Turkic World Photos/News/Discussions.

[Timur]

You are right,they dont give a fvck about us,they are russian stooges(such meinen namen mit Pakistan dahinter und du findest uns).
Maybe in the future things will change in the Turkic countries,who knows.

the problem is this countries are new.. they have to develop and go throgh a process (of developing)..

 

[T-123456]

Maybe in the future things will change in the Turkic countries,who knows.

the problem is this countries are new.. they have to develop and go throgh a process (of developing)..

Lets see what the future shows us then.

 

[atatwolf]

I'm not putting them down,talking about their leaders and thoughts.
You think they care about a Turkic union?
Besides Azerbaijan there is none willing to form a Turkic union,you know that.
Btw,i said it could change in the future.

With all respect you don't know what you are talking about. I recommend you go to the Turkic news section and read all the things Kazakh, Kirgiz, Turkmen and Azeri leaders say.

Ffs, even the Turkic counsil was proposed by Kazakh leader. How can you say they are not involved? You can't expect t to get everything done in one or two years. People with life experience know that relations have to grow. It can't happen just in the blink of an eye.

If you look at the developments. Everything goes at lightening speed but before we can connect with Central Asia, we first need to connect with Azerbaijan. Once that link is made, we can link with Central Asia. But we have to understand for relations to grow we need time. It can't be forced.

 

[usernameless]

to say a Turkic union is impossible, is really shortsighted. If we look at the development of our relationship with all Turkic nations, we can see that there is a vast improvement, especially when we consider that these countries are new. a while ago i read that the majority of the people in Uzbekistan, the black sheep, put muslim as their first identity in a survey and Karimov wants to change this through putting more emphasis on nationalism. This could well mean that in the future we can see more Uzbekistanis awakening (hopefully a more reconciling pro-Turkic oriented leader), i hope. Other Turkic countries already have leaders that in some way promote closer relationship between our nations. Actually, imo it's Turkey that needs to do way more to promote Turkic unity. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan do way more while they are in a tighter spot. Cultural stuff like movies, music, events must be used efficiently and from there mutual soft power will slowly snowball while Turkic govts should focus on common energy and military interests, the hardest part.

 

[atatwolf]

to say a Turkic union is impossible, is really shortsighted. If we look at the development of our relationship with all Turkic nations, we can see that there is a vast improvement, especially when we consider that these countries are new. a while ago i read that the majority of the people in Uzbekistan, the black sheep, put muslim as their first identity in a survey and Karimov wants to change this through putting more emphasis on nationalism. This could well mean that in the future we can see more Uzbekistanis awakening (hopefully a more reconciling pro-Turkic oriented leader), i hope. Other Turkic countries already have leaders that in some way promote closer relationship between our nations. Actually, imo it's Turkey that needs to do way more to promote Turkic unity. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan do way more while they are in a tighter spot. Cultural stuff like movies, music, events must be used efficiently and from there mutual soft power will slowly snowball while Turkic govts should focus on common energy and military interests, the hardest part.

That is true. If you read the news from the meetings Turkic leaders have. It is always the Kazakh PM who proposes common script, common TV shows, common this or that. I really appreciate him. I like Kirgiz PM also:

 

[xenon54 out]

With all respect you don't know what you are talking about. I recommend you go to the Turkic news section and read all the things Kazakh, Kirgiz, Turkmen and Azeri leaders say.

Isnt Turkmenistan neutral like Switzerland? In this case they cant join any Union unless a change in their constitution.

 

[atatwolf]

Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan Nazarbayev has attended the Fourth Summit of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States in the Turkish city of Bodrum, Tengrinews reports citing the official website of the president.

The Turkic Council (short for the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States) is an intergovernmental organization composed of four countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey. The primary goal of the organization is to promote political and economic cooperation among the Turkic-speaking countries, which share a common history and cultural ties.

During his speech Nazarbayev outlined four priorities, which he believes would help the Turkic world develop. First of all, he stressed the importance of economic development. “The total GDP of the six independent states [he meant four member states and two observer states of the organization - Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan] exceeds $1 trillion 200 billion. In the meanwhile, the share of the five countries makes only 6% in Kazakhstan’s foreign trade. This is why we need to strengthen our shared economic potential,” Nazarbayev said.

In this respect Nazarbayev turned the attention of his colleges to the new opportunities provided by the Eurasian Economic Union. He said that Kazakhstan's joining the Union opens up a market of 170 million people to producers from the Turkic space.

Transport was another priority area outlined by Nazarbayev who said that the Turkic world needs to put newly created transportation projects to efficient use. "Kazakhstan's section of the Western Europe-Western China highway is close to completion. By the end of this year construction of the railway [from Kazakhstan] to Turkmenistan and Iran will be completed, which will provide access to the Persian Gulf. The railway that starts in China and stretches to the Caspian Sea across the territory of our country is expected to be completed next year. We are also planning to increase the capacity of the Aktau sea port [at the Caspian Sea]. In this respect, it is important to develop cooperation between the ports in Aktau, Baku [Azerbaijan] and Samsun [Turkey]," the Kazakhstan president said.

The next point Nazarbayev turned his attention to was tourism. The president asserted that attracting foreign tourists will benefit the socio-economic development of the Turkic world. “There are enough natural sights and historically significant places, which are of great importance to the world community. We should unite and modernize the tourism infrastructure together,” he said.

The president suggested using the “Silk Road” brand name to develop a shared tourist product of a distinctively Turkic nature.

He also invited his colleges to consider the possibility of creating a new TV channel that would focus on presenting the Turkic culture to the international community. The president even proposed dedicating the next summit of the Council to the common information and media market as well as its competitive advantages.

The last point in Nazarbayev’s address was a call to strengthen the traditional cultural and humanitarian relations. He noted the importance of such structures as TURKSOI, the Turkic academy, and the Turkic Cultural Heritage Fund. All of these are organizations specifically designed to preserve the historical heritage of the Turkic world, promote its culture and enhance the mutual exchange between the Turkic speaking countries. The Turkic academy in particular can lead the way in finding paths towards a greater Turkic integration, he said. Nazarbayev also said that more young desprofessionals should be trained to and hired to work of these organizations.

In his speech, the President of Kazakhstan firmly stated that the Turkic Council had reached concrete results as an international organization and needed to continue working for benefit of all the member countries.

For more information see: Nazarbayev meets with Turkic leaders. Politics. Tengrinews.kz
Use of the Tengrinews English materials must be accompanied by a hyperlink to en.Tengrinews.kz

Isnt Turkmenistan neutral like Switzerland? In this case they cant join any Union unless a change in their constitution.

To be honest, I don't think Turkmen are slowing down Turkic cooperation or that their constituion is hindering anything at the moment. They are already partcipating and I'm more than happy about that. If in the future the constitution needs to be changed they can do that but at the moment it is not necessary. Before even thinking about an union we need strong economic, cultural and military ties. If we have those a so called union will blossom from itself. We didn't even fully integrate with Azerbaijan which we need to do first, but I believe the resources in the Caspian will draw all Turkic republics closer than we think.

 

[Charon 2]

The national hero of Tatarstan

Söyembikä (also spelled Söyenbikä, Sujumbike, pronounced [sœˌjœmbiˈkæ]; Cyrillic:Сөембикә) (1516 – after 1554) was a Tatar ruler, xanbikä.

She was the regent of her son Kazan khan Ütämeşgäräy in (1549–51), the daughter of Nogay nobleman Yosıf bäk and the wife of Kazan khans Canğäli (1533–35), Safagäräy(1536–49) and Şahğäli (after 1553). In 1551, after the first partial conquest of the Khanate of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible she was forcibly moved to Moscow with her son[1] and later married to Şahğäli, Russia-imposed khan of Qasim and Kazan Tatars.

She is the national hero of Tatarstan. Her name is associated first of all withSöyembikä Tower, that Ivan the Terrible wanted to marry her, so she agreed that if he built her a tower made with seven tiers (one for each day of the week) then she would marry him. Ivan the Terrible supposedly finished the tower within the week so Söyembikä went up to the top of the tower and after looking out at her beautiful home of Kazan she became so overwhelmed with emotion for her people that she couldn't bear to marry the tsar and jumped off.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Söyembikä

 

[Timur]

Actually, imo it's Turkey that needs to do way more to promote Turkic unity.

there are so many who even dont know that there are more turkic "like turkish speaking" people in the world..

we should have a law where our tv channels have to show at least 1 hour turkic stuff, in school we have to teach the children the turkic stuff, they should face other turkic children

also we have many stuff for films even for big cinama films.. the problem is our turkish mentality that ruins every potentially good film..!
for excample we could have a good fetih 1453 film or many other Ottoman Films, a good film about Timur ibn Taraghai Barlas a good Gökturk film, Ergenekon, Sultan Nureddin ibn Zengi and so on man there is so many potential for the masses with wich they could identify themselfs.. give them proud and an identity our nation lacks of using the media in smart ways

but I watched some old and new Kazakh films they are really good, mostly I liked that they are more serious than our film...

 

[usernameless]

there are so many who even dont know that there are more turkic "like turkish speaking" people in the world..

we should have a law where our tv channels have to show at least 1 hour turkic stuff, in school we have to teach the children the turkic stuff, they should face other turkic children

also we have many stuff for films even for big cinama films.. the problem is our turkish mentality that ruins every potentially good film..!
for excample we could have a good fetih 1453 film or many other Ottoman Films, a good film about Timur ibn Taraghai Barlas a good Gökturk film, Ergenekon, Sultan Nureddin ibn Zengi and so on man there is so many potential for the masses with wich they could identify themselfs.. give them proud and an identity our nation lacks of using the media in smart ways

but I watched some old and new Kazakh films they are really good, mostly I liked that they are more serious than our film...

i agree that more time should be spend on increasing awareness on Turkic relationship. One thing i found surprising, though, was when an Uyghur friend of mine told me that she created a little bit negative view of Turkey through some Turkish series. Things like alcohol consumption, 'too nude' women, too much western influences in the series were things she complained about. She thought these things are very common for many Turks. We shouldnt forget that many Turkics are imo in general stricter muslims than we are, so Turkey should keep this in mind and promote Turkish series that suit the living circumstances and views of Turkics better.

 

[atatwolf]

there are so many who even dont know that there are more turkic "like turkish speaking" people in the world..

we should have a law where our tv channels have to show at least 1 hour turkic stuff, in school we have to teach the children the turkic stuff, they should face other turkic children

also we have many stuff for films even for big cinama films.. the problem is our turkish mentality that ruins every potentially good film..!
for excample we could have a good fetih 1453 film or many other Ottoman Films, a good film about Timur ibn Taraghai Barlas a good Gökturk film, Ergenekon, Sultan Nureddin ibn Zengi and so on man there is so many potential for the masses with wich they could identify themselfs.. give them proud and an identity our nation lacks of using the media in smart ways

but I watched some old and new Kazakh films they are really good, mostly I liked that they are more serious than our film...

Which Kazakh movies do you recommend? I agree Turkish movies suck in general. Fetih 1453 is probably the worse movie I saw. I like the movie ww1 1915 but still the quality is not up there. During last Turkic counsil Kazakh PM said we should produce co-productions to promote Turkic history and culture. That would be interesting.

 

[Charon 2]

i agree that more time should be spend on increasing awareness on Turkic relationship. One thing i found surprising, though, was when an Uyghur friend of mine told me that she created a little bit negative view of Turkey through some Turkish series. Things like alcohol consumption, 'too nude' women, too much western influences in the series were things she complained about. She thought these things are very common for many Turks. We shouldnt forget that many Turkics are imo in general stricter muslims than we are, so Turkey should keep this in mind and promote Turkish series that suit the living circumstances and views of Turkics better.

I don't find that surprising at all because Uighurs are generally very conservative and religious even more than Uzbeks. They also don't drink alcohol unlike Kazakhs or Kyrgyz who are heavy drinkers.

 

[Timur]

Which Kazakh movies do you recommend?

kek (intikam, Revange), nomad, myn bala, kelіn

 

[Charon 2]

I find the Bulgars to be one of the most fascinating and interesting Turkic peoples

The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, Proto-Bulgarians,[1] Huno-Bulgars[2]) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who flourished in thePontic Steppe and the Volga basin in the 7th century AD.[3][4] Ethnically, the Bulgars are thought to have been Oghur Turkic, with Scytho-Sarmatian[5][6] and Sarmatian-Alan[7][8] elements. There is a discussion whether these Sarmatian elements in the cultural characteristics of the Proto-Bulgars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians.[9] They had also enveloped other ethnic groups by their migration westwards across the Eurasian steppe.[10][11] In their ethnogenesis Indo-European (Iranian) groups, Altaic groups (Stoyanov 1997) and probably Uralic (Finno-Ugric) groups (Artamanov 1962) have participated.[12]

Emerging as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, their roots can be traced, according to some researchers to Central Asia.[13] They became sedentary during the 7th century into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, establishing the polity (khanate) of Old Great Bulgaria c. 630 AD. However it was absorbed by the Khazar Empire in 668 AD. In 680 AD Khan Asparukh conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the First Bulgarian Empire, which was however slavicized by the 10th century. Another state called Volga Bulgaria was established on the middle Volga circa 670 AD. Volga Bulgars preserved their national identity well into the 13th century by repelling the first Mongol attacks in 1223. But they were eventually subdued, and their capital Bolghar city became one of major cities of the Mongol Golden Horde. Later, the Volga Bulgars adopted the Kipchak language (with some or no Kipchak admixture) and became the Volga Tatars of the Khanate of Kazan and later modern Tatarstan.

Etymology

The etymology of the name Bulgar is not fully understood; there are claims that it derived from the Turkic verb bulğa ("to mix", "shake, "stir") and its derivative bulgak ("revolt", "disorder") by some authorities.[14][15] A minority hypothesis derives it from bel gur ("five clans").[16]

Hunnic Empire

The early Bulgars (or "Proto-Bulgars") may have been present in the Pontic Steppe from the 2nd century, identified with theBulensii in certain Latin versions of Ptolemy's Geography, shown as occupying the territory along the northwest coast of Black Sea east of Axiacus River (Southern Bug).[17][18][19]


In the early 4th century, the Bulgars would have been caught up in the Hunnic migrations, moving to the fertile lands along the lower valleys of the rivers Donets and Don and the Azov seashore, and assimilating some remainders of the Sarmatians. Some of these remained for centuries in their new settlements, whereas others moved on with the Huns towards Central Europe, settling in Pannonia. Those Bulgars took part in the Hunnic raids on Central and Western Europe between 377 and 453. After the death of Attila in 453, and the subsequent disintegration of the Hunnic Empire, the Bulgar tribes dispersed mostly to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe.

At the end of the 5th century (probably in the years 480, 486, and 488) they fought against the Ostrogoths as allies of theByzantine emperor Zeno. From 493 they carried out frequent attacks on the western territories of the Byzantine Empire. Later raids were carried out at the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century.

Bulgar Khanate

In the middle of the 6th century, war broke out between the two main Bulgar tribes, the Kutrigur and Utigur. To the west, the Kutrigurs fell underAvar dominion and became influential within the Khaganate. The eastern Utigurs fell under the western Göktürk empire in 568. The Bulgars took the city of Corinth in the middle of the 7th century.[20] United under Kubratof the Dulo clan (identical to the ruler mentioned by Persian chroniclerTabari under the name of Shahriar), the joined forces of the Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars, and probably the Bulgar Onogurs, broke loose from the Turkic khanate in the 630s. They formed an independent state, the Onogundur-Bulgar (Oghondor-blkar or Olhontor-blkar) Empire, often called by Byzantine sources "the Old Great Bulgaria". The empire was situated between the lower course of the Danube to the west, the Black Sea and the Azov Sea to the south, the Kuban River to the east, and the Donets River to the north. It is assumed that the state capital was Phanagoria, an ancient city on the Taman peninsula (see Tmutarakan). However, the archaeological evidence shows that the city became predominantly Bulgar only after Kubrat's death and the consequent disintegration of his state.




Bulgars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[-SINAN-]

I find the Bulgars to be one of the most fascinating and interesting Turkic peoples

The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, Proto-Bulgarians,[1] Huno-Bulgars[2]) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who flourished in thePontic Steppe and the Volga basin in the 7th century AD.[3][4] Ethnically, the Bulgars are thought to have been Oghur Turkic, with Scytho-Sarmatian[5][6] and Sarmatian-Alan[7][8] elements. There is a discussion whether these Sarmatian elements in the cultural characteristics of the Proto-Bulgars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians.[9] They had also enveloped other ethnic groups by their migration westwards across the Eurasian steppe.[10][11] In their ethnogenesis Indo-European (Iranian) groups, Altaic groups (Stoyanov 1997) and probably Uralic (Finno-Ugric) groups (Artamanov 1962) have participated.[12]

Emerging as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, their roots can be traced, according to some researchers to Central Asia.[13] They became sedentary during the 7th century into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, establishing the polity (khanate) of Old Great Bulgaria c. 630 AD. However it was absorbed by the Khazar Empire in 668 AD. In 680 AD Khan Asparukh conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the First Bulgarian Empire, which was however slavicized by the 10th century. Another state called Volga Bulgaria was established on the middle Volga circa 670 AD. Volga Bulgars preserved their national identity well into the 13th century by repelling the first Mongol attacks in 1223. But they were eventually subdued, and their capital Bolghar city became one of major cities of the Mongol Golden Horde. Later, the Volga Bulgars adopted the Kipchak language (with some or no Kipchak admixture) and became the Volga Tatars of the Khanate of Kazan and later modern Tatarstan.

Etymology

The etymology of the name Bulgar is not fully understood; there are claims that it derived from the Turkic verb bulğa ("to mix", "shake, "stir") and its derivative bulgak ("revolt", "disorder") by some authorities.[14][15] A minority hypothesis derives it from bel gur ("five clans").[16]

Hunnic Empire

The early Bulgars (or "Proto-Bulgars") may have been present in the Pontic Steppe from the 2nd century, identified with theBulensii in certain Latin versions of Ptolemy's Geography, shown as occupying the territory along the northwest coast of Black Sea east of Axiacus River (Southern Bug).[17][18][19]


In the early 4th century, the Bulgars would have been caught up in the Hunnic migrations, moving to the fertile lands along the lower valleys of the rivers Donets and Don and the Azov seashore, and assimilating some remainders of the Sarmatians. Some of these remained for centuries in their new settlements, whereas others moved on with the Huns towards Central Europe, settling in Pannonia. Those Bulgars took part in the Hunnic raids on Central and Western Europe between 377 and 453. After the death of Attila in 453, and the subsequent disintegration of the Hunnic Empire, the Bulgar tribes dispersed mostly to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe.

At the end of the 5th century (probably in the years 480, 486, and 488) they fought against the Ostrogoths as allies of theByzantine emperor Zeno. From 493 they carried out frequent attacks on the western territories of the Byzantine Empire. Later raids were carried out at the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century.

Bulgar Khanate

In the middle of the 6th century, war broke out between the two main Bulgar tribes, the Kutrigur and Utigur. To the west, the Kutrigurs fell underAvar dominion and became influential within the Khaganate. The eastern Utigurs fell under the western Göktürk empire in 568. The Bulgars took the city of Corinth in the middle of the 7th century.[20] United under Kubratof the Dulo clan (identical to the ruler mentioned by Persian chroniclerTabari under the name of Shahriar), the joined forces of the Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars, and probably the Bulgar Onogurs, broke loose from the Turkic khanate in the 630s. They formed an independent state, the Onogundur-Bulgar (Oghondor-blkar or Olhontor-blkar) Empire, often called by Byzantine sources "the Old Great Bulgaria". The empire was situated between the lower course of the Danube to the west, the Black Sea and the Azov Sea to the south, the Kuban River to the east, and the Donets River to the north. It is assumed that the state capital was Phanagoria, an ancient city on the Taman peninsula (see Tmutarakan). However, the archaeological evidence shows that the city became predominantly Bulgar only after Kubrat's death and the consequent disintegration of his state.




Bulgars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulgars are not Turkic