leading works of Russian literature. of Russian works leading of the translations Ukrainian poor of generally introduction the by compounded was effect This 59 . At the same time, taking Russian at the school leaving school at the Russian taking time, same . At the 60 ”. As a result, the authorities withdrew from from ”. authorities withdrew the aresult, As . 61 . Currently, there are plans not to only plans are . Currently, there ------language and culture in Ukraine. Ukraine. in culture and language position Ukrainian of of the the detriment Ukrainisation”, the to sory acted promoted and a“voluntary-compul Revolution Orange the bilingual was that Yushchenko, byfact overlooking that the agreed nationalists) cept for extreme commentators (ex Ukrainian some followers. from of his Nearly all tion also provoked which negative a categorical, Ukrainian”), reac in or “think ” “one as such –one –one nation slogans language bolic with ones (a campaign but sym not aspects on emphasis pragmatic placing manner awkward an in doing it, He however, was extend. of use Ukrainian scope of the real the that ensuring started Yushchenko when 2005 Viktor in The changed situation and judges didmajor any etc.) and officials not cause objections. of ranks rejuvenation the in the slow, with linked evolutive extent (to acertain involved. However, parties processes were by those the chosen 2004 always until almost is court in trials during used language the and Russian remains citizens and officials these of between communication language the dominant is ulation pop Russian-speaking placesaccelerate, where in even the though ministration 62 Court’s of 1999 verdict Constitutional of the law. breach explicit an itafter was Only although Russian, continued using districts southern and eastern the in administration and ments govern local the that fact tolerated the has Ukraine independence Since gaining habits. their who and do change to not want Russian using to used grew ofwaged citizens/applicants interest butjudges officials, not the in etc. who being is circuit official the in used be to Russian enable to battle ever, the that implications. haveIt how which legal seems, misunderstandings does cause and word one for can aRussian aUkrainian or mistakes appropriate term an that knowonedoesproblems. serious not are fact The there offices istration public admin and courts the documents, legal in used language the language, of command when it everyday communication, written in comes the to Unlike 4. literature. national of the would on lead world acomplete which to course the literature, marginalisation in included be to literature Ukrainian schools)enable to but also sian-speaking in Rus at least justified, as seen be (which can again subjects these separate

State Institutions See below, chapter V.2. below,See chapter 62 did the “Ukrainisation” of the local governments and ad and governments local of the “Ukrainisation” the did ------27 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 28 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 without haste, probably only after the parliamentary election of 2012 election parliamentary the probably haste, after only without implemented be will new lawwhich on by the language, regulated be will thing every intention that is their that It centralism). mostlikely is oriented towards government clearly is level (the present Ukrainian national at the for regulations waiting without ranks” resolutions were such “breaking because lieved, mainly be be it – as can verdicts of court by means repealed again resolutionsthose was of bulk the That time language. of a regional status the Russian granting started again governments local time same codes. procedure At the administrative and civil Court’sthe of 1999and verdict Constitutional the both the against is which work the courts, in of allowed the was Russian) means ” (which practice in of languag use “regional the system newjudiciary law on the the In hampered. was 2010 “Ukrainisation” powerFebruary to in Yanukovych came Viktor After authorities. local other and ments govern of local functioning thelutions) impact on not did have a significant president). reso the to earlier (as with subordinated is Thesewhich verdicts ’s (at of request the verdicts the of office, court by means repealed and increasing the quality of the use of Ukrainian, at least in its own activity own its in at least of use Ukrainian, of the quality the increasing and scope the government extending Ukraine’sis present time central same At the shaping public opinion the importance of this fact cannot be overstated. be cannot fact of this importance shaping public opinion the form of main message the is where the sent by times TV In public speeches. it his to use in not Ukrainian, to but able he was would like to learn that times many Azarov, declared who has Minister for forced example has Prime ian, continues Ukrain spoken improve to his President Yanukovych, who himself 65 64 63 language” “regional the as districts their in circuit official the in Russian introducing started country of south the and east the in councils municipal and district many 2006 spring in this, to response In

guage. Kravchuk as president used good Ukrainian in the public sphere, the in president good as used Ukrainian Kravchuk guage. a foreign is lan before 1991. For Yanukovych Ukrainian career Viktor al profession his in however Ukrainian used environment, only Kravchuk Ukrainian-speaking up the Yushchenko) in grew Viktor and Kuchma nid Leo Kravchuk, (Leonid presidents to date, three Out of four Ukrainian See below, chapter V.5. below,See chapter 2.11.2011. fus.org/galleries/ct_publication_attachments/Menon_TwoUkraines_Jul11.pdf, http://www.gm 2011, July Brief, Policy GMF TheTwo Menon, Ukraines, Raian Compare visited at In reference to the Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. See below, chapter V.3. below, See chapter Languages. Minority and for Regional Charter the to reference In 63 . Nearly all such resolutions were such . Nearly all 64 . - - - 65 ------. Russian; Ukrainian is used mainly in magazines (monthlies and a part of the of the a part and (monthlies magazines in mainly used is Ukrainian Russian; in tabloid for press. As press, the it promotional dominantly is and advertising is nowrepresented by media the print A considerableof section fell. nificantly 4,300)1,900from sig – to decade their average first (onlybut circulation the in risen sharply has of The press titles number decreased. has importance their therefore and declined has of them however, availability but the parallel, in media electronic the pressand the in content in Ukrainian publishedin crease in asubstantial been has of Ukraine’s 20years there the independence Over losses for ones. and etc. other distributors lishers, pub broadcasters, profits into concrete for certain translate area this in tions Regula importance. symbolic, or notpolitical financial, rather has speaking, broadly media, the in issue language the use, of language areas other Unlike 5. of politicians from the central and eastern part of the country). of the part eastern and central the from of politicians case the in Russicisms with rife Ukrainian clumsy very to Ukraine western from of intellectuals case the in (from excellent of correctness degrees ying var publicly with Ukrainian use People’s the and (headed by Lytvyn) Party Front for etc.) the Change Batkivshchyna, Ukraine, (Our position parties of leaders op the similarly, whereas speak The Communists of leaders the version of Russian. aUkrainian use they although Russian, mainly speak of Regions Party of the members politicians, Ukrainian leading Among text. aprepared read whenapparent he cannot poorly, he knows aforeign language is is which Mykola Ukrainian Azarov public. Minister For in Prime good use Ukrainian work. They all their in have Ukrainian used they therefore historians, are three all vironment; Tymoshenko Yulia the up aUkrainian-speaking Bloc, in have grown Mykola and Tomenko from Martyniuk Adam deputies, two communist his Volodymyr and parliament Lytvyn Ukrainian of the The present chairman freely. quite and it correctly (approximately 2004), in now speaks minister prime as only Ukrainian ing learn Yanukovych, who of started Russicisms. full was and not meticulous however was Ukrainian his Russian, sian). avoided Yushchenko speaking Rus in 1992–1993mainly spoke he minister prime (as “Russified” strongly more and correct as described be can by spoken Kuchma Ukrainian the The media The ------29 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 30 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 are published in Russian publishedin are 70% of and newspapers of magazines circulation annual 90% of the Currently Russian in country ofrest the the in and ones Ukrainian it in is central in partly and districts western in 69 68 67 66 capital outside the available not is and circulation opinion-forming the press)asmall press (including has versionsguage (e.g. Kyiv’s Den daily lan both in published are titles press. Certain nationalist the and Russian) in present of also course (these are circulation asmall having weeklies), usually there is no equivalent daily published in Ukrainian publishedin daily no is equivalent there ers (the latter may be the main goal of the political TV and radio stations which which stations radio and TV political of goal the main maythe be (the latter ers view of the awareness for influencing not opportunity over the market, tising the adverand on air their place on for fighting are broadcasters the battle the elementan as of beseen issues must language regulating to related of conflicts ). (in cable or majority networks through Therefore available the also ones, are Russian above all channels, foreign TV numerous Ukraine in media, print the with case not is the As frequencies. transmission available ited by the lim is possible their number and from advertising all profits,above make to meant are stations radio FM and stations TV 20years. last the opment during devel scope before of 1991 from of their because situation the the it with pare to com irrelevant is it media; electronic the of case in different The is situation owners. of and/orpreferences goals their political version on the depends language or another this in sustained are titles certain that fact the that assumed be it can advertisements, and sales their through not financed are majority tabloid overwhelming press) the the in partly and

Kudy tiahne Ukrainy neukrainske kozatstvo?”, Shlakh kozatstvo?”, Peremohy neukrainske Ukrainy Kudy tiahne Varta Kozatska niche the issued, is Ukrainian in magazine one only district Luhansk the in For instance Moloda, Ukraina , Irina also 4.04.2011, from available www.unian.net/ukr/print/428977, istration officials. officials. istration admin local and at state aimed are and government the and parliament the of, respectively, Holos Ukrainy dailies of the exception the With mass nationwide character. character. nationwide mass its lost It later of content. terms in low standard avery presented pages and few it had tion, by Silski Visti fulfilled was function this 2004 Until Komsomolskaya vUkraine Pravda Komsomolskaya and no. 47, 2011. no. 47, Slovo, 2011. Nashe after: quoted 9.11.2011, , an instrument of one of the local Cossack organisations (Iryna Mahrytska, Mahrytska, (Iryna organisations Cossack local of of one the instrument , an 69 . Since (despite Ukraine’s media print advertising 66 and in the regions the local press is predominant, predominant, pressis local the regions the in and 67 . Both daily newspapers circulated nationally, circulated newspapers daily . Both ). The majority of the formally nation-wide). formally The of the majority which are instruments instruments are which Kuryer Uriadovy and , a newspaper aimed at the rural popula rural at the aimed , anewspaper , are published in Russian and and Russian publishedin , are 68 . , no 47,, no 2011). ------able in cable networks cable in able avail be to also was TV Russian from broadcast the whereas event Ukraine, in this bought to broadcast exclusive rights TV Ukrainian advertisements; from proceeds colossal related contest the Eurovision and the broadcast to right the about mainly It context. was this cable have networks in seen be to Ukrainian from channels Russian main remove to 2008 the order from the as such Actions territory). for paid on Ukrainian tisements exclusively adver broadcast to was channels Russian to of Ukraine Council Broadcasting Television Radio National presented and by the demands of the considerable (it version savings not one means by accidentwas that Ukrainian of the abandonment the market, Ukrainian exclusively on the campaigns run for local frequencies is much fiercer and large companies taking part in it are are in it part taking companies large and much fiercer is frequencies for local the fight case this In stations. radio FM with different slightly is The story Ukraine. in popular very are which channels TV of RTR ORT and broadcasting the enforced)on ban partly only (and whothetemporary sets profitedfrom reception of satellite distributors Yushchenko. Incidentally, above it all was President motive attack to itanother used as and community Russian-speaking the against of discriminating act an as ban perceived which this Russia in also of an advertising campaign advertising of an effectiveness the does not affect Ukrainian in of advertisements removal the that fact the to points apparently research marketing undisclosed and ing and cities of , is mainly Russian-speaking or Surzhyk Russian-speaking mainly is Ukraine, of cities western and group, towns This exceptfor of the advertising. in consumers i.e.cation, the average average an lower with and edu cities than and towns on from viewers focused is TV that fact the from for data radio). mainly equivalent results This 72 71 70 Ukrainian in 22% by and programmes programmes bilingual 31% by Russian, in broadcast occupied by was programmes channels TV main eight of the time broadcasting overall of the 47% recent data, to the According “”). with case the is as owners by their supported are and market role media on the play amarginal

terials. terials. ma displayed the Ukrainise to advertisers “persuaded” administration local and ernment the gov from pressure the where advertising outdoor in different slightly is The situation to Ukraine. Ukraine. to only specific not are events, sporting important regarding those including conflicts, Such Irina Kushnir, cit op. . 72 . This issue was however granted political significance, significance, political however was issue granted . This 71 . Furthermore, as advertisers only exceptionally exceptionally only advertisers as . Furthermore, 70 (there are no are (there -speak ------31 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 32 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 be broadcast be songs to Russian who voices demanded “orchestrated” to” listeners of and the do not want they that something to listen to “you forcethat listeners cannot explanation provide the broadcasters results: brought about important any have media not production” the “domestic in on the norms) EU quotas with group). (compatible belong at this to introducing Attempts usually stations 74 73 The orderhave orto Russian . films with Ukraine in cinema of world blockbusters the of common screening practice the butema rather not done. always cin was The concerned not even dispute Russian that and dubbing/-over; Russian with parallel in subtitles Ukrainian –only case voice-over the previously been had not –as and Ukrainian or had Ukrainian copies in ofwere dubbed the of foreign films ahalf that ensure to tributors to force government dis tried The Ukrainian Ukraine. in dispute of a great subject the was offilms issue 2010 dubbing and the cinema 2006 Between 6. “Ukrainian-music-broadcasting” the ones (usually local small, oust to trying the average language competence of the population in Ukraine. average Ukraine. the competence in population of language the lowers and of Russian, and of Ukrainian that both norm, linguistic of the ring blur it contributes the to Ukraine: in situation language ative on the impact neg adecidedly has impact) have which asimilar advertisements (anding also of wayThe “popsa”of domination speak acareless and promotes which slang “popsa”ian butproduced. music being is no such They possibly could Ukrain market. eager be on the situation broadcast to the by dictated manner, asimilar in would act broadcasters radio FM Ukrainian Russia, power.soft from inspiration However, hypothetical even the without element of Russian – an terms correct more politically –in is that Ukraine, aggression” against “spiritual element of Russian an is Pugachova) zon, Alla promotion“shanson” idols the ofolder of the and generation the (Yosif Kob “popsa” the of that Russian hear and sometimes one can Ukraine In

Cinema Zerkalo Nedeli Zerkalo muzyki, Vmesto Ganzha, Lesya of the sources, by, other among confirmed is dispute of this nature The business term, “Ukrainian-speaking music”, also appears. appears. music”, also “Ukrainian-speaking term, nonsensical production”; arather audiovisual “national term the use general in papers ian Ukrain comes. production music broadcast the which from country the but about senters pre radio by used language the about not is dispute this as neologism this introduced I have 74 . , no 40, 2011. 40, , no 73 ------

certainly not insignificant in a situation where Ukrainian cinema is in ruin. ruin. in is cinema situation in a where Ukrainian not insignificant certainly is of for school asource incomewhich for and agreat young actors them, also the country).Dubbingin is distributor film largest the Distribution, Film B& company, only one is such there (accordingUkraine companies in to sources profitsto few itgreat dubbing brings and amajor for cost therefore distributors 78 77 76 75 29 to 95 million) –from Ukrainian publishedin books including annually, million 170 from 48 to period same the in declined circulation overall 7,000 from (in 1990–2001 10,000) to grown but has their ofber publishedtitles The readership. in num afall triggered also country, has the which in books of availability the brought in Ukraine’s about has independence adecrease 7. dubbing or Russian voice-overis background) the in there (and often Ukrainian in subtitled are voice-over remainder ian the and have or a Ukrain inare dubbedUkrainian in Ukraine cinemas in shown films 69% of Ukraine). that in indicate Recent data lower than are production costs where the countries other in were ordered which those (andonce also again be to brought movein Russia made copies enabled this removed of and films dubbing imposed which time). was same sions at Eventually, the the ver language both in screened usually were films cities (in large cinemas in viewers theof number it not used, did affect they propaganda the to contrary however,distributors, to losses brought about significant dubbed Ukrainian in printed, this fall is dramatic. One must also remember that a large part of the of the part alarge that remember also must One dramatic. is fall this printed, being stopped literature propaganda Soviet that fact the mind in one bears costs on averagecosts US$ 25,000 The dubbingfilm of acinema culture. more than is about dispute business This

Books rial from the UNIAN agency, 13.05.2010. UNIAN the from rial mate vUkraini, dystrybyutoriv rosijskykh interesy lobiyuye Khto Klymonchuk, Oksana Zerkalo Nedeli Zerkalo ibudet!, yest kniga Ukrainskaya Zhuravska, (Anna for 2011 data initial to according million 34 and 2010 in titles) (22,000 million 45 2008, ( 2001 in as same the is which 2007, in copies million 29 to amounted Ukrainian in of books circulation overall ever, the How 2007. in titles) (18,000 copies million 56 up to books, of published circulation the in increase an was there Later, p. 499. Kyiv 2007, 2008, Ukrainy Shchorichnyk Statystychny unian.net/ukr/print/472577), visited at 6.12.2011. visited unian.net/ukr/print/472577), (www. cinemas Ukrainian in shown were films foreign 183 2011 of months 10 first the In Irina Kushnir, cit. op. op. cit. op. 76 and there are several premieres aweek premieres several are there and ). Later data point to 58 million in overall circulation in in circulation overall in million 58 to point data ). Later , no 48, 2011). 48, , no 75 . 78 . Even when 77 . It is - - - - - 33 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 34 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 in fact read literature. literature. read fact in 80 79 sold of Ukraine books in 87% much upas as make currently ported) (domestic im and Russian in books that It estimated is Russia. from imported books competition enter in with they only because Russian in who books issue publishers Ukrainian by large exerted of probably pressure result was the This become more they expensive. did regulations of new customs aresult as 2006 approximately in only Ukraine; in printed those for than cheaper along time huge former USSR have of the acompetitive market edge. were books Their who publishers on operate the Russian Ukraine. in constraints any without available are Russia publishedin books as greater is Russian in books and ian Ukrain in of books availability the between However, disproportion real the become even less has available. reading” “for literature Ukrainian etc., therefore texts legal manuals, school are Ukrainian publishedin books Russian) only in read they reality in that mean (which can languages both in read they that declares rest the and only only, Russian in Ukrainian 15% –in literature read of 42% “active Ukraine in readers” research, sociological to According of. heard Kyiv in forces) not owners market have bookstore never which grants, even (often books publisheddue to Ukrainian for Lviv with example inundated is In consequence, this. to do afford holder cannot owner or bookstore ket stall Amar Russian. in books to comparison in sell fewer copiesthat will of them being aware books while or offer Ukrainian Ukrainian in books with partment the de run to afford can one a chain, from etc.): especially bookstore, alarge (except for manuals school Ukrainian in books works against also This stores. find book to it even is difficult Dnipropetrovsk) and Donetsk (such as towns Ukrainian many In moved bazaars. to has books in trade main the and salers) (whole companies no nationwide distribution are there recent years, in only a new phenomenon are visible chains bookstore modern fallen, dramatically of The bookhas number stores bookstores. of Ukrainian state dismal by the exacerbated is languages two the in of books of availability The disproportion

Irina Kushnir, cit op. op. cit op. vUkraine…, yazyk Russkiy 80 . It is not known what percentage of the Ukrainian population does population what. It percentage Ukrainian not is of known the . . 79 . ------81 Russian in whoers write writ Ukrainian also are (as there Ukrainian in who write writers Ukrainian ages its use in contexts outsideages contexts officialdom. in use its discour language state the in literature popular of lack the significance: cial aspe it has Ukraine media). bilingual In electronic the (together with imagery They simple society’s in shape stories language. language fantasy and crime simple love, tell which books public. The wider expects reader by the read is that literature but popular literature it not is “high” that remains The fact publishers). domestic (including Russian in written of books publishers competitive due have advantage the to of failed literature) action/crime and fantasy (mainly literature popular at publishing attempts Several culations. cir writer’shigher whohigherpublishers to offer much fees corresponding on Russian beginning very the from of it:them many command ter have notabet they because only Russian in They write Ukrainian. authors are their even if Russian, exclusively It in available is Ukrainian. in ever written hardly is literature such and literature for looking popular are readers mass singers) but with that as do not fact revenues pay the (similarly to attention position and defend Thus their they Ukrainian. in to literature preferences accord to but Russia also from of books imports preferences: not restrict to only

other writers. Part of the latter also write in Ukrainian. in write also latter of the Part writers. other and Vasilyev Vladimir Dyachenko, Serhiy and –Maryna writers fantasy of popular group or the Poland) in known (also Krym Anatoliy novelist and playwright Poland, and many Ger as such countries in translated are Kurkov, books whose Andrey novelist For instance, 81 ) frequently demand to be granted administrative administrative granted be to demand ) frequently ------35 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 36 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 ation is about to change. ation about is change. to Kyiv situ between Moscow it and does and not this seem rivalry identity” and of “symbolic area ongoing. main today the is issue The still language is tions, ambi political by hand the other and on differences language small relatively by one onhand the fuelled dispute, this area Slavic language East historical “Serbo-Croat”. from the In language their emancipate to striving and by , language” “Czechoslovak of the existence of the recognition the over by pursued the battle with had Welsh, Crown the British – fight 83 82 16 the to long-term back the are: – dating examples other state, man Ger the of efforts the is one of of population; its them part and state the between dominance over language of battles history amples the from We “symbolic state. ex element of of identity” amodern the many an know people’s and identity determining in factor national important an is Language III.

Belarusian “administrative” is the view that until the 13 the until that view the is of subject truth contention. the the to is Closest The genesis of Ukrainian 18th century, Ukrainian – towards the end of end 18 the –towards century, Ukrainian 18th of the second half the in Russian emerged later: meaning modern the in languages The literary circuits. Church the and state the in both were used and –appeared Ukrainian and Belarusian –Russian, languages istrative 19 the in only established was Belarusian Contemporary languages. trative” of the 19of the Language Slavic Old East (Rus differentiated, dialectically although uniform, quite litical factors and theological disputes in the 16 the in disputes theological and factors litical po influence of the under more independentand more and became groups dialectic particular period later the Slavic. of In Old Church variety local the form, (written) It literary its had Ukrainians. and Belarusians sians, development of East . languages. Slavic of East development of the stages other to refer Language” “Rusyn and Language” “Ruthenian Theterms putes. - dis political and linguistic ongoing in manipulation to subject the is Russian) temporary (con yazyk” “russkiy and Slavic) (Old East yazyk” “ruskiy between similarity lexical the since needed however is introduction its adopted, widely not is Language” “Rus The term narczuk, PWN Warsaw 1988, p. 948–964. 1988, Warsaw PWN narczuk, Bed Leszek ed. indoeuropejskie, [in] Języki słowiańskie, Języki Sławski, Franciszek After: th

RIVALRY RIVALRY LANGUAGE IDENTITY OF SYMBOLIC AND AFIELD AS century on the basis of folk dialects, without any link to the extinct extinct the to link any without of folk dialects, basis on the century th century, both were formed on the basis of the earlier “adminis earlier of the basis were formed on century, the both 82 ) which was common for the descendants of present-day common descendants for was the ) which Rus th century in the East Slavic area there existed existed there Slavic area East the in century 83 . th th and 17 and century and the first half half first the and century th centuries admin centuries th century ------85 84 of history. If there existed the Rus Language = Old Russian, there was also such such also was there =Old Russian, Language Rus the existed of there history. If beginning very the presentsince its from in it have must existed tion) exists, na other any nation, (the nation Russian Ukrainian concept the if light of this possible development, the accept. to In are oldest of which forms their their from nations of contemporary existence of the acontinuity is there that is sia, Rus in and Ukraine topic in both on this discussions in recognised widely is either. The which second exist premise, a cannot nation in notguage anchored alan exist, cannot does not which have anation language nation: own its with language the of identification dueto significance political has dispute This

in the 10 the in beginning period the in of Ukraine territory the in time same at the cally developed practi Ukrainian and “Russian that one claiming the as such interpretations and evenabsurd anti-scientific extreme, also There are tinct Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian languages. thors go as far as to claim that Ukrainian developed only in the 19 developed the in only Ukrainian that claim to as go far thors as power. and political influence of au it Polish Several Polish to the ascribe time they move the emergence of Ukrainian to the 18 the to move emergence of they Ukrainian the time heir”. same At the “legitimate its is that opment) only language it the is and Finnish, the Turk-Tatar on devel languages influence of its the German and or ignoring (while minimising language Rus the from line uninterrupted and simple comes the in Russian modern that think and Old be to guage Russian lan the Rus consider researchers majority Theof Russian significant. cally are politi differences these and considerably differ genesis languages of the of the however is view interpretations This not accepted, commonly national subjected to this concept). this to subjected World 2010 was at pavilion the Expo (the Ukrainian language oldest Indo-European the and one is most “aboriginal” of the Ukrainian fied (without any justification) with Pre-Indo-Europeans, ( therefore Pre-Indo-Europeans, with fied any justification) (without identi culture people come the of Trypillian from Ukrainians the 10 the between early as as occurred area Slavic language East the from of Ukrainian emergence the that argue they researchers, for As Ukrainian . East in co-existed for over years” 500 co-existed or have conquerors; peacefully they of migrants languages not the are and www.r-u.org.ua/analit/-/4220-news?tmpl+component&preview, from 23.03.2011. available net/ukr/print467427, visited at 10.11.201. at 10.11.201. visited net/ukr/print467427, www.unian. ‘i’, nashym nad krapochka mova: Paliy,Ukrainska e.g. Oleksandr Compare th and 12 and th century. Both languages are autochthonous to Ukrainian lands lands autochthonous Ukrainian to are languages century. Both th centuries 84 84 and in the 14 the in and 85 . On the other hand, there are views that that views are there hand, other the . On th century there already existed dis existed already there century th and 19 and th centuries and and centuries th century sic! ------) - - - 37 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 38 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 aspects of the social sphere in the entire territory of the country is a guarantee aguarantee is country of the territory entire the in sphere social of the aspects all in language Ukrainian of the functioning “full the and memory” historical and foundation for provides the spirituality its and nation Ukrainian of the the autonomy of expression one’s reflects intellectual personality an tion and Language Policy Language Concept 2010. of State 15 decree the of The introduced the decree the suihis generis by exemplified by Yushchenko, well is shared state, the role in about of the language way of thinking Ukrainian The western involved became and them. in activities these culture), supported Trypillian Ukrainian Ancient (e.g. of vision the the manner he shares critical un an quite in history with fascinated being country. himself, Yushchenko of sphere the language of the Ukrainisation for the called and issue language the of significance the entourage overestimated of PresidentYushchenko; they the in appeared policy. nationalists when 2005 many in The changed situation identity an need pursue to the not did understand and matters on pragmatic not did have on influence any time Kyiv’s the government focused since politics for a long politicians nationalistically-oriented and intellectuals Ukrainian possible and solutions it. to thought aboutUkraine in is issue language way the the impacts substantially bolic) which dominion element of Ukraine’s ongoing important (sym an ideological over dispute the is discussions, political and historical in alive contention above, still outlined of “re-Ukrainisation” ofRussians). the The demand (they the do not feature rial not impe and nationalist merely view, are implications its Russian although above image “honour”). reversed of mentioned It and the the is of chronology terms “younger in the (both are brothers” Russians the from” therefore and have Russians “split nations which Slavicoff theEast of first the be to pears but it ap beginning very the from Russian from not is nation distinct only ian 87 86 Old Ukrainian fact in is Language Rus the hand, other on the If, could/must and reversed. be state unnatural an is whose and distinctiveness trunk” “Rus/Russian the severed from been rather nations) not did and ‘emerge’ languages the but (both have Belarusian and ian Ukrain nation. Russian modern developed into the has which a nationality

Slovyanstva”. skhidnioho istorii ukladu racionalnoho ysprava istorii russkoyi skhema “Zvychayna 1903 of article classic the in formulated first Hrushevsky, of Mykhailo view the with line In http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/10486.html, visited at 2.11.2011. at visited http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/10486.html, 87 , according to which “Ukrainian as a means of communica ameans as “Ukrainian which to , according political legacy – – legacy political 86 , the Ukrain , the ------East Slavic nations”, the defence of the canonical Orthodox Church Slavic Orthodox nations”,East defence canonical of the the for factor all integrating the as history of ashared “popularisation the also but of native population Ukraine” of the culture and language the as culture tion’s and language “development Russian not include of the only goals the of Vadym Regions, The Kolesnichenko. Organisa Party the from Parliament of Member Ukraine”, influential headed by an “Russian-speaking ganisation Or Social Pan-Ukrainian lobby the orientation is for main At this present the circles. Russian-speaking from criticism stark under came followed they suit, government his Yanukovych and When Viktor direction. this in steps any take however, election, the do not they After rank. symbolic its raise to therefore language) and of official (not status language the only state of equal status the Russian grant to have promising been Ukraine southern and eastern from ents constitu canvassing parties the campaign electoral each in that fact by the the status with satisfied quo earlier been had who circles atsations work have provoked Russian-speaking from aresponse private conver their in on teachers of use Ukrainian at the imposing attempts as such measures unreasonable and servants, among civil language to lating law ofre the observation the enforce to coupled approach, attempts This with alities 90 89 88 Nation [ Ukrainian the and statehood of Ukrainian constituent system-forming fundamental the is and state to the name official given the absolute ofan has Ukraine’s majority which population, [ nation Ukrainian of identity tokenthe of the main the and decisive factor – the develop and Ukrainian strengthen to be will policy language state of the priority “The states: document on the Further become to dominant. clearly Ukrainian by helping achieved be situation” will language of the “normalisation the and of Ukrainians, denationalistion implicit the at coercion”and accelerating aimed “wide of use the direct from resulting and “deformed” as to referred is situation nation’s Ukraine’s and unity”. identity Ukrainian of The the present language “Only occupants, slaves and fools do not speak the ” national the slaves fools“Only occupants, do and not speak zenship”. way: brutal expressed ina it leavingmore officeYushchenko After citi of their language the as hold, Ukrainian know they should positions or the natsya

www.pravda.com.ua/news/2011/05/15/6199988/view_print, visitedat 16.05.2011. including Yushchenko. Yushchenko. including politicians, nation-oriented by supported , Ukrainian the with fight the is That In Ukrainian (and Russian) political context “nationality” means ethnicity, not citizenship. citizenship. not ethnicity, means “nationality” context political Russian) (and Ukrainian In 88 ] whose historical home is the territory of Ukraine, which constitutes constitutes which of Ukraine, territory home the is ] whose historical . (…) Citizens of Ukraine, regardless of their ethnic origins, convictions convictions origins, ethnic of their regardless . (…) of Ukraine, Citizens Narod ] – citizens of Ukraine of all nation of all of Ukraine ] –citizens . This reaction was exacerbated exacerbated was reaction . This 90 89 , the bat , the . ------39 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 40 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 centre-oriented option will be developed. be optioncentre-oriented will a moderate, cool or down that will issues identity and bate language over the heated de the that It expected be not should therefore them. abandon thus side will neither voters and mobilise to instrument excellent an also They are culture. regarding decisions however who elites make are the these circles, the relatively of attention drawfew projects” “identity briefly outlined Both etc. Ukraine in and Army Insurgent Ukrainian development of the the tradition ofresist the few” just who “the as and Ukrainisation against minorities Ukraine’s national of defenders all the as themselves by portraying circles European certain in support gain may easily organisations such out pointing that It worth is reasons. ofbecause tactical The state. holders do not views far, the of go possibly and these nation that the of existence the also therefore and culture Ukrainian and language Ukrainian of the distinctiveness the challenging is views consequence of their The logical of post-Soviet integration the support states. strongly and Western structures opposed Ukraine’s to to are rapprochement circles and organisations sophile etc. The Rus with identified of Worldthe turn in is which War period II movement anti-Sovietindependence the from and Russia) gression” against of ag “Western (seen aresult as Catholicism Greek and Ukrainian between connection aclose, unambiguous is followers his there For and Kolesnichenko itself. identity national Ukrainian the but rather language Russian of the discrimination dothe not combating to refer they prove that 91 grounds” on language of discrimination , and manifestations with the “fight finally and country’s system of the political federalisation fortle the

news.html, visited at 2.11.2011. visited news.html, http://www.r-u.org.ua/recomend/4536- website on the link 2009-11; after otchot Kratkiy 91 . The way these goals are formulated and the argumentation used used argumentation the and formulated are . The goals way these - - - backed the Moscow Patriarchy in its measures taken to counteract centrifugal centrifugal counteract to taken measures its in Moscow Patriarchy the backed also government has Yushchenko. The under Russian introduced tion system educa the in changes of the at areversal aimed and Tabachnyk Minister Prime by taken Yushchenko, it later actions by endorsed Viktor propaganda policy) pursued language the (including policy identity the criticised decidedly Russia relations. official in community Russian-speaking of the rights of the issue the raised also has and times many Ukraine in literature Russian cially espe and Russian on teaching constraints the criticised has state The Russian used. skilfully and actively being are ence which influ exert to new instruments given Russia has media ment Internet of the rapid the develop time same At orientation. the pro-Russian a civilisational displayed which non-governmentalorganisations and/or establishing porting sup started and of non-governmentalorganisations importance the preciate of Russia’sto ap Moscowcame 2004 After channel influence. main were the science), and world of with medium contact culture the as roleof of the Russian maintenance (which contributed to the of translations case the in particularly market, books on the dominance natural the and Russian) of in zines, course maga and newspapers versions of Russian Ukrainian (also media the Initially, Language. Rus language/culture/nation the to successionof Russian the of the above exclusive legitimacy of the described vision the promoting and essary) not is spheres nec these in of Ukrainian standard development written of the the impression that the giving co-operation means and (which legal scientific of medium only economic, or the main the as Russian at maintaining aiming Ukraine, in media Russian presence of the or indirect direct the supporting been has Russia actions of these part As area. civilisational mon and geopolitical com of the part as them treating Ukraine, and Belarus particularly countries, of post-Soviet distancing process of areal the hamper to tried has beginning the from dissolution almost USSR, of the the accepting formally while Russia, sphere. language the in also ation Ukraine, in thesitu Federation orderinfluence to in Russian of bodies the other ment and govern by the undertaken actions and public discussions Ukrainian in media overlooked,entirely however, Russian presence of the constant of because the paper. be Federation ofIt subject this not cannot is Russian the The of policy the IV.

RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE DISPUTE UKRAINIAN THE RUSSIA AND ------41 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 42 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 tute a barrier to informal Russian influences. influences. Russian informal to abarrier tute It region. does not, however, this in policy consti Kyiv language the pursue to autonomy itfor more difficult Crimean of makes the The existence speaking. Russian- are Crimea in living of Ukrainians part asubstantial and an Kyiv. mostCrime do not with feel a“symbolic” connection part Furthermore, 94 93 92 tendencies in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Orthodox Ukrainian the in tendencies Crimea, where Russians make up the vast majority vast up the make where Russians Crimea, in community Russian of the organisations supports actively equally Russia Ukraine”. as “Russian-speaking organisations such supports financially and foundation organisationally we do the not have that for evidence any this) (although assumed be therefore It goals. can one is sphere of crucial its language of Ukraine’s Ukrainisation the hampering issues; nevertheless, language the foundation’s beyond the go project and far The activities scope of this statutory budget. state the from funded and 2007 in Foundation, established Russkiy by the coordinated be setto are activities its and Church Orthodox Russia”. in the interest cere and state idea implemented be to the is This by both who “those have asin Russian, or teach learn Russian, who speak countries Approximately in 2007 the concept the of 2007 “ in Approximately acentury. half last the in there who arrived immigrants composed is exclusively of community the Ukrainian-speaking the and sian Rus exclusively uses for almost interest Moscow population its as particular which the “area” of the /peace “area” the Russian ofwhich the

whom 71.6% were Russians and 22.4% were Ukrainians. Ukrainians. were 22.4% and Russians were whom 71.6% of people, of 400,000 a population had of town the Tatars, Crimean were 12% and Ukrainians were 24.3% of whom 58.3% Russians, were million, at 2.03 stood population of Crimea’s Republic Autonomous the indicates, of 2001 census the in gathered data the As tantly, mainly at the request of local congregations. congregations. of local request at the mainly tantly, it reluc use Patriarchy Moscow the to subordinated structures the matter, a fundamental as life church in of Ukrainian use the see Churches Orthodox “dissident” Ukraine’s though al that note to important it is analysis this paper. In of this scope the beyond is issue This dation. Compare www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/fund/about,MirFoun Russkiy the of ideology official the in explained clearly is of meaning duality This visited at 2.12.2011. russkiy mir 93 extends also to citizens of other of other citizens to also extends 92 . Crimea has been a subject a subject been has . Crimea ” was invented, to according ” was 94 and where they in large large in where they and ------another national language” (Art. 6). of language the (Art. of using language” The possibility national another – also “when and arises necessity Russian and obligation Ukrainian to know the under public organisations other and party the administration, state the it of places and officials nationalities” of other “languages among the status Republics”. Union of law special Socialist does Soviet not This accord Russian of the nations of communication the of inter-ethnic language the as Russian of use free the ensures SSR “Ukrainian the that communication” and ethnic of inter- of language “the status the languages) has other and Ukrainian with (along Russian that and Ukrainian is SSR Ukrainian the in language state the that Republic” states 1989 adopted on 28 Socialist Soviet Ukrainian the in Republic on languages Socialist Soviet The Ukrainian “Law of the 2. constitution. the to contradictory of are provisions its which not clear lawthe of commented below) 1989, on and effect (including was in it remained date to regulations language Therefore the constitution. the with legislation the given for was harmonising 1) (Chapter but XV, no deadline Ukraine” article of Republic) Constitution the force “are do not in wherecontradict they cialist So Soviet Ukrainian into force the in (also entering constitution prior this to laws adopted that stated provisions nication”. transitional the time same At the commu law, Soviet itin of not, is as “inter-ethnic and language the primacy”) “honorary but minority its this thesize of not reflects mentionedis separately it that (the fact minority of anational language the only is Russian language, state only the is Ukrainian that states of Ukraine constitution Therefore, the made not yet. been has law by a defined be to which are Details guaranteed”. is of Ukraine, minorities of national languages other and of development, protection Russian, free and use the Ukraine, “In that, and of Ukraine” territory entire the throughout life of spheres social all in language Ukrainian of comprehensive the the development functioning ensures and State “The continues that, further and language” Ukrainian the is Ukraine in language state “The However, nation. that, 10 states political article ofism this multilingual the recognises implicitly It therefore nationalities. of all Ukraine Nation ( Ukrainian the ble that pream the adopted in on June stated 1996, 28 ofThe Ukraine, Constitution 1. V. The lawThe on language The Constitution

LEGAL REGULATIONSLEGAL OF LANGUAGE ISSUES Ukrainsky narod Ukrainsky ) is composed of the citizens of composed) is citizens of the - - - - 43 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 44 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 , , , , , Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all all Estonia and Turkey, Latvia Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Albania, Georgia, Belgium, , Ireland, of since Europe Council by the made error litical apo as assessed be can Charter adopt the Ukraine of insisted Europe Council law, even though it is widely ignored, remains in force. in law, it even remains ignored, widely though is have not times, however old several led the it to adopted, and being dertaken un language, to work new the law onrelating acts; the Ukraine’s legal many to introduced were circuit official the in of exclusive use Ukrainian about the 97 96 95 Charter the as to referred (henceforth Languages or Minority for Regional Charter an of obliged itEurope, was Council Europe joined adoptto the the When Ukraine 3. taught” and norities mayused be mi (…) of language national state languages the along with establishments educational communal and state-owned In language. Ukrainian the is munal, com and state-owned education higher establishments, and technical and secondary, general vocational primary, nurseries, in language The teaching by law. regulated (…) are which life public of spheres other social in also and competences (…), their when bodies exercising authority local and authority state by the of Ukraine territory entire the of throughout communication dium obligatory me the is language state the as “Ukrainian that stipulated which 1999 December of 14 of Ukraine Court Constitutional ofson the for verdict the rea the was of Ukraine Constitution the law with ofThe this incompatibility is notemployed law.the term in this although language, ficial the of as used be to admitted that was it said be that can it so broadly defined was of public institutions activity the in admitted was of Ukrainian) instead not and (along of with use Russian the which scope in the time same At the villages). (towns and division administrative level basic of the to the restricted was minority belongs population this to of the majority where the a minority 1999 and ratified on 15 May 2003 by means lawof on May no.ratified 15 by 2003 means 802-IV 1999 and

The European Charter for or Regional Minority Languages Charter European The http://www.ccu.gov.ua/uk/doccatalog/list?currDir=9343, visited at 2.11.2011. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm. ver on formal grounds. grounds. on formal Court Constitutional the by invalidated was 1999 December 24 law of ratification The earlier ­sion. 96 ), adopted by the in 1992. Ukraine signed it signed on 2 May Ukraine ), 1992. of in Europe Council adopted by the 95 . On the basis of this verdict the provisions provisions the verdict of this basis the . On Further 97 . The fact that the the that . The fact quoted from this this ------99 98 it sign to refused which are no longer are atwhich used all by of groups used people over ahundred or languages languages to the tion to protec applied countries this (several Charter of protection the the under order for in be to it come to has group the doeshow not large state The Charter Charter. the provided for protection by the it what to grants extent and languages which decides to independently Charter of Hebrew. the and country signatory Each people, Romani of the languages to the to extend sible for Charter the it pos “non-territorial languages”, make to term the and mainly group of this thesize by “justified” be must Charter” provided for this in measures tional promo “ protective and the and various of agiven language, the uses which group of size the numerical of the criterion the introduces Charter the on, Further language(s) languagesmigrants. of the official Statethe or the of language(s) of thatState; official dialects the of itfrom does include not either State’s of rest the the (ii) and different population; than smaller numerically State who of form agroup that of aState by nationals agiven territory within used are: traditionally (i) that “languages as Charter the by defined are which languages minority and regional protect to is objective Charter of the The main language. minority the time same at is the language state its resolved be Charter: by cannot the which problem Ukraine, identical as an with struggling is country this as importance of is great position ofthe Ireland paper of this For purpose languages. the minority particular to Charter the by defined rights the not grant to did agree reasons forproblems and various tionally used by the majority of the country’s of majority the population. by the used tionally tradi language the to extend provided for protection Charter by the the can language), state of protection for the nor the basis the be cannot Charter the (since population its within a minority is country of the language state the uses appliedwhich where be agroup asituation in therefore cannot The Charter issues. on these not full in are sociology and guistics lin controversies, more that so of the political matter become the may easily not. The of assessment are these which and groups migration-based are groups which to establish as as well is and a what is language a what define to

e.g. in Poland – the Karaim and Tatar languages. languages. Tatar and Karaim – the Poland e.g. in France, , , Macedonia, , Russia, and . Azerbaijan. and Russia, Moldova, Macedonia, Herzegovina, and Italy, Bosnia France, , it: ratified far so not have countries following the signatories Charter’s the Among 98 . These countries (excepting Portugal) have serious language have language serious (excepting Portugal) . These countries 99 ). The Charter tacitly leaves tacitly it ). signatories its to The Charter - - - - - 45 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 46 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 100 minority” Jewish and Greek of the language “the terms the of of clarity lack the as well languages) as non-territorial to relating provisions have overlooked been of Ukraine’s result (which adopted not the the is having people Romani the home that regions). their fact the is attention What draws to languages the regional protection of confine Charter of signatories the are which countries of (the the majority territory whole the throughout Ukrainian languages these all protect it will declared it has thus and Hungarians” and Slovaks Romanians, Poles, Russians, German, Moldovans, Crimean-Tatars, Jews, Gagauz, , Belarusians, of Ukraine: minorities national lowing fol of the “languages the protect it will declared has Ukraine regard this In ( minorities” of the “languages the to refers text Ukrainian the of languages” “minority instead translated: key categories wrongly been had However, 2006. in Kyiv into force entered in Ukraine in one of The its Charter Ukraine. and twopost-Soviet by only ratified been countries: has Charter the a result, As for reflection. opportunity have should provided the of Ireland case the though intoslavia’s consideration, al taken been not apparently succession has states post-Soviet dialects). The of Yugo situation the and states Italian or countless languages regional as by recognised dialects (e.g.ties Lower-German nationali as do not consider themselves whose speakers languages local also are there minorities of national languages the to where and community) national/ethnic main the language of (the is language state/officialdominant the countries particular in where (except Europe Ireland) and ern for Belgium West in situation of the analysis by the were guided The Charter authors of the administration of state bodies. bodies. of state administration the in monopoly above –the of Ukrainian discussed Court Constitutional the of verdict the with line interpreter). –in move intended preserve to This was have to right an guaranteed replaced by the (they are bodies administration state by the languages these or using courts in minorities of the languages in conduct to trials possibility the including rights, language not adopted certain has provided for Charter, by the opportunities of use the made having Ukraine,

We give more information on Ukraine’s national and ethnic minorities in the Appendix. Appendix. the in minorities ethnic and national on Ukraine’s We information more give 100 . movy menshynmovy ). ). - - - - - as the state language and the lack of clarity of the term “ term of the of clarity lack the and language state the as of due Ukrainian to protection of aguarantee lack the Russian, to protection 103 102 101 2010 of in Regions Party by the submitted ument doc the been has date to draft The mostserious of Russian. primacy the teeing on guaran focused others while of Ukrainian primacy the on ensuring cused were fo of them asection times; many (the Parliament) of Ukraine Council Supreme the to have submitted been questions language to laws relating Drafts 4. mission the made by comments ComVenice critical the influence of the under part in this matter. matter. this in not is leadership unanimous its that it seems second language; of state the introduction the agenda demands and electoral its in languages” –two nation “one slogan the has of still Regions Party the Nevertheless, Charter. the under it case a would no such longerin that be protected reflection the from stems “second of the language” state status not given the been has Russian that fact the out that ruled be It cannot apply Russian-speakers. to above all will guages lan minority and of regional to speakers granted rights the all since Russian role of special no the is need accentuate to there that assumed apparently was element heritage. of It Ukraine’s national important an as bilingualism” ian Russian-Ukrain determined “historically the to referred and most citizens” by daily used language or the native language the is “Russian that stated ter of 2010. The lat draft the in case the been had position as itcording aspecial ac without of minorities” or languages languages one “regional of as the sian Rus treats language, role state only of the the Ukrainian guarantees The draft 2012. spring in Supreme at the Council brought be discussion under it will that state language policy” language state the rules of lawthethe of “On draft The final Rusyn. and Krymchak Karaim, languages: three additional an to for extended be to asked protection and sus cen the forthcoming in identification language and of ethnic criteria the ing mova

The new draft law on new languageThe draft 2.11.2011. ef.asp?L=E&OID=605, visited of 15.09.2011. http://www.venice.coe.int/site/dynamics/N_Opinion_ 7.01.2011, of 605/2010 no. Opinion No. 2.11.2011. at visited No.1015-3; http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id=&pf3511=38474, ”. of necessity improv the The emphasised equally Commission

9073, 102 . The main points of this criticism were: the granting of excessive granting were: the criticism of points this . The main

http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id=&pf3511=41018, 103 103 was submitted in 2011 and it can be expected expected be it can and 2011 August in submitted was native language native 101 , then corrected corrected , then

visited ridna /ridna

at ------47 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 48 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 of the counties the of possible: be one for in example will voted followingsituation been on, the has law the Thus after unit. administrative same the in languages administrative non-state of several introduction the against it does not provide for safeguards equal, as country of division the administrative levels of the the all treats draft government. The local the and administration forlocal way binding the is this it in applies that expressed adults). to only population ervation of the The will of (without 10% res at population least of the the signatures by the expressed unit, of population a given administrative of the will the is language state the with parallel in used be to one languages of introduction forthese uisite the 105 104 Krymchak and Karaim Rusyn, Hungarian, Slovak, Romani, ish, Pol Armenian, Greek, Modern Crimean-Tatar,Yiddish, Moldovan, German, Gagauz, Belarusian, Russian, following languages: to the law extends The draft army. the in only maintained been has ness of Ukrainian were removed. The exclusive advertising regarding regulations language and owners their be to decided by are left voice-over films screened in or subtitles of or question not whether dubbing, introduce to the and media the in portions pro The of issues language taught Ukrainian. be in only can literature its and language Ukrainian the that it stated clearly is and society” Ukrainian tion in integra ensure to sufficient is which extent “to the compulsory is Ukrainian teaching that reservation the but with of instruction language the ly choose free to right the guarantees The daft them. in issued be to for acts legal also and government bodies between correspondence in of use them the cluding in , authorities and by local languages administrative as used be to of minorities languages the and languages regional enables The draft definition. this to contrast stark in is native language” consider their to be they which language the choose right freely that to the states has “everyoneThe sified. norm which Rus entirely or almost entirely are which groups minority ofguage most small lan to relating rights the removes fact in definition This early childhood”. in learnt has person a which language “first the is The etc. group native language language the language, state the clearly defines time first for the The draft

mission. A brief outline of the nationalities in Ukraine is presented in the Appendix. Appendix. the in presented is Ukraine in nationalities of the outline Abrief mission. Venice Com the by put forward were which languages last three of the addition chanical me the and order alphabetical Ukrainian from excepted being Russian way, with this In In Ukrainian and Russian “”. Russian and Ukrainian In 105 of the Zakarpattia district several languages will be in force in be will languages several district Zakarpattia of the 104 . The prereq ------107 106 of development Ukrainian the lexicographic of the government support to by the made commitment above, the is discussed chenko Policy Yush of Concept of PresidentViktor State the Language of the demands implements some and of the community Ukrainian-speaking of the tations expec into consideration the takes which draft, element of the important An inconvenient government. be local for it the will reasons for certain where region the in of living 10% population of the will the recognise to refuse it intended provide to away is to likely quite draft; the in maintained been has census of the basis on the established groups” is of size language “regional the that The states provision which campaign. electoral the would coincide with it means which in 2012, supposedis be to held which the census of nificance sig political the may have limit to been change this objective of introducing The district. the in Romanian and district Zakarpattia the in ian duction Autonomous of Crimean-Tatar the in or Hungar , intro the and of Ukraine 13 to 27 districts of language the administrative an as of Russian compulsory, introduction the woulddoned mean immediate (this aban was results of census basis on the directly languages administrative as of minorities languages the intention of earlier introducing the draft the In languages. county as Romani and Slovak and language, district the as , state the as Ukrainian time: same at the ing, quasi-constitutional character quasi-constitutional ing, intended to haveoverrid an therefore is to language Theissues. law relating these regulates which act legal only the as recognised was language to relating law laws, the of since provisions these amended removed the from was tution consti law the to etc.). made cinematography reference the the Nevertheless, law, education codes, law, the status (procedure civil language the ministrative ad of the norms the featuring acts legal other in of appropriate amendments introduction the includes complexity its which is draft point of strong One the practice. administrative in used dictionaries) spelling (including dictionaries

not introduced the hierarchisation or “categorisation” of laws. of laws. or “categorisation” hierarchisation the introduced not has of Ukraine constitution the as term a legal not is way. However, a comprehensive this in life of social sphere agiven regulates ofthat alaw status aspecial to referring as interpreted be may which used, law) often is (basic zakon” “bazovy term the publications Ukrainian In no 10,2010. no Nedeli Zerkalo Ukrainy, katamaran Yazykovy Danshyn, Nikolai Compare: of Ukraine. ences of Sci Academy National at the science physical and science of life works the in language predominant the still is Russian dictionaries, specialist of number insufficient the to Due 107 . This intention is confirmed by the words by intention confirmed is . This 106 106 and validating such such validating and ------, 49 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 50 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 the use of some kind of affirmative action. action. of of affirmative use some kind the requires development the life; of Ukrainian of sphere social the in increasing presence of Russian contribute to the will Ukraine in of language eralisation Russian). fluentlyHowever,speak lib ofthe Ukraine citizens all that demand to the principle equates (this language” own only their use groups language where particular situation the to contrast in languages, several speaks freely 109 108 become setto is contract” a“newlanguage social to lawof authors, relating one Vadym draft’s the of the that Kolesnichenko, the “principlethe of plurilingualism” for in example manifested is which (post)modern, and liberal very is The draft work administration. the state of in public the and sphere the in of Russian presence of the extension not if the but preservation on languages the regional of notprotection on focused is the draft discussed the no doubtsthat There are

Rada Evropy vymahaye priyniattia zakonu “Pro movy v Ukraini”, Holos Ukrainy, vUkraini”, movy “Pro zakonu priyniattia vymahaye Evropy Rada An exact translation of the original neologism. neologism. original of the translation exact An 109 109 which states that “each member of society “each of society member that states which 108 . 5.10.2010. - guage rights guage lan have violation any to notof they subject their been that claim respondents of the 84.5% (as much as grounds on language against discriminated being are they does not think and does not seeitimportant society as of the majority The vast politicised. ideologised and strongly is itself issue language the and 3. state. of a democratic standards the and compatible with effective both Kyiv would in be aform that in established have been not far so measures these of protection for it). the basis the be Nevertheless, cannot Charter the though as a principle (al justified are use its extend to and Ukrainian order protect to in state the by provisions).undertaken Charter’s the efforts Therefore the with deprived (in line language, ofsupport role state of to the a regional Ukraine in community. It Ukrainian even could lead relegating to Ukrainian-speaking of the rights human the threatening to and state of the attributes symbolic cial of one cru of the undermining may contribute the to Ukraine public in life of role its in growth or even afurther only Russian to rights” full “Granting seeking. are what they exactly is this of bilingualism champions for of the asection at least that it appears And monolingualism. of Russian-speaking establishment the to lead may easily bilingualism Russian-Ukrainian indeed relevant: ment seems of spheres argu public This other life. in also of Ukrainian marginalisation the to lead will the former that argument the by justified commonly are dia me the in of Ukrainian “positive of the demand discrimination” the and guage 2. rights. of human and state of the functioning pragmatic of the grounds the both on justified issphere, official the in public also in life, used be to Russian implemented). fully be Therefore, it will allowing that of education (assuming Ukrainisation the through changed or easily instruments of political means by eliminated be cannot one politics, of which state turns and twists the to it no adurable is doubt is phenomenon, that there resistant shows that Ukraine independence of 20 forsituation. years language the of differentiation gional 110 1. CONCLUSIONS

The role of language in the self-identification of Ukrainians is overstated is overstated self-identification The the role in ofof Ukrainians language The opposition to the establishment of Russian as the second official lan second official the as of Russian The establishment opposition the to The phenomenon of bilingualism in Ukraine is a fact, as is the strong re strong the is as afact, is Ukraine in The phenomenon of bilingualism Russkiy yazyk v Ukraine bez emotsiy,cit op. bez vUkraine yazyk Russkiy 110 ), although when applying European standards one can point to one can ), standards when applying although European . ------51 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 52 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 evitable and sooner or later it will have implemented. be to it sooner If or involved it later and evitable will a real solution in becoming is this unrealistic, is Ukraine publicin from life sian of Rus removal the since country. of Furthermore, the part in administration public the in atool used as of Russian legalisation the howeveris What is real state’s identity, powerUkraine. in symbolic even forces for currently the concession of sphere the it the because would in a far-reaching and be gans) slo separatist use to as far (going as of Ukraine part western opposition the in one since violent may anticipate even be to more unrealistic appears language second state the as of Russian The establishment unrealistic. equally seems territory Ukrainian entire the throughout ofThe bilingualism introduction Moscow’s would needed be counterbalance to which opposition it. to an action, support forsuch Kyivinternational the would not find Furthermore, weak. too it are with linked economic interests the and faint too a process are forces endorse could such which societal the since would not guaranteed be even success so and regime by atotalitarian it undertaken be only could istic: unreal is possible, Ukrainisation aconsistent theoretically are duction which 5. recent years. in momentum gathering movement been has chauvinist Russian where the itself in Ukraine a following finds pressure policy,language this even more that so former Empire, forces of the Kyiv active reintegration an political pursue to and of symbolic instrument an be to considers language which Russia, from it if were not for Moscow’s culture, high preciate policy. pressure The constant ap to capacity the one) limits Russian and the and Ukrainian the (both norm linguistic of the blurring the to leads state, of the functioning the hinders ism of formula bilingual current the that fact even the subject, overlookto this afford that does howeveris important. it notKyiv could notsignificant mean 4. society. in representaminority they together not mainly, if only, put and –exist elite among the Ukraine Russian-speaking and Ukraine the Ukrainian-speaking – other each to if not hostile conflict, in are which The tool of “two Ukraines” dominion. pression ideological the and of ex instrument the both is for whom Russian) language the ones than ian for (to extent Ukrain agreater circles nationalist and elite intellectual for the of is,however, education. issue The area important language the exceptionally in particularly citizens, of 2004) Russian-speaking (after discrimination the When one considers the solutions to the language issue outlined in the intro the in outlined issue Whensolutions language one considers the to the The fact that the majority of society does not consider the language issue as as issue language does not consider of the society majority the that The fact ------will be the tolerance of the current “unofficial bilingualism”. bilingualism”. “unofficial current of tolerance the the be will years coming for the scenario mostlikely the issue position on this a clear-cut take to for years, apparent been Kyiv many of the has which elite, reluctance the and factors these to Due interests. own their players forward push which of market pressure the it reinforces hand other on the and discussion tional prevents ara and rise to dispute of the temperature it the causes one hand the uniform solution as on any to introduce it more difficult makes issue guage 6. be itof advantage communities, would definitely to Ukraine. of local of the establishment the and state of the decentralisation The growing importance of the economic and symbolic factors in the lan the in factors economic symbolic of and the importance The growing TA z A. O deusz A. z ls a ń ski - - 53 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 54 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 was Russian and 17.5% declared that Ukrainian was their native language their was Ukrainian 17.5% and that Russian was declared it said 65.2% native language, their as Belarusian recognised Belarusians ian live. of where 19.8% they population Ukrain the with themselves integrating easily of immigrants characteristic is which assimilation by their explained is censuses the between period the in Belarusians are they that people declaring of number the in The decline of 28,000 only Belarusians). are there Belarus bordering (in districts minority not anational and of agroup immigrants are tricts dis Dnipropetrovsk Donetsk, the in numbers largest the concentrated in are Belarusians ian by 10.7%. ian by 17.6% Moldovans, Russian Ukrain and by 70% ofnative language Ukrainian the as recognised Moldovan Moldovans. was as of themselves think century munity which lived in the lands of the at the end of the 18 of end atthe Empire the Russian of the lands lived the which in munity com the in those whereas Romanians, be to themselves Empire, declare ian once which belonged Austro-Hungar the to , in living those nature: of is ahistorical Romanians and Moldovans between The distinction tlement. Moldovan set historical the constitute which lands notbia, the Bukovina), in Bessara to belonging historically part, (its eastern district Chernivtsi the in majority, a relative constitute also and one they counties where in of the trict, Moldovans 112 111 of 2001 census by the determined size numerical of their order the presented in are These nationalities of them. present outline a brief to it of justified is propaganda, terms in often and legally Russians with footing equal on an treated are they As of immigrants. communities and minorities national up both make they Ukraine; in living minorities national smaller en afew doz and of 16 larger members are there Russians and Besides Ukrainians Ukraine in nationalities The Append

perepisi naseleniya, Moskva 1991 and www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results, visited at 4.08.2004. visited www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results, and 1991 Moskva naseleniya, perepisi vsesoyuznoy dannym po SSSR naseleniya sostav Natsyonalny after: data The census sus, particularly members of mixed families, declared a different native language. language. native adifferent declared families, of mixed members particularly sus, cen the to subject people of the part since 100% represent not does data the below and Here

and in the of Crimea). In the vast majority they Autonomous they the in majority Republicand vast of Crimea). the In i (259,000; in 1989, 324,000). They live above all in the dis Odessa (259,000; the 324,000). 1989, in They in live above all x (276,000; in 1989, 440,000). They live across the country (they(276,000; 440,000). 1989, in country They the live across 111 . 112 . th ------

declarations of Polishness results from the assimilation (reinforced by the by the (reinforced assimilation the from of results Polishness declarations in decrease Asubstantial language. the than by the rather Ukraine) exceptionof western the (with Polishness with were linked and peasants) (lower former Polishor population of nobility the descendants the They are dispersed. greatly are they districts these all in and Lviv and districts, nytsky Poles 6.2% Ukrainian. and 1.5% Russian indicated Romanians, of Ukrainian by 91.7% native language the as declared was Moldovan Romanian nationality. people the indicated who earlier of certain declarations the in change of the consequence may possibly population the be of their number the in increase The settlement. Romanian historical of the lands on the district, Zakarpattia absolute representan majority, they counties the two where in in and trict, Romanians Ukrainian. indicated 3.4% and it Russian be to clared 1% native language, de their be to Hungarian declared Hungarians Ukrainian of 95.4% population. of up the majority arelative make ones they further two absolute in and an majority constitute they one In county settlement. garian Hun historical of the lands on the district, Zakarpattia belt of the southern Hungarians by 5%. by 30.3% chosen was Ukrainian Russian and Bulgarians, Ukrainian of by 64.2% native language the as indicated was minority. Bulgarian tional ants of the refugees from the end of the 18 of end the the refugees from of the ants majority. a counties relative descend other two the Theyin are and majority absolute representan one they counties where in of the district, Odessa of the Bulgarians 0.1% Ukrainian. indicated and 6.1%Russian it native language, said was Crimean-Tatar their as ognised rec Tatars Crimean Moscow. group in alarge quite and 92% of Ukrainian live in still of them number censuses); the acertain between riod the in Tatars of Crimean number the huge in the increase (which explains of end at1980s the Crimea to returning started and Central to expelled were they Mongolian 1944 conquest. In before the peninsula of the part ern south the inhabited which nationalities of the descendants the part large in of population Crimea, traditional the They are district. lives the in of group them asmall Autonomous Sevastopol, the in and Republic of Crimea Tatars Crimean (144,000; in 1989, 219,000). 1989, , in the Khmel in They live (144,000; mainly (205,000; in 1989, 234,000). They live mainly in the eastern part part eastern the in 234,000). 1989, (205,000; in They live mainly (151,000; in 1989, 134,000). They live mainly in the Chernivtsi dis Chernivtsi (151,000; the 134,000). 1989, in in They live mainly (157,000; 163,000). 1989, in the exclusively in They live almost (248,000; in 1989, 47,000). 1989, in (248,000; exclusively in They live almost th century, nowadays they are ana are century, nowadays they ------55 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 56 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 by Russia at the end of the 18 of end atthe by the Russia here displaced Greeks, of Crimean descendants the They are district. Donetsk Greeks by 5.8%. Ukrainian by and 43.2% indicated was Russian , of50.4% Ukrainian by native language the be to declared was Armenian immigration. for by their accounted be can censuses the between period the in number their in increase An towns. in They live dispersed, of region Podillia. the from Armenians mer of for descendants the extent aminimal to are they and of immigrants nity Armenians Ukrainian. indicated 13.4% and native language their be to Russian native, 83%as declared “own” was) (we their that language what to do not language as have data any “coming identity Jewish Jews). Jews out” declared as their 3.1% of Ukrainian ongoing an people process was of concealed many who earlier ously there had simultane as reveals data of comparison the the than larger (its scope was immigration mass by their explained be of Jews number can the in fall matic community started only at the end of end at20 only the started community Turkicbelong to the promotion their group; in Greek the of language Modern which or Urumian, Urum and Greek, Byzantine from stems which ica Greek Hebrew became increasingly learned towards the end of end 20 the towards learned increasingly Hebrew became while Yiddish, was language traditional Their Ukraine. southern and eastern Jews Ukrainian. 71% and cated Russian, Polish to be by, native language their Poles 15.6% indi declared of Ukrainian 12.9% Russian. than Poles Ukrainian adopt to tend rather Ukraine in minority Slovaks) (along only national the with As Poland. to immigration from partly and Ukraine) in underway still Church Catholic Roman of the Ukrainisation and 4.5% stated it was Ukrainian. Ukrainian. it stated was 4.5% and native language was), their as this 88.5% enumerated Russian indicated three “own” of (we their the language language language which to have as no data native their as recognised Greeks of Ukrainian 6.4% soon. quite extinct be will they that oldest bygenerationit only nowadays the used mayexpected and be (103,000; 486,000). 1989, in They live Kyiv of in towns (18,000) the in and (91,000; in 1989, 98,000). They live mainly in the southern part of the of the part (91,000; southern 98,000). 1989, in the in They live mainly (100,000; in 1989, 54,000). In Ukraine Armenians are acommu are Armenians (100,000; Ukraine 54,000). 1989, In in th century. Their traditional languages are Rumai are languages century. traditional Their th century. Rumaiica and Urumian are are Urumian and century. Rumaiica th century. Adra ------113 7.1% and Ukrainian. Russian indicated 37.6% it said was , of them of by 53% Ukrainian native language the be to reported was group, not mobile. deeply very Azerbaijani and rooted immigrant an They are district. Odessa the in and Crimea in of them many Azeris by 20.8%. Hungarian) ‘other’ by 21.1% and (mainly indicated was Ukrainian by 13.4%, declared language), was not is one Romani one, Russian single which there “own” (it their not stated language was reported Romanis of Ukrainian 44.7% census. the possibly, and, during some Romanis Hungarian) by not reaching (particularly nationalities other declaring and district) Zakarpattia the from (mainly by rate, explained is forcommunity, birth high its known of their live. of place whereThe growth they the lack change often they part large in districts; Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa the in also districts, Chernivtsi Romanis by 4.5%. Ukrainian by 58.7% and indicated was Russian Tatars, of by 35.2% Ukrainian native language the be to declared was minority. Tatar considered anational be to as established well so Republic not They (thehowever present are ). Socialist mous Soviet Autono Tatar the from of migrants descendants the ofa group immigrants, Autonomous They the are Sevastopol. in and Republic Tatars ofmany Crimea also are there district, Donetsk concentrated the is are where they regions the Tatars migration to the Russian Empire (except for Zakarpattia). 12.2% of Ukrainian of Ukrainian 12.2% (except Empire for Russian Zakarpattia). the to migration im of consecutive waves descendants of the German They are population. arural is which district Zakarpattia the in group asmall is there Ukraine; Germans it Ukrainian. be to 8.2% declared and Russian it indicated was 54.5% native language, their was Georgian that reported Georgians group, not deeply 36.7% rooted of immigrant Ukrainian an

2002, p. 19 and other sources. Official census publications do not provide these data. data. these provide not do publications census Official sources. other p. 19 and 2002, Wrocław iwspółczesność, Tradycje Ukrainy. narodowościowej polityki Koncepcje W. Baluk, after: 30,000 below apopulation with on nationalities data census the below and Here (45,000; in 1989, 37,000). They live in towns, dispersed; there are quite quite 37,000). 1989, (45,000; in are there dispersed; They live towns, in (73,000; in 1989, 87,000). They live mainly in industrial centres, one centres, of 87,000). 1989, in (73,000; industrial in They live mainly (45,000; in 1989, 48,000). They live mainly in the Zakarpattia and and Zakarpattia 48,000). 1989, (45,000; the in in They live mainly (33,000; in 1989, 38,000). They live mainly in the towns of eastern of eastern 38,000). 1989, towns in the in (33,000; They live mainly (34,000; in 1989, 23,000. 1989, in (34,000; 113 ). They live in towns, dispersed. They are They). are dispersed. They live towns, in - -

57 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 58 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 stitute a relic of the Czech colonisation Czech of of Volyn the arelic 19stitute the in Czechs Ukrainian. indicated 41.2% and Russian it said was 5.2% native language, their be to Slovak declared Slovaks of Ukrainian 41.2% into contact. came settlements Ukrainian and Slovak where the area historical the in district, Zakarpattia of the part Slovaks language. to law relating Ukrainian of the draft of process of the consultation the ing Venice of the interest dur Commission the sparked of two them Ukraine; in minorities national are about four which groups IpresentBelow information 6,000),and reans (11,000 and 7,000), 12,000),tively 20,000 and Mordvins were: were: The most represented Ukraine. in immigrants are they former USSR, ofties the 177,000 (in 431,000). 1989, en) totalled nationali representother Most of them Members of otherMembers nationalities by 3.5%. Ukrainian and by of 22.7% indicated them was Gagauz, Russian Ukrainian of71.5% the autonomy. by native language the be to declared The was minority. Most Gagauz live a Moldovanational in enjoystitute where they in 1989, 882). They live in Crimea (and also in Lithuania, Poland and ). Poland and 882). 1989, in Lithuania, in (and also They live Crimea in Crimea; people, in 650 at 1,200 including approximately number their tablish Karaims Ukrainised. thoroughly likely most are they missing; is identification linguistic aboutmation their Second World the who survived for left The ). War infor there of 18 of end the refugees from of the descendants the They are Orthodox. tionally tradi whose is religion It aTurkic-speaking is nationality district. Odessa Gagauz Ukrainian. it 22.1% said was and Russian it was that reported 66.7% of native language, them their as German indicated Germans th (9,000 and 13,000), (9,000 and Udmurts century from the lands of present-day Bulgaria; currently they con they of currently present-day lands the from Bulgaria; century the Chuvash the (5,800; in 1989, 6,100). They live mainly in the Volyn district and con 6,100). and 1989, Volyn in the in (5,800; They district live mainly (32,000; in 1989, 32,000). They live mainly in the eastern part of the of the part eastern 32,000). 1989, the in in They (32,000; live mainly (6,400; in 1989, 7,900). 1989, in (6,400; western the exclusively in They live almost or Crimean or Karaites (in 20,000; 1989, below 2001, 5,000), in (8,000 and below 5,000) and (8,000 below 5,000)and and (10,000 and 5,000), Czechs (there is no census data for 2011— estimates es for data 2011— estimates no is census (there (over a hundred, the exact figure was not giv not was figure (over exact the ahundred, (8,000 and below 5,000), (19,000 below 5,000), and th (9,000 and 6,000), (9,000 and Ko century (most Czechs (most Czechs century (7,000 and 5,000). Slovaks (respec (8,000 ------

Ukrainian ethnic area until the mid-20 the until area ethnic Ukrainian the borders of the western in themselves,preserved was it defined Belarusians and Ukrainians which way pre-national in traditional, the is The term of RusynsThe status language. this speaks anybody still Crimea in rently cur doubts whether serious it. There are speak could they 25 people declared further and native language their was peopleTatar. 125 Krymchak 1989 In said Crimean- to close was which language own They formerlyJudaism. their used Rabbinic is religion group, their ethno-religious Israel). upin an They make ber at from 200 to 500 people; 500 to at 200 604) 1989, ber from in language. this speaks anybody still Crimea in currently doubtswhether serious it. There are speak could they said Karaims other 18 native language, their be to Karaim declared Karaims Crimean 96 1989, In of this area still today. 20 ofend the the Towards still area of this clared themselves to be Rusyns (or Carpatho-Rusyns Rusyns to be themselves clared Poland de and , from population Zakarpattia, Ukrainian 115 114 19 the in already Karaims es; Crimean of group Turkic languag the from language own their merly used they for pre-rabbinic is , religion group, their ethno-religious an They are the recognition of the as a ). In the census of language). census the aregional In as language Rusyn of the recognition the (which lead should to minority Kyiv from of face protests anational the –as –in Rusyns recognised council district Zakarpattian the 2007 In etc. schools organisations, national Rusyn are there district Zakarpattia the In languages. of standard status the developedbeen reach to have frequently dialects however such justified, is premise latter of the view point linguistic the From Charter). not by (and the protected thus Ukrainian of autonomous well-developedan aquite it or dialect just whether is language is language Rusyn the whether to as Slavic no There is unanimity nation. East

introduced in order to avoid misunderstandings in regard to the former name. name. former the to regard in avoid to misunderstandings order in introduced probably was Krymchaks Theterm Crimea. in lived who also Jews European Eastern and them between adistinction make to Jews” “Crimean called were Krymchaks papers older In 20 of the beginning at US the the in established was project” “national The Carpatho-Rusyn th century. (there is no census data for 2011—estimates establish their num their for establish data 2011—estimates no is census (there as a contemporary ethnic or national group is debatable. is group or national ethnic acontemporary as th * century spoke mainly Crimean-Tatar. spoke mainly century th century and survives in some parts some in parts survives and century 114 . They live in Crimea (and also (and also . They live Crimea in th century a small part of the of the part a small century 115 ) as a distinct, fourth fourth adistinct, ) as - - - - -

59 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 60 OSW STUDIES 05/2012 Ukraine, the region already not strongly linked with the rest of the country. of rest the the with linked not strongly already region the Ukraine, with ties Zakarpattia’s would weaken which nation, and language ment of this develop may accelerate the language Rusyn to the Charter the under tection not considerable). (evenhigher it still though is pro of Apossible the extension (not times “simply several is Rusyns”) not Ukrainians thus and Rusyns be to it of leaves people number who the noertheless doubt consider themselves that Nev nationality. Rusyn (0.8%) population 2001 10,000 district’s declared of the compiled Olszański by Tadeusz A. - - -

Centre for Eastern Studies Publication series

The Centre for Eastern Studies Point of View – short analytical studies (OSW) is an expert institution that presenting the opinions of our experts monitors and analyses the political, on current policy issues, published in Polish economic and social situation and in English. in Russia, the , , Central and , OSW Studies – large analytical studies Germany and the . devoted to political, social and economic processes taking place OSW was founded in 1990 and is in OSW’s area of interest; published in Polish fully financed from the state budget. and in English. In 2006 the Centre was named in honour of its founder Marek Karp. OSW newsletters

Our studies are addressed mainly EASTWEEK – a weekly analytical newsletter to state institutions including the on Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus Chancellery of the President of the and Central Asia (published in Polish Republic of Poland, the Chancellery as Tydzień na Wschodzie). of the Prime Minister, ministries and government agencies, as well as the CEWEEKLY (Central European Weekly) – and Senate of the Republic a weekly analytical newsletter on the Baltic of Poland. States, , Germany and the Balkans (published in Polish as BEST OSW). We are particularly active in discussions concerning the OSW Commentary – a series of more ’s Eastern Policy, in-depth analyses concerning the most challenges to energy security, important events and developments in our as well as the political, social and area of interest (published in Polish economic transformation processes as Komentarze OSW). in countries neighbouring Poland. OSW newsletters are available free of charge, subject to subscription Many of our publications are available online at: osw.waw.pl