This puts a lot of the seemingly kitsch Donetsk symbolism during the civil war in Donbass in perspective. If you were once the heart of Russophone proletarian cosmopolitanism, Soviet nostalgia would be prevalent. Or that locals would strike and revolt against the centre whether in 1993 or 2014. A tragedy that every time that momentum was co-opted by incompetent politicians and oligarchs.
I wonder why a similar sentiment never rose politically in Dnepropetrovsk. The anti-Maidan in Dnepropetrovsk never hit news in the same way as e.g. aborted attempts in Odessa or Kharkov. I suppose it's the engineering middle-class going for the next 'pragmatic' solution to the problem of economic stagnation? Or I might be just seeing the elite view and locals didn't feel the same.
My question is how come Kravchuk let western Ukrainian identity to become culturally mainstream despite the region's economic weakness? But it seems that alternatives were present, whether 'Little Russian' or 'Soviet' as per Petro and Ishchenko respectively. Is it the Ukrainian diaspora's competitive advantage combined with idealising the west or purely a lack of counter-organisation?
An incredible overview! Very perceptive and informative!
Post-1991, the eastern economic elite essentially made a deal, giving cultural policy over to nationalists from the capital and the west. The Donetsk elite in particular were notorious for not caring about ideology at all. This would come back to bite them in the future
Very interesting and clear summary and overview. Thanks a lot. This makes it really understandable about the factors (economic and political power) that led to factions and clans amongst the Ukrainian elite, and what makes the circumstances different for Ukraine compared to Russia and Belarus.
I'm only asking why he doesn't use the standard for the writing of names of foreign cities in English. If he applied this standard -- of using the names of the predominant local language rather than the internationally accepted name (which today is Kyiv) -- everywhere, that would be different. (It would be very unique and awkward, and I'd be surprised if his work got published anywhere except in his personal Substack.) But if he only applies this to Ukraine, then he should clarify why he does this. The obvious implication is that he agrees with Putin's (and other Russians') imperial narrative -- that Kyiv/Kiev is the "mother of Russian cities," etc. Whether he is "literally from Kiev" or not is irrelevant.
I have lived in Kiev/Kyiv and know that most people there have historically not described their city
as "Kiev." They have either called it "Kиев" or "Київ," depending on the historical period. After the Russian empire's banning of written Ukrainian, and later Stalin's decimation of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, the choice of speaking and writing in Ukrainian became a political one, so it should not be surprising that today most Kyivans would write "Kyiv" (if and when they write in English). This is an empirical question, one that the anonymous author of Events in Ukraine hasn't, to my knowledge, addressed. If he is making a pro-Russian choice, he should be upfront about it and should be willing to defend it. I'll await his response.
It's my personal substack, and it feels more natural to me to use the name I used when speaking with locals there. In other publications, I'm happy to use whatever other name people want to use, as I don't find it a particularly interesting topic.
" I use the Russian spelling for cities whose residents mainly speak Russian, and the Ukrainian spelling for cities such as Lviv, which mainly speak Russian)": So when you write about Europe, do you write only about München, not Munich; Roma, not Rome; Lisboa, not Lisbon; and Mосква rather than Moscow? (And presumably also only about Suisse, Deutschland, and Belgique, not Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium?) Or do you apply that standard -- of using the names of cities only in the language predominantly spoken there during an unspecified historical period (the one you like best, which in Kyiv's case would be the modern Russophone period) -- only to Ukraine? If the latter, does it deserve special treatment because you dislike its government and the standards it has embraced for international recognition, whereas you agree with and support all of the others? Or it is simply because you favor the imperialist historical narrative of its authoritarian neighbor, taking sides with it (to the point of this kind of symbolic pro-Putinist "virtue signaling") at a time of war between the two?
He is literally from Kiev, Ukraine. He tells many stories of living there. So he knows how it's called by the people who actually live there. There are many Russian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in the former eastern Donbass regions.
I do think it's a typo in what he said in the last word here: "I use the Russian spelling for cities whose residents mainly speak Russian, and the Ukrainian spelling for cities such as Lviv, which mainly speak Ukrainian". Lviv is in the West part of Ukraine where more people speak Ukrainian.
I don't understand your aggression and actually I feel a bit sorry for how you've made yourself look. Typical Westerners getting worked up trying to make themselves look good only to actually make themselves look utterly ludicrous. It's an amusing Western trait.
The only virtue-signalling is by many Westerners who don't actually live in Ukraine—and in fact many of whom, from the United States for example, can't even place Ukraine on a map— who want to make themselves look good by saying "Kyiv".
Thank you for your kind comment. For reference, I was not born in the city, but visited it many times and eventually moved there to be closer with my father. I was born in another country, a country which has no relation to the languages I speak or my parents' nationality. I do not particularly identify with a nationality.
As a note, Ukraine remains a bilingual country, where the crushing majority of the citizens speak both Ukrainian and Russian as their mother tongues. Thus, both city names are still in use. Despite the evident shift towards Ukrainian due to the invasion, that bilingualism is very much there, as are regional splits in preferred use of language at home.
It's more of a 'Istanbul or Constantinople' situation as opposed to a 'New Zealand or Aotearoa' one. Frankly, the whole language question was more of a fuel for culture wars in Ukraine and scoring cheap political points over substantive policies while most people were perfectly happy being bilingual. Much better to be left to the dustbin of history.
If you ask me, having multiple names for a city is an indication of its rich history and grandeur. Istanbul was Constantinople, Konstantiniyye, Miklagard, Czargrad precisely because of its importance for so many cultures and peoples. Ukraine's many cities are no different, and not just with Russian and Ukrainian cultures; such pluriculturalism is a cause for celebration.
Personally, I think people should be free to call cities however they like. I am in favor of multiculturalism and multilingualism. I don't think the naming decisions of my substack have any influence on the decisions of Mr Putin.
Multiculturalism, multilingualism, and pluriculturalism are all very good, and no one is taking away your freedom from calling cities however you like; just asking for a rationale. Likewise, no one has suggested that your naming decisions have any influence on Mr Putin; the question is the other way around (not necessarily Putin's direct influence on you so much as Russian imperialism's influence on you). Anyway, thanks for responding.
This puts a lot of the seemingly kitsch Donetsk symbolism during the civil war in Donbass in perspective. If you were once the heart of Russophone proletarian cosmopolitanism, Soviet nostalgia would be prevalent. Or that locals would strike and revolt against the centre whether in 1993 or 2014. A tragedy that every time that momentum was co-opted by incompetent politicians and oligarchs.
I wonder why a similar sentiment never rose politically in Dnepropetrovsk. The anti-Maidan in Dnepropetrovsk never hit news in the same way as e.g. aborted attempts in Odessa or Kharkov. I suppose it's the engineering middle-class going for the next 'pragmatic' solution to the problem of economic stagnation? Or I might be just seeing the elite view and locals didn't feel the same.
My question is how come Kravchuk let western Ukrainian identity to become culturally mainstream despite the region's economic weakness? But it seems that alternatives were present, whether 'Little Russian' or 'Soviet' as per Petro and Ishchenko respectively. Is it the Ukrainian diaspora's competitive advantage combined with idealising the west or purely a lack of counter-organisation?
An incredible overview! Very perceptive and informative!
Post-1991, the eastern economic elite essentially made a deal, giving cultural policy over to nationalists from the capital and the west. The Donetsk elite in particular were notorious for not caring about ideology at all. This would come back to bite them in the future
Very interesting and clear summary and overview. Thanks a lot. This makes it really understandable about the factors (economic and political power) that led to factions and clans amongst the Ukrainian elite, and what makes the circumstances different for Ukraine compared to Russia and Belarus.
I'm only asking why he doesn't use the standard for the writing of names of foreign cities in English. If he applied this standard -- of using the names of the predominant local language rather than the internationally accepted name (which today is Kyiv) -- everywhere, that would be different. (It would be very unique and awkward, and I'd be surprised if his work got published anywhere except in his personal Substack.) But if he only applies this to Ukraine, then he should clarify why he does this. The obvious implication is that he agrees with Putin's (and other Russians') imperial narrative -- that Kyiv/Kiev is the "mother of Russian cities," etc. Whether he is "literally from Kiev" or not is irrelevant.
I have lived in Kiev/Kyiv and know that most people there have historically not described their city
as "Kiev." They have either called it "Kиев" or "Київ," depending on the historical period. After the Russian empire's banning of written Ukrainian, and later Stalin's decimation of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, the choice of speaking and writing in Ukrainian became a political one, so it should not be surprising that today most Kyivans would write "Kyiv" (if and when they write in English). This is an empirical question, one that the anonymous author of Events in Ukraine hasn't, to my knowledge, addressed. If he is making a pro-Russian choice, he should be upfront about it and should be willing to defend it. I'll await his response.
It's my personal substack, and it feels more natural to me to use the name I used when speaking with locals there. In other publications, I'm happy to use whatever other name people want to use, as I don't find it a particularly interesting topic.
" I use the Russian spelling for cities whose residents mainly speak Russian, and the Ukrainian spelling for cities such as Lviv, which mainly speak Russian)": So when you write about Europe, do you write only about München, not Munich; Roma, not Rome; Lisboa, not Lisbon; and Mосква rather than Moscow? (And presumably also only about Suisse, Deutschland, and Belgique, not Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium?) Or do you apply that standard -- of using the names of cities only in the language predominantly spoken there during an unspecified historical period (the one you like best, which in Kyiv's case would be the modern Russophone period) -- only to Ukraine? If the latter, does it deserve special treatment because you dislike its government and the standards it has embraced for international recognition, whereas you agree with and support all of the others? Or it is simply because you favor the imperialist historical narrative of its authoritarian neighbor, taking sides with it (to the point of this kind of symbolic pro-Putinist "virtue signaling") at a time of war between the two?
He is literally from Kiev, Ukraine. He tells many stories of living there. So he knows how it's called by the people who actually live there. There are many Russian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in the former eastern Donbass regions.
I do think it's a typo in what he said in the last word here: "I use the Russian spelling for cities whose residents mainly speak Russian, and the Ukrainian spelling for cities such as Lviv, which mainly speak Ukrainian". Lviv is in the West part of Ukraine where more people speak Ukrainian.
I don't understand your aggression and actually I feel a bit sorry for how you've made yourself look. Typical Westerners getting worked up trying to make themselves look good only to actually make themselves look utterly ludicrous. It's an amusing Western trait.
The only virtue-signalling is by many Westerners who don't actually live in Ukraine—and in fact many of whom, from the United States for example, can't even place Ukraine on a map— who want to make themselves look good by saying "Kyiv".
Thank you for your kind comment. For reference, I was not born in the city, but visited it many times and eventually moved there to be closer with my father. I was born in another country, a country which has no relation to the languages I speak or my parents' nationality. I do not particularly identify with a nationality.
Calm down dear
As a note, Ukraine remains a bilingual country, where the crushing majority of the citizens speak both Ukrainian and Russian as their mother tongues. Thus, both city names are still in use. Despite the evident shift towards Ukrainian due to the invasion, that bilingualism is very much there, as are regional splits in preferred use of language at home.
It's more of a 'Istanbul or Constantinople' situation as opposed to a 'New Zealand or Aotearoa' one. Frankly, the whole language question was more of a fuel for culture wars in Ukraine and scoring cheap political points over substantive policies while most people were perfectly happy being bilingual. Much better to be left to the dustbin of history.
If you ask me, having multiple names for a city is an indication of its rich history and grandeur. Istanbul was Constantinople, Konstantiniyye, Miklagard, Czargrad precisely because of its importance for so many cultures and peoples. Ukraine's many cities are no different, and not just with Russian and Ukrainian cultures; such pluriculturalism is a cause for celebration.
Personally, I think people should be free to call cities however they like. I am in favor of multiculturalism and multilingualism. I don't think the naming decisions of my substack have any influence on the decisions of Mr Putin.
Multiculturalism, multilingualism, and pluriculturalism are all very good, and no one is taking away your freedom from calling cities however you like; just asking for a rationale. Likewise, no one has suggested that your naming decisions have any influence on Mr Putin; the question is the other way around (not necessarily Putin's direct influence on you so much as Russian imperialism's influence on you). Anyway, thanks for responding.
You should write an article on the topic, I'd love to read. Thank you for being polite
I do write on the topic, not specifically of language (though occasionally). I have a blog called UKR-TAZ. You can find it by googling.
I see, thank you