That can be said for every other country that used to be a part of the USSR....

@LtD that's not true

Not sure when this fact card was written... but the tense of that last verb should definitely be updated.

@ArynChris The tense is correct. People in Ukrania know russian due to having been invaded in the past. The fact that there were further invasions does not affect a pre-existing knowledge.
Kinda like saying "I know I like apples because I tasted them"; it does not matter if while you are saying that you are munching on one.

@ArynChris In fact the whole verb is incorrect, because Russia never invaded Ukraine as Ukraine never existed as an independent state before 1991. Russia merely "possessed" parts of the Ukrainian region for a few centuries after taking some from Poland-Lithuania, other from the Crimean Khanate and a few by peacefully integrating Zaporogue Cossacks.
As for the current invasion… I would find pretty scary that Russia could invade a country without giving any evidence of its presence despite american satellites scanning the region. So I prefer to believe there is none. Call me in denial.

'@MaitreLudard'
This isn't entirely true. There were various independent and semi-independent Cossack entities around the time between the area falling out of Polish-Lithuanian control and firmly into Russian control.
And then there was a Ukrainian state that existed for a few years after the Russian Revolution and during the Civil War.

But at the same time I agree that the tense is really confusing and inaccurate. It was a region that gradually fell deeper and deeper into Russian control after the Poles were chased out. Not really invaded. Even the later Soviet invasion wasn't really the reason for widespread Russophone ability.
One key factor often forgotten is that a large chunk of southern/eastern Ukraine was barely populated by anyone except nomadic tribes, until Russia crushed the nomads once and for all it was too dangerous for long term settlement by farmers and stuff. And it was only in like the 1700's that the Russians conquered the area and began to allow settlement. I don't know the demographics of the settlers? But even if they were mostly Ukrainian this all happened under Russian control and jurisdiction. Meaning that the strong presence of Russian there is sort of self-explanatory.

"As for the current invasion… I would find pretty scary that Russia could invade a country without giving any evidence of its presence despite american satellites scanning the region. "

There is extensive and really obvious evidence. Its not even very hidden, its hidden in the sense that Russia can't really be directly accused. So like...Russian soldiers who happened to not be wearing insignias (but might still be stupid enough to tell a reporter where they're from lol).
There are local militias and rebels from within Ukraine who are fighting the Ukrainian government too, but they're heavily supported by Russian units, mortar fire, and equipment. There's no debating the circumstances being as they are.
As for it being scary...well sure if you live in a non-NATO country that borders Russia where it would be easy for Russians to blend in to the local population of Russophone eastern Slavs? But unless you live in Belarus or Kazakhstan I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Especially if you're French which it seems you are.

When John Paul II was elected pope, a spokesman of the Holy See described him at a press conference. Among other things, he listed eight languages spoken by the pope. Question: "What about Russian?" Answer: "He is Polish. He understands Russian, but he does not speak it."

Is there any proofs of "invasion"? Please.
And it's not surprise that most of the people of ex USSR speaks russian, same as ex colonies of France, England and Spain speak respective languages.

'@Mxyzptlk'
There are endless examples of proof of invasion.
Including as regards Crimea your president literally admitting it lol.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/vladimir-putin-admits-russian-forces-helped-crimea-separatists-n82756

@sagas yeah, they not allow criminals, that later burned people alive in mainland Ukraine, do some chaos in Crimea that's all. No shots were fired, no bombs were falling no nothing. Just a police force, to protect people on referendum. And this example you calling "endless"? Wow. If Russia truly were invaded Ukraine - it will be hard to conseal. Jet planes, tanks, soldiers everywhere. You should have saw this in Iraq or Libya do you?

'@Mxyzptlk'
So a riot happened in Odessa between protestors and a dubious in origin group of tough middle/young aged men who I guess claimed to be counter-protestors.
They fought each-other, the middle aged toughs were in a building throwing stuff at the others who were throwing stuff back.
Accidentally a fire broke out, and surprisingly when you're barricaded in a building where a fire starts? Usually that's a recipe for disaster. So yes a bunch of people died in a fire in Odessa, by no intent of anyone on either side. But of course Russian media couldn't help but spin that one into deliberate murder.

"do some chaos in Crimea that's all. "

Literally nothing was going on in Crimea at all. Russia troops rolled in (and out of the base as well). Pretended to not be Russian. And held a vote in extremely suspect conditions with virtually no third party observers to determine fairness and freeness. Which in of itself was quite funny given the circumstances were brought about by the presence of invading soldiers. Exaggerating threats that either barely exist or don't exist at all is a classic plate of bullshit to serve to justify these sorts of things. I'm just wondering why you're so eager to eat from the plate, I mean aside from just-world theory and all.

"No shots were fired, no bombs were falling no nothing."

Well of course. It was Russian military in a far corner of Ukraine near the Russian border, and it was immediately obvious to everyone involved that this was what they were. Maybe you don't fully grasp this but your country is really huge and has a really huge army, and Ukraine has neither of these things true of it. So I wonder....do you imagine that the Ukrainian army, which was also operating with the central government currently in chaos and reorganization, was actually able to do anything to force the Russian troops to leave? No. It was dangerous, and would have resulted in them being flattened. Ukraine was intimidated and unable to respond to the annexation militarily. That doesn't remotely make it not an invasion, military occupation, or military annexation.
If the US moved a ton of troops into New Brunswick Canada and forced a rigged vote on joining the US, do you really think Canada would respond with military force? Or back down and rely on international condemnation and diplomatic actions to back them up?

" Just a police force, to protect people on referendum."

An army force to oversee and enforce the referendum taking place. On the back of a false trumped up sense of danger that your leadership knows very well did not exist. Congratulations on your very own "WMDs" that will never be found.

" And this example you calling "endless"?"

In that there are tons and tons of bits of evidence in either case of Russian troops invading the Ukraine. Bloodlessly in Crimea, and bloodily in Donbass. Yes. I never claimed the Crimea situation turned violent, but the threat of violence was the whole point.

"Wow. If Russia truly were invaded Ukraine - it will be hard to conseal."

Yes, which is exactly why there is tons of bits of evidence lol. Including (my favorite) young Russian soldiers instagraming from inside the Ukraine. I feel bad for these poor kids in your army being made to do this shit by your leadership, these are like literal teenagers doing dumb teen shit like taking selfies and not paying attention to OpSec. And then when they get killed your government hushes up the death and gets secretive and hostile to their families about what happened. I mean shit, this isn't just Ukrainians being screwed by your government, naturally its plenty of Russians as well.

" Jet planes, tanks, soldiers everywhere."
No planes. But tanks, trucks, troops yes. They are mostly as I understand it bolstering the local militias who are attempting to control Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, those militias themselves containing plenty of Russians, just not the regular military. Merchants, war tourists, nutty nationalist miltia types. And yes some native Ukrainians are involved in that as well.
They are the ones on the front lines against the Ukrainian government forces, the Russian troops are their back up. Firing mortars at the Ukrainians from far away and sometimes from over the border. And rarely engaging head to head anyway. The militia forces have sucked mostly at fighting. A pattern formed before things got quiet where the militias were being defeated and pushed back by the Ukrainian troops, but then suddenly heavy mortar and other sorts of fire would smash the Ukrainian line and start stabilizing the front again for the militias. Naturally that heavy fire was the Russian army.
Completely hiding it isn't even the point though. Just being able to pretend it isn't what it is, is enough. Because Moscow knows no one is going to enforce the Ukrainians much beyond supplies at best. Russia knows no one will actually attack. And they can then lie about it to their own people (like you) and other folks around the world sympathetic, who will believe them regardless. They don't particularly care if Kiev, or Washington, or Brussels full well knows its them.
Also perhaps your under the impression that the Russian troops have a full on goal of conquest like with Crimea? But I don't think that's the case, at least not anymore. Putin has likely recognized that what happened in Crimea was a once in a lifetime chance that won't happened again. And also seen that the local pro-Russian militias even with Russian militia backing, and even with Russian army backing, can't actually move much farther than where they've been.
So then he's probably happy to just keep Ukraine broken and destabilized so that they are unable to recover, unable to join the EU or any real integration with the EU, and because of territorial conflict that they can't join NATO either.

"You should have saw this in Iraq or Libya do you?"

Your grammar is confusing here. Do you mean it should look like those wars?
Well Iraq was an outright invasion (also on false pretenses, much like what Russia is doing in Ukraine!), there was no attempt to hide it because it was never meant to be hidden. Of course the Russian troops in Ukraine aren't invading in such a fashion.
Libya was actually similar, in that US forces were not really fighting the war so much as providing air and naval support fire to the rebels who were doing most of the fighting. But it wasn't an invasion, so much as military support for one side in a war. The better comparison is what Russia is doing in Syria right now, that is what the US did in Libya. I wouldn't say Russia is invading Syria either.

The main difference between those two (US in Libya, Russia in Syria) from Russia in Ukraine? Is that there is a actually existent conflict independent from our countries in both Libya and Syria that we chose to get involved with. Libya had protests that were violently attacked by full scale military grade forces, this turned the protests into a rebellion. Which made it a war. The US chose to support those rebel forces.
In Syria the war had been going on for years by the point that Russia decided to intervene and give virtually the same exact sort of help to the Assad regime as the US did to Libyan rebels. Air force and missiles and so on.
Neither case being all that secretive if at all.

Ukraine however is based off (similar to Iraq in this regard) a largely manufactured crisis, with your government pouring funds and supplies into an insurgency in the Donbass that has declared at least two or so independent states, and then your government is backing even that with its literal military, but creating deniability about it. All on the absurd knowingly crap nonsense notion that Ukraine was ready to break into bloody pogroms of Russian speakers.

@Mxyzptlk "Criminals that burned people alive".

You mean Josif Vissarionovich Putin's thugs, don't you?

Almost everybody speaks both Russian and Ukrainian. It's nice

@Ukranian How would you describe the difference between Ukrainian and Russian?

@OneSwissMore They *sound* about the same when spoke, some words are different but you'd find the accent to get in the way more than the language itself when it comes to comprehension. On the other hand, *written* Russian and Ukranian are hugely different, everything is spelled differently and some letters aren't present in both languages.

@PavelB That is very interesting. Thank you a lot.

Well that and the fact it was part of URSS.
Any land part of it had russians mass "shipped" over there,as a way to make sure they keep the actual natives in cheek and slowly make the russian language and culture just as powerful or even more important than the one of the natives if the numbers of russian would eventually manage to overgrow the one of the natives.

I know people from replublic Moldova that can barely speak romanian even if its their mother language,but they have no problem speaking russian.Tho usually this is a thing only in places with a very high russian population,in villages and cities were there are more moldavians or only moldavians,this is not really an issue.

Seems to a thing in Ukraine and the baltic countries too from what I heard from people living there(but they did some counter movements against this).Wonder if Belarus also has this problem?Anyone from Belarus than can confirm this or not?

I know they tried to also do this in Romania during the first half of the comunist era,but since we were not part of URSS their influence was far smaller and the russian language,literature and culture was either rejected either was not useful enough outside school so they didn't reject it but didn't bother much it outside getting a good grade and fully forgot everything about it once they graduated.

Wow....

This isn't that surprising
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Proportion_of_Russian_speakers_by_country_in_2014_%280-50%25_gradation%29.svg

My boyfriend has a friend from Ukraine (it's a small city...I'm pretty sure he knows most of the Europeans who live here) who speaks Russian much better than Ukrainian. I asked him why that was but we were drinking so I can't remember/probably couldn't understand him.

@amypisces Ahh alcohol, the true CIA

Yeah right, There is huge difference between can speak russian and speak it.
https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96
Basically 67,5 % consider Ukrainian as their native language, and about similarity, I would say most of the Ukrainian can easily speak Polish which is more similar to Ukrainian.
It's nice to post factCards which are not facts at all.

This says 70% are "fluent" in Russian:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=is&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdemoscope.ru%2Fweekly%2F2008%2F0329%2Ftema03.php

I can't read the graph at the top which goes into more detail.. my Cyrillic is only good enough to make out that Ukraine is #2 on the chart. If someone can read the other options, that would be great ;)

@Karen
The list is as follows:

I. Belarus - 78%
II. Ukraine - 70%
III. Kazakhstan - 67%
IV. Latvia - 59%
V. Moldavia - 51%
VI. Estonia - 39%
VII. Kyrgyzstan - 38%
VIII. Tajikistan - 35%
IX. Armenia - 33%
X. Georgia - 30%
XI. Azerbaijan - 28%
XII. Lithuania - 24%

Although the page does say that the graph does not show the percentage that can speak Russian, rather the percentage of people who feel they can speak it.

Well, the language knowledge share in Ukraine is about 95%-95%. 95% of people speak Russian, 95% speak Ukrainian. I have yet to find a person who does not speak Russian in this country. Coming from elsewhere, I haven't had time to properly learn Ukrainian yet, so I need to fall back on Russian occassionaly, no matter whom I talk with. And it absolutely always works, even in the very furthest regions at the western border, where about zero percent of population speaks Russian at home. There some people might answer in Ukrainian, as they feel insecure about their skills in Russian language, but they do understand Russian anyway.

Ukrainian and Russian are such similar languages, maybe a bit like the difference between Italians and Spanish, that one really easily learns to understand the other language, if one is immensed to it all the time. And in Ukraine all signs, advertisements and school books are always in Ukrainian, so Russian-speaking Ukrainians get used to the language there and a lot of television programs, computer games, web sites and so on are in Russian, which means the Ukrainian-speakers get used to the Russian language there.

Asking Russian-speaking Ukrainians for their mother tongue seems to result in "Russian and Ukrainian" as the answer, which is kind of an amazing feat. And that's really how they feel.