Статус русинської народности в контексті суча сного общественного двиганя на Подкарпатю
Status of Rusyn Nationality in the Context of the Modern Social Movement in Subcarpathia

Summary/Abstract: The author begins by stating that Ukraine is responsible for the current situation regarding Rusyn identity, including accusations of separatism and calls for Russian military intervention. He argues that if Ukraine had recognized Rusyn nationality during the past 20 years since the start of the Rusyn movement and the 1991 referendum on autonomy for Subcarpathia, the current problems would not exist. Ukraine's policy, influenced by a secret document from 1996 ("Plan of measures to resolve the problems of Ukrainian-Rusyns"), has aimed to assimilate Rusyns using totalitarian methods ("no people – no problem"). Kyiv has consistently ignored requests for recognition, passing the responsibility between various state institutions (President, Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers, National Academy of Sciences), which ultimately denies the existence of Rusyn nationality as a distinct people, labeling them a "sub-ethnos" of the Ukrainian nation. The article highlights international pressure, with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination having already urged Ukraine to recognize the Rusyn minority. The author then focuses on the period from the 2004 Orange Revolution to the upcoming 2010 presidential elections, analyzing the evolution of Rusyn activism in Subcarpathia. He details how Rusyns initially supported Viktor Yushchenko in 2004, hoping for democratic reforms and recognition. However, extremist actions by certain Rusyn leaders, particularly Dmytro Sydor, including fabricated documents, unauthorized declarations of independence, calls for Russian military intervention, and the formation of a "Government of the Republic of Subcarpathian Rus'," have derailed constructive dialogue. These actions are seen as being in the "fairway" of Russian policy, turning the Rusyn question into a bargaining chip in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The article also discusses the internal divisions within the Rusyn movement, exacerbated by local political clans (like Viktor Baloha's) seeking to control Rusyn organizations for their own political ends. Despite these challenges, the author notes positive democratic shifts in Ukraine, including increased media coverage of Rusyn issues, the launch of a Rusyn TV program, and the involvement of the Ukrainian Ombudsman. He emphasizes the need for continued peaceful dialogue, relying on European and international institutions, while ensuring Ukraine's territorial integrity and European integration. He warns that destructive actions by some Rusyn organizations, advocating for a separate state and relying on Russia, only harm the process and fuel accusations of anti-state separatism. The article concludes by lamenting the disunity and unrecognized status of Rusyns in Ukraine, leaving them fragmented and without fundamental rights.

• Details
• Contents