Belarus, Что это такое? The development of the Belarusian national identity under Russian rule from the late 19th to mid 20 centuries.

Carter Gunnigle, Fall 2017

 

The rise of the Belarusian national identity

 

The year is 1991, the unthinkable has happened. After years of cold conflict the Soviet Union has collapsed. All the countries belonging to the Soviet Union, one by one, begin to withdraw from their union and change their flags. But one country both withdraws and changes their flag last; Belarus. What prompted the love and close connection of Belarus to their historical sibling Russia? And why does Belarus feel so bonded with the Soviet Union? Belarus is a country that often gets overlooked in historical analyses of Eastern Europe, particularly in regard to the Soviet Union. Modern Belarus and Belarusian culture were heavily influenced and shaped by the politics of the Soviet Union during the second half of the twentieth century. All of the trends in the before mentioned prior have derived from the rise in the development of the Belarusian national identity during the late 19th – mid 20th century under Russian rule, for this paper the definition of Nation will be: an ethno-linguistic people group that share a sense of shared history and experience.

“Overall, Belarus does not enjoy as much publicity and/or public curiosity in the West as, say, Ukraine, let alone Russia”01) Ioffe, “Understanding Belarus: Question of Language,” 2003. 1011. Russia has always, historically, been dominant in Eastern Europe whereas historically Belarus has always been a contested ground between the ever shifting powers of Eastern Europe. Being mainly flat with an abundance of forests, Belarus was invaded and occupied by all of the rivaling powers. The Principality of Polotsk is the first independent Belarus that is considered a “State”, its formation was roughly 987 C.E. and once being annexed by Lithuania in 1236 C.E., Belarus has not been a “country” but rather a region that needs to be administered. In fact “official imperial Russian state policy rejected the notion of the existence of separate Belarusian and Ukrainian ethnicities”02)Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.. This excerpt illuminates the ideals of the 17th – 18th centuries, which was one that gave less attention to identities of the people they ruled and focused more on their imperial expansions. This disregard to the Belarusian national identity fueled the rise to the popularization of the Belarusian national identity. However, after the partition of Poland:

“Philologists in Saint Petersburg classifies the vernacular language of the Kresy (far east part of then Poland which consists of modern day Ukraine and Belarus) as a Polish dialect. Only following the polish rebellions of 1830 and 1863 did Russian scholars redesignate the Belarusian vernacular as a Russian, rather than Polish dialect. After 1863 the term zapadnorussizm or “West Russism” was introduced to describe the Belarusians”03)Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.. The hope was that by classifying Belarusian as a sub-dialect of Russian, the Belarusian people would feel a connection to Russia.

 

Historical Overview

Traditionally the tale of the Три Сестри (three sisters) is used to show the historical ties and bond between the East Slavic countries. Each sister representing Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. So already the coined term zapanorussiam is alluding and strengthening the bond between the Belarusian and Russian народы (culture and peoples). Although the imperial Russian government did not fully recognize the Belarusian language as separate, by tying it with the Russian language at large it was a political statement that included the Belarusian people in their empire. The first known codification of the Belarusian language came in 1918 by Branislau Tarashkevick04)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.. These examples are the beginning of Belarus strengthening its ties to its bigger sister, Russia.

“Several historical, cultural and political factors account for Belarusians’ weak national identity. Before the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569, the elites who dominated the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were largely Belarusian-speakers. The creation of a closer union between the Grand Duchy and the Kingdom of Poland, however, prompted the Polonisation of the nobility of this region. The Russian autocracy, which in the 17th century began to compete with the Commonwealth for control over these lands, considered the people living there to be Russians and the region itself as ‘Western Russia’ (Zapadnaya Rossiya)”05)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.

Here Burnet is strengthening the claim that the national identity of Belarus really began developing under Imperial Russia. It is important to note how imperial politics in the 19th century helped to create the sense of an identity within Belarus. During the imperial era “the autocracy, through sheer repression, prevented the growth of an independent civil society, such as existed in Galicia that could have spawned a strong Belarusian national movement. The bulk of the population thus had no national identity, simply considering themselves ‘the locals’”06)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44. The classification of the Belarusian people under both Polish and Russian rule show how a small people group can become absorbed into an empire at large. As well as how the empire does not take into account the identity of a people group when classifying them. Unless it suits their needs and wants or if the minority population is represented international by another country in which they are they majority.

 

Belarusian Identity

Religion was also a factor in determining a national identity for the Belarusian people. For the longest time the Belarusian people have used religion to identify themselves from occupying powers. The primary religion was the Greek Unite Church. The Unite Church was a nice middle ground against Catholic Poland and Orthodox Russia. The Unite Church does all of the Orthodox rites but has allegiance to the Pope in Rome:

“For Belarusian nationalism to assert itself vis-a-vis two older and aggressive nationalisms, Russian and Polish, it had to change the historical pattern of ethnic mobilization that had long dominated the area. In this pattern Belarus was viewed as the Polish-Russian borderland, in which the Orthodox associated themselves with the Russians and Catholics with the Poles, and after the collapse of the Uniate (Greek Catholic) Church there was no or at any rate little room for Belarusians per se”07)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.

The Unite Church allowed for a sort of middle ground between the Orthodox and Catholic nations08)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72. around them by essentially playing both fields, and since they were they only Unites in the region it became an identity for the Belarusians. But eventually the Unite Church fell in that region around 1839 and, “Belarusian nationalist writings suggest that its collapse more than anything else undermined the Belarusians’ sense of being different from the neighboring ethnic group”09)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.. With the main source of their identity taken away the development of a Belarusian national identity was halted on a large scale until Soviet rule in the twenties.

“Small groups of Belarusian national activists arose in the late 19th century, but they were weak and faced too many obstacles to undertake any serious efforts at nation building. Thus although a Belarusian Democratic Republic emerged in 1918, it lacked the social base to withstand pressures from Poland and Soviet Russia, which divided Belarus between them in the 1921 Treaty of Riga”10)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.. This is the first formal example of a solely Belarusian institution, since 1236 that is pushing for Belarusian rights. Meanwhile once annexed by the Polish side the Polish government began trying to assimilate the peasantry of Belarus. “From the very beginning of the Republic of Poland, the government is committed to the dilution of the Belarusian-Ukrainian element in Kresy”11)Zhigalov, V.N. Bor’ba trudyaschikhsya Zapadnoi Belarussii za sotsial’noe i natsional’noe osvobozhdeniye i vossoyedineniye s BSSR: dokumenty i materialy. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Minsk: State Publisher of the BSSR, 1962..  The Polish government even went as far as “perceiving Belarusian nationalism as an irredentist threat to the state, strong forces within the ruling circles of Grabski government wanted to suppress it. However Poland was in disarray, and the coalition of governments lacked resources to carry this out. For years, an armed rebellion raged in West Belarus, supported by the Soviets”12)Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.. The book in which this is referenced is supported by the collections of communist meetings in Belarus that are being translated as a primary source. Even though the Belarusians were being supported by the new Soviet state the Soviet Union did not want to recognize another new state, instead they utilized the fervent nationalism into fighting against Poland only to later annex it themselves. Another tactic used by Poland to suppress Belarusian nationalism is printed media. “A total of 377 Belarusian books had been published in the Belarusian lands from 1901 to 1920, in Poland from 1921 through 1939 only twenty-four Belarusian titles appeared”13)Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.. By making Belarusian literary works available in essentially only Polish, made it so that if the Belarusians wished to learn about themselves they had to do it through the lens of the Polish language and nation. This, however, was the complete opposite in the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic. “In the BSSR, on the other hand, the publication of Belarusian titles soared. With a focus on building support for the Soviet Union, these books were subsidized by the Soviet government and thus were inexpensive, printed in large editions, and catered to readers with limited reading skills”14)Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.. Again this initiative (of bolstering national language and pride by the Soviet Union) taken up by the Soviet Union was to promote themselves as a big brother state that promotes and uplifts the diversity of the Belarusian people and celebrates their accomplishments. Which is contrast to capitalist Poland that only wanted to assimilate and extort them. Of course later on the process of russification hit the Belarusian people as it did to all former soviet states.

During 1925 a congress was held in Belarus, during this congress the issue of education of the Belarusian people in Poland was discussed. They discussed the “linguistic laws in the struggle for Belarusian schools and the confession to the founding of illegal schools, which meant virtually refusing to fight”15)Zhigalov, V.N. Bor’ba trudyaschikhsya Zapadnoi Belarussii za sotsial’noe i natsional’noe osvobozhdeniye i vossoyedineniye s BSSR: dokumenty i materialy. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Minsk: State Publisher of the BSSR, 1962.. This quote from one of the meetings in Soviet Belarus shows the discontent with the repression of their language and how they funded underground schools to preserve their heritage, but later on from the admittance of the congress to having a hand in these underground schools informed the Soviet Union and Poland, that Belarus held little political and diplomatic power when negotiating with them over matters of political sovereignty. However, “under the Soviet regime Belarusian national and cultural development prospered in the 1920s, but this brief period was insufficient to permit a Belarusian national identity to take”16)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.. Before the death of Vladimir Lenin the general policy of the Soviet Union in regard to minority languages and was to allocate resources to, and uplift these once repressed languages and cultures.

 

Russification

“The national policy thereupon adopted was “to abolish all privileges once enjoyed by any national group, to establish complete equality of rights for all nationalities, and to recognize the rights of colonies and dependent nations to separation.” This formula was based on the political philosophy that every nationality has the inalienable right to a self-determined, independent status and to an independent, full development of its native language and culture. It was believed that nationalities could develop best on this basis, and that, with the rapid breaking down of artificial barriers of national isolation, not only could all circles of association be enlarged but cultures embodying diffusive national characters, and ideals of value to all nationalities, could flourish. Such cultures would be national in form and socialistic in content”17)Phinney, Archie. “Racial Minorities in the Soviet Union.” Pacific Affairs 8, no. 3 (1935): 321–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2751475..

Therefore, the development of a singular national identity within Belarus was halted in the mid twentieth century under Stalin. It was during this turbulent time under Stalin’s reign that the Soviet government began to try and push a nationalized lingua-franca and united national culture among the nations (peoples) of the Soviet Union, and as was the case with all the other republics the language used in Belarus was Russian. Stalin thought there needed to be a single language of the Soviet Union. Stalin even wrote “the same needs to be said about Ukrainian, Belarusian, Uzbek, Kazak, Georgian…and different languages of our Soviet nation, who also served the old bourgeois system of these nations [peoples] as they now serve the new, socialist system”18)Stalin, Joseph. Stalin – Marksizm i voprosy yazykoznaniya. Accessed December 5, 2017. http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/stalin-50.htm.. Here Stalin is asserting that the use of many languages is a remnant of the old bourgeois system. This negatively affected the Belarusian development of national identity through an ethno-linguistic route and instead focused more on an ethno-cultural identity. Belarusian is an endangered language in Belarus today, due to the legacy of this Stalinist idea of a unified Soviet state. “When in the late 1920s the Soviet regime began to mobilize the Belarusian population to achieve the political, ideological and economic goals set forth by Stalin, it used Russian culture and the Russian language to do so”19)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.. It was the effects of this endeavor of the Soviet system to homogenize the linguistic and cultural atmosphere of Belarus that has ultimately led to the close ties between the nations of Russia and Belarus today.

 

Linguistic Identity

One of the most crucial components of realizing a form of cultural or national identity is language. Learning the language of one’s forefathers can be utilized as a tool in which the younger generations have a rallying point to some kind of national identity. The soviet government as a whole (excluding the Stalinist ideas of assimilation) supported the recognition of cultures and languages as a form of “national unification” but it was also very advantageous for the soviet government as well. They used it as a divide and conquer method. Belarus was no exception to this; the soviet period of Belarus saw the greatest extent of growth in national pride and identity.

“The words ‘Belarus’ and ‘Belarusian’ were embraced by most indigenous people of the area only in the wake of the formation of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR). Among other things, this effectively means that the Soviet period was the longest time span of the Belarusians’ nationally conscious existence. Under the BSSR, Belarusian became one of the official languages. Also, ‘Belarus’ and ‘Belarusian’ became part of the republic’s national emblem and anthem, and the words circulated widely in regional print media and state documents, including, above all, internal passports initially issued for urban residents and residents of border regions”20)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72..

As was said above it was not until the Soviet period that many people of the modern Belarusian territory even considered themselves Belarusian. While the growth and government support of the Belarusian culture and identity was at its height during the soviet period, there was still large amounts of russification taking place, as was the case in most places in the Soviet Union.

“The cultural environment of contemporary Belarus thus is largely russified. According to polling data assembled by the Belarusian State University’s sociology centre, about 60% of citizens prefer to use Russian in daily life, 75% favour bilingualism in state institutions, and only 6.5% and 8.4% respectively consider necessary the use of Belarusian alone in higher educational institutions and the workplace. Another recent survey showed that 32% of ethnic Belarusians considered the histories of Belarus and Russia to be identical and that 37.6% had no knowledge of Belarusian culture”21)Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44..

The linguistic trend that is seen above is not a recent one. During occupation by both Poland and Russia both Polish and Russian were pushed as a main language. While some portions of the population resisted that they were primarily in the countryside. It was during the Soviet Period that most recognition and learning of Belarusian took place as well as more people claimed to be Belarusian. Although the height of the growth of Belarusian national identity took place during the Soviet Union in the interwar period. The russification legacy, perpetuated by Stalin in order to create a new soviet man, has persisted to this day. In modern Belarus “the Belarusian language is rarely used in everyday inter-personal communication, schooling and the news media; Russian dominates all these areas”22)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47..

The legacy left upon Belarus from the turbulent years under Polish rule and a friendlier rule under the Soviet Union led the Belarusian people to adapt a welcoming attitude to all things Soviet and a distain for the western world. To this day: “Ethnic Belarusians have a solid majority, and there is no organized Russian community at odds with them. However, most Belarusians have adopted Russian as their primary language and remain unworried about the loss of identity likely to follow. Moreover, the rank and file seem to support enthusiastically some sort of supranational commonwealth with Russia”23)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47..

 

Conclusion

This incredibly close connection to Russia developed during the early to mid-20th century with an increase in Soviet presence and leadership. This legacy is evident all throughout the former soviet republic; “Soviet and Russian-born symbols (the national flag and emblem, the name of the currency unit and the celebration of a national independence holiday on the day of the liberation of Minsk from the Nazis by the Soviet Army) prevail over genuinely Belarusian symbols”24)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47..  Interestingly enough, “there was never a Russian community in Belarus that would in any way detach and position itself against the cultural mainstream”25)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.. Because there was no real population of Russians in Belarus the adoption of Russian culture and language is an interesting phenomenon. Even though the never was a Russian community in Belarus prior to 1991 Russian has become, more or less, the national language of Belarus. “Indeed, nowhere outside Russia proper has the Russian language gained such supremacy as in Belarus”26)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.. The reason – Soviet russification. Belarusification was standard at the being, however “With the passage of time, however, Belarusification was becoming more and more problematic, as urban populations not versed in standard Belarusian firmly held on to Russian”27)Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47..

Since there was a very tiny Russian population they did not make any moves to insist on Russian being used. It was the government that gradually began embracing Russian. Therefore, based on the evidenced, saying that the development of a Belarusian national truly began in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries is completely feasible. Between the development of language schools, nationalization of Belarusian literature, and the shift away from an ethno-religious identity to more of a cultural identity. Modern Belarusian culture and Identity today has its roots in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries leading to a close connection to the modern nation state of the Russian Federation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

This book provides an analysis on the purges that were perpetuated by the Soviet government in order to quell the rise of Belarusian nationalism.

Stalin, Joseph. Stalin – Marksizm i voprosy yazykoznaniya. Accessed December 5, 2017. http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/stalin-50.htm.

This article written by Stalin acts as a Q and A to answer questions regarding the linguistic atmosphere of Marxism and how it pertains to the society. Specifically how there is a need for a single language for the common people of the nation.

Zhigalov, V.N. Bor’ba trudyaschikhsya Zapadnoi Belarussii za sotsial’noe i natsional’noe osvobozhdeniye i vossoyedineniye s BSSR: dokumenty i materialy. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Minsk: State Publisher of the BSSR, 1962.

Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.

This article is about the relationship between Ukraine, Belarus and their relationship with Russia through historical evidence.

Phinney, Archie. “Racial Minorities in the Soviet Union.” Pacific Affairs 8, no. 3 (1935): 321–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2751475.

Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.

Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.

 

 

References   [ + ]

01. Ioffe, “Understanding Belarus: Question of Language,” 2003. 1011
02. Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
03. Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
04. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
05. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.
06. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44
07. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.
08. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.
09. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.
10. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.
11. Zhigalov, V.N. Bor’ba trudyaschikhsya Zapadnoi Belarussii za sotsial’noe i natsional’noe osvobozhdeniye i vossoyedineniye s BSSR: dokumenty i materialy. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Minsk: State Publisher of the BSSR, 1962.
12. Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14. Rudling, Per A. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
15. Zhigalov, V.N. Bor’ba trudyaschikhsya Zapadnoi Belarussii za sotsial’noe i natsional’noe osvobozhdeniye i vossoyedineniye s BSSR: dokumenty i materialy. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Minsk: State Publisher of the BSSR, 1962.
16. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.
17. Phinney, Archie. “Racial Minorities in the Soviet Union.” Pacific Affairs 8, no. 3 (1935): 321–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2751475.
18. Stalin, Joseph. Stalin – Marksizm i voprosy yazykoznaniya. Accessed December 5, 2017. http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/stalin-50.htm.
19. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.
20. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 8 (2003): 1241–72.
21. Burant, Stephen R. “Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus.” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 7 (1995): 1125–44.
22. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
23. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
24. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
25. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
26. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.
27. Ioffe, Grigory. “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 7 (2003): 1009–47.