Being of Ukrainian heritage, I used to sometimes look up Ukrainian history, and mostly only found the Holodomor, and everything else my parents had told me was of Ukrainian culture was attributed to Russians. Now magically all of a sudden it seems that massive revelations have been made about how Ukraine actually has its own culture separate from Russian.
If Putin hadn't have invaded, the rest of the world would still regard Ukraine as Russia lite and not give a frick.
My neighbors are Ukrainians and until Putin invaded (to take back rightful Russian land) they called themselves Russians. The Ukraine doesn't have history separate from Russia and that's a fact, Jack.
Not him but I would say Russians living there, since the national emancipation is the core of the entire modern European borders and is also the reason Ukraine exists.
2 years ago
Anonymous
UN charter, ratified by the Soviet Union and thus all it's successor States (including both Russia and Ukraine, among others) >Article 2 >The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. >... >4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The invasion is unlawful no matter how you look at it mate.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ratified by the Soviet Union and thus all it's successor States
That's not how countries work... but I digress. >The invasion is unlawful
Yeah thankfuly I am not a sociopath so when there is a war I care more about people dying than some signatures on papers. So here we are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's not how countries work
It is, moron. That's specifically the reason why Russia has a permanent seat at the UN security council. >Yeah thankfuly I am not a sociopath so when there is a war I care more about people dying than some signatures on papers.
So you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine because you care about the people being murdered by the Russians, and not the signatory made by Russia promising thaty it won't invade other countries and kill people. Couldn't expect better logic from 60 IQ vatnik shills.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>general Mutton
American detected, I will stop replying further right away
You could just read a book on Ukranian history which have existed long before 2014. Obviously the experiences of your parents don't account for the middle ages. Seems to me you are just a moron or a Russian
My neighbors are Ukrainians and until Putin invaded (to take back rightful Russian land) they called themselves Russians. The Ukraine doesn't have history separate from Russia and that's a fact, Jack.
You think the experiences of this Anon's parents account for the 1922 famine? Fricking 90 year old IQfy poster.
>newbies discover history is politicized
The history didn't change. The simplified narratives people choose to build on top of it did.
Omg this! So much this! In fact, I welcomed the Russian army with open arms when they invaded! They raped my butthole and I got HIV but it was worth it to be accepted among my brothers!
>thye all come from kievan rus
Not really. Ukrainians appeared in 19th century, belarussians even later.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Belarussians are older than Ukrainians. Ukrainians are the outsiders, and the so called "Ruthenians" (east Slavs living in the PLC) are refered to as old Belarussians in various eastern European sources, even in territory that is today Ukraine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the so called "Ruthenians" (east Slavs living in the PLC) are refered to as old Belarussians in various eastern European sources
Old belarussian is a meme. Ruthenian literally means "russian" and russians living in PLC were never considered to be a separate nation till 20th century.
Yes. But my point is that Ukrainians frequently make the claim that Kievan Rus was basically Ukraine, and thus Ukraine existed well before Russia, and on the other hand, everyone else in the world (until a few months ago just associates Kievan Rus with Russia.
It seems like Russians are saying that their culture is shared (which appears more accurate), while Ukrainians desperately try to say they have a distinct culture (but of what? Peasant farming and some mediocre folk songs?)
The Russian invasion is awful and unjust imo, but I'd much rather have a culture associated with some of the greatest works of literature, music, mathematics, etc. than one of cabbage and wheat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It seems like Russians are saying that their culture is shared (which appears more accurate), while Ukrainians desperately try to say they have a distinct culture (but of what? Peasant farming and some mediocre folk songs?)
you're well behind the times anon, no the Russians believe that the Ukrainians are just wayward Russians (without getting into the state tolerated punditry outright claiming Ukrainian identity and language are fake). The nonsense outward rhetoric about brotherhood used before the war was just hiding the fact that most Russians just considered them to be wayward variants of the mother culture, the war just took the mask off.
The historical reality is that Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian are descendants of an original more unified culture but that doesn't mesh well with modern conception of nation and identity. so instead we get never ending shitflinging about how it was *really* X Slav variant
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is that significantly different to what I said?
2 years ago
Anonymous
btw, how Serbs are related to this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Serbs just like Russian wieners
2 years ago
Anonymous
and Ukrainian just like Turkic wieners.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They think that if they beg and seethe hard enough they'll be adopted
2 years ago
Anonymous
no, russia developed from muscovy, kievan rus was a country that formed around the city of kiev. in earlier tims 12 or 13th century
2 years ago
Anonymous
Russia's orgin lie in the principality of vladimir suzdal. Who's ruler literally said he didn't consider large parts of his land to be part of the Rus and wanted to break away from it with the rest. They then went on to literally burn Kiev down ruining the city making it even less capable to defend against the Mongols. The orgins of the Russians literally lie in rebelling against the Rus.
Completely seriously this is the biggest brainlet take I heard here in a long time. Holy shit, I knew this board was low but this is just zero critical thinking.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Don't you know bro all the people of kiev packed up to move to Russia and the etrusco-lemurians and Acadian French moved to kiev and became the Ukrainians
The simple answer is usually best
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah that's right bro I live in Kiev and I can trace my family lineage living in the same house as I am back over 1200 years. There is still a scraped wall paint in my room from when the Mongols besieged the town.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you going to claim the Egyptians were black or the Romans were Nordic? Even Otzis descendants are clustered around the same area.
The people in the kiev region simply call themselves Ukrainians instead of Rus now. Names change.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Various changes to the populations happen, I can't believe I am the one to break that news to you, especially on what is or rather what was supposed to be a history board.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Right so what are Ukrainians now? Turks? Mongols?
Pop history is that a ruling elite of a couple thousand makes big changes to a settled population of millions.
Real history is that in post agricultural societies don't actually change that much
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ever wondered why you have dark hair brown eyes when your neighbour is a blonde blue eyes and your other is a green eyed ginger? It's because changes happen, and they happen so often it's just considered normal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is that really your evidence to prove the Ukrainian population is unrelated to Ruthenia?
Variation in hair and skin color in Europe happened in prehistoric times.
You sound like the moron right now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Is that really your evidence to prove the Ukrainian population is unrelated to Ruthenia?
Moving the goal post >Variation in hair and skin color in Europe happened in prehistoric times.
No, it's happening all the time. Every day, for past thousands of years, including right now. In prehistoric times is when it started.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Doesn't change the fact that genetic evidence in post agricultural societies show that populations don't change all that much.
Ukrainians are still descendants of the kievans
2 years ago
Anonymous
What you meant to say is >Ukrainians are still partial descendants of the Kievans
2 years ago
Anonymous
As opposed to the Russians who are full descendants?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, just ignore the mongols wiping the floor with the various kievan rus cities/towns, and then Ukraine being a blank slate steppe free-for-all wild west area until Russia finally subjugated and settled it starting after 1650s.
>Everyone besides seething Ukrainians has always associated Kievan Rus with Russia.
yeah, because brainlets see "Rus" in the title and so automatically assume "Russian"
So... morons who have no idea about the history of Eastern Europe?
https://i.imgur.com/Xl2yShK.jpg
Do historians unironically believe in this shit?
K&G suck ass and I haven't watched that particular video, but if all they talk about is that the Kievan Rus was the historical origin of Ukraine they are 100% correct. Vatniks have been claiming for a while now that Ukraine has no history, or that it was created out of thin air by the Soviets, when in reality it was the centre of power and culture of Eastern Europe for 400 years.
>when in reality it was the centre of power and culture of Eastern Europe for 400 years.
Kiev started as a colony conquered by Novgorodians from the Khazars. You can now figure out yourself where your shitty reddit logic got you.
>muh kievan rus
This reddit moron talking point never fails to make me cringe. The Kievan Rus was not "ukrainian" Rus was a precursor state to all East slav peoples, Ukrainian as a term or identity being literally non-existant until the 20th century.
And regardless, the Rus's is origind and each one of its oldest cities is in the North, modern Russia. The lands of the Kiev and all "ukraine" had to be conquered from nomads.
>Ukrainian as a term or identity being literally non-existant until the 20th century
https://en.difesaonline.it/evidenza/approfondimenti/napoleone-e-lucraina
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Cossack+Hetman%3a+Ivan+Mazepa+in+history+and+legend+from+Peter+to...-a0373255591
Voltaire writes about the Ukrainians, and Napoleon commissioned a book on the Cossacks in 1813 that talks about Ukraine and Ukrainians as a separate people. >"Ukrainians are more generous, more sincere, more polite, more hospitable and more hard-working than Russians; they offer living proof of the superiority that civil liberty gives to men who are not born into servitude"12. In addition, Lesur described the terrible repression suffered by the Ukrainian Cossacks after Mazeppa allied himself with Charles XII: "Wherever the Russian generals found the Cossacks, they had orders to put them to the sword […]. The Tsar's plan was to subdue absolutely all of Ukraine. The inflexible Tsar was thirsty for the blood of all nations"13
Obviously not the most unbias of sources, but it goes to show that there was an idea of Ukraine being unique long before the 20th century, or even before things like the Ukrainian Discourse Theatre in Lviv.
>we wuz cossacks n shiet
Cossack != Ukrainian. Cossacks were not a nation, they were just bandits that were later transformed by Russia into military force. It's like calling mexican cartels a separate nation. And also "Ukraine" was a geographic term that literally meant borderland.
2 years ago
Anonymous
cossacks where not bandits, they were nomadic pastoralists was past their expiry date.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>has always aspired to be free [L'Ukraine a toujours aspire a etre libre]; but surrounded as she is by Muscovy, the states of the Grand Seignior [of Turkey], and Poland, she has been obliged to seek a protector, and consequently a master, in one of these three nations. First of all, she placed herself under the tutelage of Poland, which treated her too much like a dependency; then she gave herself to the Muscovite, who did his best to enslave her. To begin with, the Ukrainians enjoyed the privilege of electing a prince known as their general [... un prince sous le nom de general]; but they were soon stripped of that right and their general was appointed by the Court of Moscow. (13)
-voltaire
Does this sound to you like someone describing a solely geographical term or someone describing a nation?
And no they weren't bandits or even nomads, they ruled a number of cities including Kiev, which had printing presses and an academy. Travelers even noted the region had a higher literacy rate than the surrounding regions. It had diplomatic relations with, and recognised by, the surrounding powers. It was a state with a government similar to the polish one (though with the Cossack class voting for a hetman rather than the magnates) ruling over a population of townsmen and peasants, not a bunch of horsemen roaming about empty lands. (Yes the "wild fields" did exist in the south of modern day Ukraine and later would be colonised under Catherine the Great, but these were never the core of the hetmanate and the majority of the wild fields were only ever ruled over by the Crimean khanate)
Anyone claiming little russians as they used to call themselves existed before the 1600s is high on crack
The official name the Zaporizhian Host used for itself (and was recognised as in treaties with other powers) was Ukraine, but yeah before the hetmanate they just called themselves Rus
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The official name the Zaporizhian Host used for itself (and was recognised as in treaties with other powers) was Ukraine, but yeah before the hetmanate they just called themselves Rus
Even then that nation-state and it's related statelets existed between the dnipro and the river cutting kyiv in two.
Most of modern ukraine's land today is a consequence of border gore from imperialism, nationalist purges and soviet re-assimilation.
eastern ukraine wasn't even slavic. Western ukraine was historically steppe nomad land, crimea wasn't even slavic till soviets happened.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>between the dnipro and the river cutting kyiv in two.
Yes by the end of it's existence, but it did start off larger than that >Most of modern ukraine's land today is a consequence of border gore from imperialism, nationalist purges and soviet re-assimilation.
I don't disagree, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country that doesn't control land that used to belong to someone else.
Should Russia be forced back into it's 1505 borders for the same reason? Should America be given to the American Indians?
2 years ago
Anonymous
i don't care about that, this is about when Ukrainian self-identity started.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What does the amount of land have to do with when a national identity starts?
American national identity did not start In 1892, it started prior to 1776 when all there was were a smattering of settlements dotted along a coast
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thread is about the origins of the Ukrainian self-identity, and I'm locating it in both time and space.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why bring up territory then?
I'd say their first national awakening as "Ukrainian" was somewhere between the birth of the hetmanate and 1700, though differences between Rus in Ukraine and Rus in Russia predate this obviously. I haven't seen OPs video so I can't say anything about it, though it seems stupid to me to claim the Ukrainians are somehow less related to Kievan Rus than the Russians or vice versa.
>Does this sound to you like someone describing a solely geographical term or someone describing a nation?
It sounds like liberal screeching, something like this was also used to describe Novgorod. It doesn't mean novgorodians were separate nation. >And no they weren't bandits or even nomads, they ruled a number of cities including Kiev
Mongols ruled big cities too, that doesn't change the fact that they were nomads.
[...] >Cossack Hetmanate >Ukraine
Hetmanate was basically pro-russian separatist state, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Nobody in there considered themselves to be part of "ukrainian nation" and they willingfully got annexed by Russia
>Mongols ruled big cities too, that doesn't change the fact that they were nomads.
Read my whole post, you might as well be saying "Poland wasn't a real state because the magnates moved around all the time" Cossacks were not the state, they were the class of people who ruled it. >Hetmanate was basically pro-russian separatist state, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Nobody in there considered themselves to be part of "ukrainian nation" and they willingfully got annexed by Russia
Strange they went about it awfully slowly, first aligning with poland and when they did become a tributary of Moscow they quickly allied themselves with Charles XII and attempted to gain independence at Poltava
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why bring up territory then? >time AND SPACE
you are being dense and defensive for no reason m8.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Cossacks were not the state, they were the class of people who ruled it.
I never said they were. I said that cossacks started out as bandits and later became military estate. >first aligning with poland
This has something to do with the fact that Poland was their overlord and they tried to negotiate. I wouldn't call that alignment to Poland. >they quickly allied themselves with Charles XII and attempted to gain independence at Poltava >they >As the Swedish and Polish armies advanced towards Ukraine, Mazepa allied with them on 28 October 1708. However, only 3,000 Cossacks followed their Hetman, with the rest remaining loyal to the Tsar. Mazepa's call to arms was further weakened by the Orthodox Clergy's allegiance to the Tsar.
By "they" you mean 3000 traitors? Because no one else in Hetmanate supported that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I never said they were. I said that cossacks started out as bandits and later became military estate.
Sorry I meant as in Cossacks weren't just migratory group of independent bandits forcing tribute from local cities, many were largely sedimentary military lords owning large estates, perhaps similar to daimyo in Japan (though actually many were actually poor and some couldn't even afford weapons.) mazepa himself built colleges and churches >3,000 Cossacks
The exact number isn't known, they're believed to be between 3000 and 7000. Far more Cossacks actually (perhaps 3 times as many) fought against Mazepa, but they largely weren't from the hetmanate, rather from the don region, it was a kind of blood feud as the Ukrainian Cossacks had recently helped the Russians crush a rebellion of the don Cossacks
However it's wrong to say the majority of Ukrainian Cossacks opposed independence outright, Mazepa joined the Swedes partly out of fear he'd be overthrown if he didn't oppose Russia, many Cossacks were angry their people were being drafted to fight for Russia far from their borders or do things like digging trenches in St Petersburg and felt the Russians had broken their treaty with them.
Religion did have a part, with the Swedes being protestants, however fear of the tsar was far more important, you're forgetting about the Baturyn massacre, where the Russians killed every one of the Ukrainian capital's 15,000 inhabitants after they refused to surrender to a Russian army half a year before Poltava. No one wanted that to happen to their city and even a full-force Ukrainian Cossack army with the Swedes wouldn't of had much of a hope against Russia.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Sorry I meant as in Cossacks weren't just migratory group of independent bandits forcing tribute from local cities, many were largely sedimentary military lords owning large estates, perhaps similar to daimyo in Japan
Yes, that's why it's very dumb for someone to assume that they were an independent nation. >Far more Cossacks actually (perhaps 3 times as many) fought against Mazepa, but they largely weren't from the hetmanate, rather from the don region
Even if we assume that this is true, which I highly doubt. Wouldn't it mean that there were only about 3k people willing to fight for independent ukraine and they don't speak for the majoirty of "ukrainians"? >However it's wrong to say the majority of Ukrainian Cossacks opposed independence outrigh
It's much more wrong to say that they supported it. If they did they would rebel like in 1648, but instead we got one defector that was disliked by the majority of people in Hetmanate. >Baturyn massacre
But that happened before Mazepa betrayed Russia, "ukrainians" werent scared of that but they still didn't join him. >however fear of the tsar was far more important
It wasn't because of fear of the tsar, but because russian orthodox majority of Hetmanate doesn't want to be ruled by poles.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>before Mazepa betrayed Russia
Sorry, meant to write "after Mazepa betrayed Russia"
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Does this sound to you like someone describing a solely geographical term or someone describing a nation?
It sounds like liberal screeching, something like this was also used to describe Novgorod. It doesn't mean novgorodians were separate nation. >And no they weren't bandits or even nomads, they ruled a number of cities including Kiev
Mongols ruled big cities too, that doesn't change the fact that they were nomads.
>between the dnipro and the river cutting kyiv in two.
Yes by the end of it's existence, but it did start off larger than that >Most of modern ukraine's land today is a consequence of border gore from imperialism, nationalist purges and soviet re-assimilation.
I don't disagree, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country that doesn't control land that used to belong to someone else.
Should Russia be forced back into it's 1505 borders for the same reason? Should America be given to the American Indians?
>Cossack Hetmanate >Ukraine
Hetmanate was basically pro-russian separatist state, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Nobody in there considered themselves to be part of "ukrainian nation" and they willingfully got annexed by Russia
Russia or rather muscovy as it was called, conquered most of ukrainian lands in the 18th century or so. In France, russia was still called by its original name of moscovia, check french maps of the 19th century of europe.
>Russia or rather muscovy as it was called, conquered most of ukrainian lands in the 18th century or so. In France, russia was still called by its original name of moscovia, check french maps of the 19th century of europe.
>the muscovy cope
Yes, The principality was the Russian state to unite the Rus. What's your point?
Is Italy a fabrication of the Savoyard state? The Germans of the Prussian? Spain a castillian cope?
I know this talking point is common among braindead polaks but at least reflect on it a bit. Moreover, ukraine formally joined the Russian state in the 17th century, more proof of your demented ignorance.
I don’t understand why either side is so moronic about it >be big collection of tribal groups spread over wide area >over hundreds of years one group winds up under different polities and has a slightly different dialect/language and culture, but still shares common origins
This has happened to almost every people in history but morons still want to say Ukrainians are no different from or are 100% absolutey different from Russians
Let me spice things up a bit.
Is the Russo-Ukrainian dispute really one between highlanders and lowland people?
A large part of Western Ukraine is made up of highlands like mountains and hills. This is often framed as being one, if not the core of Ukrainian culture and statehood. Meanwhile the ethnic core of Russia is mostly made up of the lowlands of the East European plain. Sure there's Russian living in some Ural areas now, but that's recent colonization. East Slavs lived dor a long time in Galycia and Podolia.
Now obviously there's some issues with this, a large part of Ukraine is the Dnepr Basin and this is also ethnically Ukrainian and very important historically, but Ukraine still has a very large "highland" component in Galycia, Podolia and I guess Transcarpathia.
I don’t understand why either side is so moronic about it >be big collection of tribal groups spread over wide area >over hundreds of years one group winds up under different polities and has a slightly different dialect/language and culture, but still shares common origins
This has happened to almost every people in history but morons still want to say Ukrainians are no different from or are 100% absolutey different from Russians
You said better and more succinctly what I was trying to say.
>>This is often framed as being one, if not the core of Ukrainian culture and statehood. >The core of Ukrainian identity lies exactly in that small area of Ukraine that wasn't part of Russia until after WW2
Imagine my surprise
Consider that these lowland areas were doninated by stepe nomads till XVIII century. And was mostly empty because Crimean Tatars used to raid through these areas and then abduct anyone they can and sold them to Ottomans as slaves. Thus rise of armed societes who can defend themselves from them aka Cossacks. Thus after Russia seized Crimea and ended these raids it become for these areas to be finally colonized under Russian administration. And there comes name for it NovoRussia as opposite to MaloRussia (smaller/lesserRus) - the older name that Rusians had for core Ukraine areas around Kiev.
>Do historians unironically believe in this shit?
No. "Historians" are talking about Ukrainians having a nationality that has a strong continuity with the middle ages because they're engaged in a war with hordes of pidoraskas and are thus being supported by the west.
If the Ukrainian gets fully integrated into the western order than historians will be deconstructing Ukrainianness as an arbitrary construct of the 20th century.
No not really. There is less difference between majority of "Ukrainians" and Western Russians and Belarusians than there is between Yorkshire and London or New York and Florida.
The main difference between modern state Ukrainian culture and Russian culture, is the North West of Ukraine was Polish until the OUN.
Either way, basically every culture in the region has it's seed in Novogrod. Ukraine was functionally "founded" by Oleg of Novgorod.
People thinking Russia is the one true decedent of Rus just because their names are similar is as stupid as thinking Romania is the only true heir of the Roman Empire
Except stupider because their names are more divergent in Russian than in English (pycь and poccия)
>their names are similar
Simmiliar? The names are the same. -ia is just a latinized suffix, you can still call Russia Rus, you will just sound a bit archaic. Documented name of Kievan Rus was "Ruskaya zemlya", which would also be without a doubt understood as Russia today.
If you wanted to make a meaningful argument on who should be true descendent of Rurik and the Rus, it would be between Russians, Finns and Swedes since the Rurik and his retinue were Varyags, norsemen. The ukraine branched from Russia because of Tatar, Polish, Austrian, Lithuanian occupation and its final legitimization under the Bolsheviks; the closest thing it had to a sovereign state was the Galician princedom.
>Simmiliar? The names are the same. -ia is just a latinized suffix
So Romania is the direct heir of the Romans? of course this doesn't prove anything in favour of Ukraine being the true heir either, but I have seen people make the arguement that Russia and Rus having a similar name automatically proves that they're the same country and I'm pointing out why it's fricking stupid. >Ruskaya zemlya >póycьcкaѧ зeмлѧ (According to Wikipedia)
Compare this to "Pyccкиe Зeмли" there's as much similarity between "Romani" and "Română". This is definitve proof that Romania and the Roman empire are the same country
As I said, it's a stupid argument, names alone prove very little
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So Romania is the direct heir of the Romans?
Romania implies "Roman" as in Roman empire. Wallach in Slavic languages is a term for Italians and Romans, but Wallachia is in Romania. There is clear connection between Romania and Roman empire, obviously the name did not came from vacuum.
In case of Russia, there is simply uninterrupted tradition, where the Russian lands were united into Russian Empire by one of Ruriks descendants and there is no other state with such a connection. The name is just one of the parts why Russian federation is the one true heir of Russia.
>póycьcкaѧ зeмлѧ (According to Wikipedia)
Its literally the same thing as today, see picrel. Pyccкиe Зeмли is plural. Playing semantic games with language you dont know is kinda moronic.
Even Russia agrees there is a problem there.
But I feel like that problem is now growing universally as people become more apathetic to it. The covid effect.
No the Russian annexation of Crimea was the birth of the Ukrainian nation. Ot triggered the widespread suppression of the Russian language and political activity associated with it.
>slav, chud and so on confederation kicks out vikings >start fighting eachother >invite an outsider to be a ruler that would take no sides >capital is novgorod >his brother or son in law captures kiev and makes it the capital >mongols invade and the rus rule is basically just tax collection >novgorod stays the most autonomous >slavs create moscow >moscow becomes the capital of the slavs >romanov family rises to power
they never called themselves the kievan rus
not a single time ever, that term is not even 200 years old
if you think ukrainian is a culture or ethnicity then how come their name itself is in the context of being the borderlands of muscovite rule?
might as well pretend youre the ancient tribe of south new york
>YOU CANT HECKING VIOLATE THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF SOVIET SATELLITE #1488 THATS ILLEGAL THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL SAYS SO
This sentiment has become a driver for the modification of historical reality.
Things are looking pretty good. Russia has embarrassed itself in front of the world and are being pushed back.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Russia did not take a single loss in the 1 out of 3 Ukrop offensives that succeeded.
Ukraine belongs to Russia, it is naturally within the bosom of The Great Eastern Slavic race, from the Kievan Rus, who are closer to Novogorod Russians than to hohol ruthenians, to the natural organization of the early modern Russian state wherein Ukraine was a frontier then a pivotal location of the Russian Empire.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's nice to know that any Russia-NATO conflict will end in complete Russian defeat
Isn't it funny that nations that are at the moment beneficial to be supported by globohomosexual are allowed to claim continuity with medieval states and peoples?
Isn't it funny that nations that are at the moment beneficial to be supported by globohomosexual are allowed to claim continuity with medieval states and peoples?
That's how every country works. No one denies that England comes from medieval England.
when kievan rus collapsed they moved north to moscow, and the only stuff left behind in ukraine was a mongolian puppet
english people couldnt go anywhere
Who moved north to Moscow? Moscow was a small, insignificant town in the 13th century. The people who lived in southern Kievan Rus continued to live where they always had.
>No one denies that England comes from medieval England.
Maybe I worded it wrongly, I was thinking moreso alongside the lines of "nation states were invented in the 19th century" (which I guess technically isn't wrong) being used to discredit ethnonationalists in favor of replacement level immigration. The powers that be would never allow anyone west of ukraine to claim the right to national sovereignty and therefore ethonationalist policies on the basis of continuity with medieval states and modern peoples - they would simply attack the idea on the basis of medieval states not corresponding to modern peoples on the basis that the latter came from the former, and the former used to only refer to the king, his dynasty, and the nobility holding land, not the earth-tilling proles.
There's no doubt that the Mongol invasion was a catastrophe for Kievan Rus, but there was no civilizational collapse. Modern Ukrainians derive their language, culture and religion from there. The only thing they don't have is direct political continuity since those times, but neither do many countries. Poland didn't exist from 1795 to 1918, but no one pretends that Polish history began in 1918.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Modern Ukrainians derive their language from there
They don't? Ukrainian "language" is a mishmash of polish and russian that was beginning to form only in 19th century.
>Do ~~*historians*~~ unironically believe in this shit?
yes. the marxists who've infiltrated western academia does the same with each target country they infiltrate, insofar as rewriting their history to say it never happened, its people never existed, it was made up, its identity is false, ect., and normalize the vandalism of its place in history to propagandize politically contextualized scripts. for the propagandist that calls itself by any named profession, no amount of evidence to the contrary of their claims will ever get in the way of a 'correct' narrative, hence the existance of private american firms like david brocks 'correct the record'. these particular ~~*historians*~~ in the mockingbird media will never let pre peter the great russia's origins in kievan rus be a thing when trying to culturally erase russia from existance and memory. >why would they do that if russia is the one who sent them to subvert the west?
that 'russia' is the old soviet union subverters (who came from a multitude of soviet republics, including ukraine), had their main central communist benefactor die out on them, and see the new russia as an enemy that is no longer their idealized soviet power and essentially 'betrayed real communism' in a sense, and must therefore be deconstructed. new russia is the 'not real communism' they came from, and so proceed to continue their subversion against their already target nations and engineer it against their new enemy that overthew their romanticized communist power structure.
It is very clear from your post, that you are mentally unwell. This idea that there is a Marxist infiltration of all academia, everywhere at once, and that everything happening today is the result of machinations from the Soviet Union, is completely Hyperborea tier outlandish, and there is a reason no serious discussion or thought is put forward on this.
I suggest you take a nap, and then go outside and reflect upon this world. You post such ridiculous nonsense and believe it fully, I know you are not feeling well brother.
>Ukrainian history doesn't exist at all >It's literally just a bunch of city states before the commies took over >"Ukraine" as a geographic term technically covers half of Poland
You mean the history of the Germanic Goths that were ruthlessly exiled from that region in the early modern period and with the remnants removed after WWII?
That said, I'm starting to believe the difference between slav and germanic is too blurry to give it proper distinction given the consistent back and forth migration between what we call Germanic regions nowadays and what we call slavic regions. There's some genetic heritage there, but it just seems so insignificant to be something to properly divide such races.
I would like to see the genetic flow over time more in depth though. I imagine some anon would deeply disagree with my opinion.
Of course not, ukrainian identity was made by austro-hungarian foreign intelligence agencies to undermine the russians. The language is basically a con lang made up in the 1800's by amalgamating multiple hick dialects on the edges of poland and russia.
Being of Ukrainian heritage, I used to sometimes look up Ukrainian history, and mostly only found the Holodomor, and everything else my parents had told me was of Ukrainian culture was attributed to Russians. Now magically all of a sudden it seems that massive revelations have been made about how Ukraine actually has its own culture separate from Russian.
If Putin hadn't have invaded, the rest of the world would still regard Ukraine as Russia lite and not give a frick.
THIS
My neighbors are Ukrainians and until Putin invaded (to take back rightful Russian land) they called themselves Russians. The Ukraine doesn't have history separate from Russia and that's a fact, Jack.
>rightful Russian land
What exactly makes it "rightfully" Russian?
Not him but I would say Russians living there, since the national emancipation is the core of the entire modern European borders and is also the reason Ukraine exists.
UN charter, ratified by the Soviet Union and thus all it's successor States (including both Russia and Ukraine, among others)
>Article 2
>The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
>...
>4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The invasion is unlawful no matter how you look at it mate.
>ratified by the Soviet Union and thus all it's successor States
That's not how countries work... but I digress.
>The invasion is unlawful
Yeah thankfuly I am not a sociopath so when there is a war I care more about people dying than some signatures on papers. So here we are.
>That's not how countries work
It is, moron. That's specifically the reason why Russia has a permanent seat at the UN security council.
>Yeah thankfuly I am not a sociopath so when there is a war I care more about people dying than some signatures on papers.
So you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine because you care about the people being murdered by the Russians, and not the signatory made by Russia promising thaty it won't invade other countries and kill people. Couldn't expect better logic from 60 IQ vatnik shills.
>general Mutton
American detected, I will stop replying further right away
run away shill troon.
how often do you use "my neighbor is ukranian" as an excuse to argue slavic history online? do they know youre using them?
You could just read a book on Ukranian history which have existed long before 2014. Obviously the experiences of your parents don't account for the middle ages. Seems to me you are just a moron or a Russian
You think the experiences of this Anon's parents account for the 1922 famine? Fricking 90 year old IQfy poster.
>newbies discover history is politicized
The history didn't change. The simplified narratives people choose to build on top of it did.
>Trivializes a point that's being made.
>Proceeds to make the exact same point.
Thanks for the input.
samegay
Coped harder pig
Omg this! So much this! In fact, I welcomed the Russian army with open arms when they invaded! They raped my butthole and I got HIV but it was worth it to be accepted among my brothers!
You should focus more on learning reading comprehension.
True
And now you understand why most popular history is complete bull
What's the problem anon?
are you now going to dispute kievan rus existed or what?
Everyone besides seething Ukrainians has always associated Kievan Rus with Russia.
kievan rus is the father civilization of those rus peoples, ukranians, belarussians, russians, thye all come from kievan rus
Having shared ancestry is a b***h
>thye all come from kievan rus
Not really. Ukrainians appeared in 19th century, belarussians even later.
Belarussians are older than Ukrainians. Ukrainians are the outsiders, and the so called "Ruthenians" (east Slavs living in the PLC) are refered to as old Belarussians in various eastern European sources, even in territory that is today Ukraine.
>the so called "Ruthenians" (east Slavs living in the PLC) are refered to as old Belarussians in various eastern European sources
Old belarussian is a meme. Ruthenian literally means "russian" and russians living in PLC were never considered to be a separate nation till 20th century.
Yes. But my point is that Ukrainians frequently make the claim that Kievan Rus was basically Ukraine, and thus Ukraine existed well before Russia, and on the other hand, everyone else in the world (until a few months ago just associates Kievan Rus with Russia.
It seems like Russians are saying that their culture is shared (which appears more accurate), while Ukrainians desperately try to say they have a distinct culture (but of what? Peasant farming and some mediocre folk songs?)
The Russian invasion is awful and unjust imo, but I'd much rather have a culture associated with some of the greatest works of literature, music, mathematics, etc. than one of cabbage and wheat.
>It seems like Russians are saying that their culture is shared (which appears more accurate), while Ukrainians desperately try to say they have a distinct culture (but of what? Peasant farming and some mediocre folk songs?)
you're well behind the times anon, no the Russians believe that the Ukrainians are just wayward Russians (without getting into the state tolerated punditry outright claiming Ukrainian identity and language are fake). The nonsense outward rhetoric about brotherhood used before the war was just hiding the fact that most Russians just considered them to be wayward variants of the mother culture, the war just took the mask off.
The historical reality is that Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian are descendants of an original more unified culture but that doesn't mesh well with modern conception of nation and identity. so instead we get never ending shitflinging about how it was *really* X Slav variant
How is that significantly different to what I said?
btw, how Serbs are related to this?
Serbs just like Russian wieners
and Ukrainian just like Turkic wieners.
They think that if they beg and seethe hard enough they'll be adopted
no, russia developed from muscovy, kievan rus was a country that formed around the city of kiev. in earlier tims 12 or 13th century
Russia's orgin lie in the principality of vladimir suzdal. Who's ruler literally said he didn't consider large parts of his land to be part of the Rus and wanted to break away from it with the rest. They then went on to literally burn Kiev down ruining the city making it even less capable to defend against the Mongols. The orgins of the Russians literally lie in rebelling against the Rus.
>t. vatBlack person
literally nobody does it. Kievan Rus is father of all these duchies, and there was also Novgorod long before Muscovites
I've always associated it with the Ukraine since kiev is the capital of the Ukraine.
UH..... its KYIV chud
Completely seriously this is the biggest brainlet take I heard here in a long time. Holy shit, I knew this board was low but this is just zero critical thinking.
>Don't you know bro all the people of kiev packed up to move to Russia and the etrusco-lemurians and Acadian French moved to kiev and became the Ukrainians
The simple answer is usually best
Yeah that's right bro I live in Kiev and I can trace my family lineage living in the same house as I am back over 1200 years. There is still a scraped wall paint in my room from when the Mongols besieged the town.
Are you going to claim the Egyptians were black or the Romans were Nordic? Even Otzis descendants are clustered around the same area.
The people in the kiev region simply call themselves Ukrainians instead of Rus now. Names change.
Various changes to the populations happen, I can't believe I am the one to break that news to you, especially on what is or rather what was supposed to be a history board.
Right so what are Ukrainians now? Turks? Mongols?
Pop history is that a ruling elite of a couple thousand makes big changes to a settled population of millions.
Real history is that in post agricultural societies don't actually change that much
Ever wondered why you have dark hair brown eyes when your neighbour is a blonde blue eyes and your other is a green eyed ginger? It's because changes happen, and they happen so often it's just considered normal.
Is that really your evidence to prove the Ukrainian population is unrelated to Ruthenia?
Variation in hair and skin color in Europe happened in prehistoric times.
You sound like the moron right now.
>Is that really your evidence to prove the Ukrainian population is unrelated to Ruthenia?
Moving the goal post
>Variation in hair and skin color in Europe happened in prehistoric times.
No, it's happening all the time. Every day, for past thousands of years, including right now. In prehistoric times is when it started.
Doesn't change the fact that genetic evidence in post agricultural societies show that populations don't change all that much.
Ukrainians are still descendants of the kievans
What you meant to say is
>Ukrainians are still partial descendants of the Kievans
As opposed to the Russians who are full descendants?
Yeah, just ignore the mongols wiping the floor with the various kievan rus cities/towns, and then Ukraine being a blank slate steppe free-for-all wild west area until Russia finally subjugated and settled it starting after 1650s.
As a Finn I can't agree. We always dealt with Novgorod, where as the capital, Kiev, felt very remote.
Where's Kiev, bro? Surely you can look at a map.
>Everyone besides seething Ukrainians has always associated Kievan Rus with Russia.
yeah, because brainlets see "Rus" in the title and so automatically assume "Russian"
So... morons who have no idea about the history of Eastern Europe?
K&G suck ass and I haven't watched that particular video, but if all they talk about is that the Kievan Rus was the historical origin of Ukraine they are 100% correct. Vatniks have been claiming for a while now that Ukraine has no history, or that it was created out of thin air by the Soviets, when in reality it was the centre of power and culture of Eastern Europe for 400 years.
Americ**t should frick off again.
>trying to rewrite history
Go back to the pigpen, hohol.
1st guards tank army got buckbroken in Ukraine lmao
Having a good swim in Krivoy Rog?
>when in reality it was the centre of power and culture of Eastern Europe for 400 years.
Kiev started as a colony conquered by Novgorodians from the Khazars. You can now figure out yourself where your shitty reddit logic got you.
>kievan rus is ukraine
It was kiyeefan rus you bigot.
>muh kievan rus
This reddit moron talking point never fails to make me cringe. The Kievan Rus was not "ukrainian" Rus was a precursor state to all East slav peoples, Ukrainian as a term or identity being literally non-existant until the 20th century.
And regardless, the Rus's is origind and each one of its oldest cities is in the North, modern Russia. The lands of the Kiev and all "ukraine" had to be conquered from nomads.
You're moronic.
>Ukrainian as a term or identity being literally non-existant until the 20th century
https://en.difesaonline.it/evidenza/approfondimenti/napoleone-e-lucraina
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Cossack+Hetman%3a+Ivan+Mazepa+in+history+and+legend+from+Peter+to...-a0373255591
Voltaire writes about the Ukrainians, and Napoleon commissioned a book on the Cossacks in 1813 that talks about Ukraine and Ukrainians as a separate people.
>"Ukrainians are more generous, more sincere, more polite, more hospitable and more hard-working than Russians; they offer living proof of the superiority that civil liberty gives to men who are not born into servitude"12. In addition, Lesur described the terrible repression suffered by the Ukrainian Cossacks after Mazeppa allied himself with Charles XII: "Wherever the Russian generals found the Cossacks, they had orders to put them to the sword […]. The Tsar's plan was to subdue absolutely all of Ukraine. The inflexible Tsar was thirsty for the blood of all nations"13
Obviously not the most unbias of sources, but it goes to show that there was an idea of Ukraine being unique long before the 20th century, or even before things like the Ukrainian Discourse Theatre in Lviv.
>we wuz cossacks n shiet
Cossack != Ukrainian. Cossacks were not a nation, they were just bandits that were later transformed by Russia into military force. It's like calling mexican cartels a separate nation. And also "Ukraine" was a geographic term that literally meant borderland.
cossacks where not bandits, they were nomadic pastoralists was past their expiry date.
>has always aspired to be free [L'Ukraine a toujours aspire a etre libre]; but surrounded as she is by Muscovy, the states of the Grand Seignior [of Turkey], and Poland, she has been obliged to seek a protector, and consequently a master, in one of these three nations. First of all, she placed herself under the tutelage of Poland, which treated her too much like a dependency; then she gave herself to the Muscovite, who did his best to enslave her. To begin with, the Ukrainians enjoyed the privilege of electing a prince known as their general [... un prince sous le nom de general]; but they were soon stripped of that right and their general was appointed by the Court of Moscow. (13)
-voltaire
Does this sound to you like someone describing a solely geographical term or someone describing a nation?
And no they weren't bandits or even nomads, they ruled a number of cities including Kiev, which had printing presses and an academy. Travelers even noted the region had a higher literacy rate than the surrounding regions. It had diplomatic relations with, and recognised by, the surrounding powers. It was a state with a government similar to the polish one (though with the Cossack class voting for a hetman rather than the magnates) ruling over a population of townsmen and peasants, not a bunch of horsemen roaming about empty lands. (Yes the "wild fields" did exist in the south of modern day Ukraine and later would be colonised under Catherine the Great, but these were never the core of the hetmanate and the majority of the wild fields were only ever ruled over by the Crimean khanate)
The official name the Zaporizhian Host used for itself (and was recognised as in treaties with other powers) was Ukraine, but yeah before the hetmanate they just called themselves Rus
>The official name the Zaporizhian Host used for itself (and was recognised as in treaties with other powers) was Ukraine, but yeah before the hetmanate they just called themselves Rus
Even then that nation-state and it's related statelets existed between the dnipro and the river cutting kyiv in two.
Most of modern ukraine's land today is a consequence of border gore from imperialism, nationalist purges and soviet re-assimilation.
eastern ukraine wasn't even slavic. Western ukraine was historically steppe nomad land, crimea wasn't even slavic till soviets happened.
>between the dnipro and the river cutting kyiv in two.
Yes by the end of it's existence, but it did start off larger than that
>Most of modern ukraine's land today is a consequence of border gore from imperialism, nationalist purges and soviet re-assimilation.
I don't disagree, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country that doesn't control land that used to belong to someone else.
Should Russia be forced back into it's 1505 borders for the same reason? Should America be given to the American Indians?
i don't care about that, this is about when Ukrainian self-identity started.
What does the amount of land have to do with when a national identity starts?
American national identity did not start In 1892, it started prior to 1776 when all there was were a smattering of settlements dotted along a coast
Thread is about the origins of the Ukrainian self-identity, and I'm locating it in both time and space.
Why bring up territory then?
I'd say their first national awakening as "Ukrainian" was somewhere between the birth of the hetmanate and 1700, though differences between Rus in Ukraine and Rus in Russia predate this obviously. I haven't seen OPs video so I can't say anything about it, though it seems stupid to me to claim the Ukrainians are somehow less related to Kievan Rus than the Russians or vice versa.
>Mongols ruled big cities too, that doesn't change the fact that they were nomads.
Read my whole post, you might as well be saying "Poland wasn't a real state because the magnates moved around all the time" Cossacks were not the state, they were the class of people who ruled it.
>Hetmanate was basically pro-russian separatist state, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Nobody in there considered themselves to be part of "ukrainian nation" and they willingfully got annexed by Russia
Strange they went about it awfully slowly, first aligning with poland and when they did become a tributary of Moscow they quickly allied themselves with Charles XII and attempted to gain independence at Poltava
>Why bring up territory then?
>time AND SPACE
you are being dense and defensive for no reason m8.
>Cossacks were not the state, they were the class of people who ruled it.
I never said they were. I said that cossacks started out as bandits and later became military estate.
>first aligning with poland
This has something to do with the fact that Poland was their overlord and they tried to negotiate. I wouldn't call that alignment to Poland.
>they quickly allied themselves with Charles XII and attempted to gain independence at Poltava
>they
>As the Swedish and Polish armies advanced towards Ukraine, Mazepa allied with them on 28 October 1708. However, only 3,000 Cossacks followed their Hetman, with the rest remaining loyal to the Tsar. Mazepa's call to arms was further weakened by the Orthodox Clergy's allegiance to the Tsar.
By "they" you mean 3000 traitors? Because no one else in Hetmanate supported that.
>I never said they were. I said that cossacks started out as bandits and later became military estate.
Sorry I meant as in Cossacks weren't just migratory group of independent bandits forcing tribute from local cities, many were largely sedimentary military lords owning large estates, perhaps similar to daimyo in Japan (though actually many were actually poor and some couldn't even afford weapons.) mazepa himself built colleges and churches
>3,000 Cossacks
The exact number isn't known, they're believed to be between 3000 and 7000. Far more Cossacks actually (perhaps 3 times as many) fought against Mazepa, but they largely weren't from the hetmanate, rather from the don region, it was a kind of blood feud as the Ukrainian Cossacks had recently helped the Russians crush a rebellion of the don Cossacks
However it's wrong to say the majority of Ukrainian Cossacks opposed independence outright, Mazepa joined the Swedes partly out of fear he'd be overthrown if he didn't oppose Russia, many Cossacks were angry their people were being drafted to fight for Russia far from their borders or do things like digging trenches in St Petersburg and felt the Russians had broken their treaty with them.
Religion did have a part, with the Swedes being protestants, however fear of the tsar was far more important, you're forgetting about the Baturyn massacre, where the Russians killed every one of the Ukrainian capital's 15,000 inhabitants after they refused to surrender to a Russian army half a year before Poltava. No one wanted that to happen to their city and even a full-force Ukrainian Cossack army with the Swedes wouldn't of had much of a hope against Russia.
>Sorry I meant as in Cossacks weren't just migratory group of independent bandits forcing tribute from local cities, many were largely sedimentary military lords owning large estates, perhaps similar to daimyo in Japan
Yes, that's why it's very dumb for someone to assume that they were an independent nation.
>Far more Cossacks actually (perhaps 3 times as many) fought against Mazepa, but they largely weren't from the hetmanate, rather from the don region
Even if we assume that this is true, which I highly doubt. Wouldn't it mean that there were only about 3k people willing to fight for independent ukraine and they don't speak for the majoirty of "ukrainians"?
>However it's wrong to say the majority of Ukrainian Cossacks opposed independence outrigh
It's much more wrong to say that they supported it. If they did they would rebel like in 1648, but instead we got one defector that was disliked by the majority of people in Hetmanate.
>Baturyn massacre
But that happened before Mazepa betrayed Russia, "ukrainians" werent scared of that but they still didn't join him.
>however fear of the tsar was far more important
It wasn't because of fear of the tsar, but because russian orthodox majority of Hetmanate doesn't want to be ruled by poles.
>before Mazepa betrayed Russia
Sorry, meant to write "after Mazepa betrayed Russia"
>Does this sound to you like someone describing a solely geographical term or someone describing a nation?
It sounds like liberal screeching, something like this was also used to describe Novgorod. It doesn't mean novgorodians were separate nation.
>And no they weren't bandits or even nomads, they ruled a number of cities including Kiev
Mongols ruled big cities too, that doesn't change the fact that they were nomads.
>Cossack Hetmanate
>Ukraine
Hetmanate was basically pro-russian separatist state, like Donetsk and Luhansk. Nobody in there considered themselves to be part of "ukrainian nation" and they willingfully got annexed by Russia
Russia or rather muscovy as it was called, conquered most of ukrainian lands in the 18th century or so. In France, russia was still called by its original name of moscovia, check french maps of the 19th century of europe.
you my friend, are moronic
>Russia or rather muscovy as it was called, conquered most of ukrainian lands in the 18th century or so. In France, russia was still called by its original name of moscovia, check french maps of the 19th century of europe.
>the muscovy cope
Yes, The principality was the Russian state to unite the Rus. What's your point?
Is Italy a fabrication of the Savoyard state? The Germans of the Prussian? Spain a castillian cope?
I know this talking point is common among braindead polaks but at least reflect on it a bit. Moreover, ukraine formally joined the Russian state in the 17th century, more proof of your demented ignorance.
moron.
The civilized historian fears the Ruthenian pastoralist
I don’t understand why either side is so moronic about it
>be big collection of tribal groups spread over wide area
>over hundreds of years one group winds up under different polities and has a slightly different dialect/language and culture, but still shares common origins
This has happened to almost every people in history but morons still want to say Ukrainians are no different from or are 100% absolutey different from Russians
Let me spice things up a bit.
Is the Russo-Ukrainian dispute really one between highlanders and lowland people?
A large part of Western Ukraine is made up of highlands like mountains and hills. This is often framed as being one, if not the core of Ukrainian culture and statehood. Meanwhile the ethnic core of Russia is mostly made up of the lowlands of the East European plain. Sure there's Russian living in some Ural areas now, but that's recent colonization. East Slavs lived dor a long time in Galycia and Podolia.
Now obviously there's some issues with this, a large part of Ukraine is the Dnepr Basin and this is also ethnically Ukrainian and very important historically, but Ukraine still has a very large "highland" component in Galycia, Podolia and I guess Transcarpathia.
Seems accurate.
You said better and more succinctly what I was trying to say.
>>This is often framed as being one, if not the core of Ukrainian culture and statehood.
>The core of Ukrainian identity lies exactly in that small area of Ukraine that wasn't part of Russia until after WW2
Imagine my surprise
broke: history determined by haplogroup conflicts
woke: history determined by highlander-lowlander conflicts
Consider that these lowland areas were doninated by stepe nomads till XVIII century. And was mostly empty because Crimean Tatars used to raid through these areas and then abduct anyone they can and sold them to Ottomans as slaves. Thus rise of armed societes who can defend themselves from them aka Cossacks. Thus after Russia seized Crimea and ended these raids it become for these areas to be finally colonized under Russian administration. And there comes name for it NovoRussia as opposite to MaloRussia (smaller/lesserRus) - the older name that Rusians had for core Ukraine areas around Kiev.
>highland
I don't see no ukie wearing a dress, blowing through a goat stomach, or swilling smoky pisswater.
>I don't see no ukie wearing a dress
you're not looking hard enough
>Do historians unironically believe in this shit?
No. "Historians" are talking about Ukrainians having a nationality that has a strong continuity with the middle ages because they're engaged in a war with hordes of pidoraskas and are thus being supported by the west.
If the Ukrainian gets fully integrated into the western order than historians will be deconstructing Ukrainianness as an arbitrary construct of the 20th century.
No not really. There is less difference between majority of "Ukrainians" and Western Russians and Belarusians than there is between Yorkshire and London or New York and Florida.
The main difference between modern state Ukrainian culture and Russian culture, is the North West of Ukraine was Polish until the OUN.
Either way, basically every culture in the region has it's seed in Novogrod. Ukraine was functionally "founded" by Oleg of Novgorod.
Russia should just rename itself to Musvowy and all that confusion would disappear.
People thinking Russia is the one true decedent of Rus just because their names are similar is as stupid as thinking Romania is the only true heir of the Roman Empire
Except stupider because their names are more divergent in Russian than in English (pycь and poccия)
>their names are similar
Simmiliar? The names are the same. -ia is just a latinized suffix, you can still call Russia Rus, you will just sound a bit archaic. Documented name of Kievan Rus was "Ruskaya zemlya", which would also be without a doubt understood as Russia today.
If you wanted to make a meaningful argument on who should be true descendent of Rurik and the Rus, it would be between Russians, Finns and Swedes since the Rurik and his retinue were Varyags, norsemen. The ukraine branched from Russia because of Tatar, Polish, Austrian, Lithuanian occupation and its final legitimization under the Bolsheviks; the closest thing it had to a sovereign state was the Galician princedom.
>Simmiliar? The names are the same. -ia is just a latinized suffix
So Romania is the direct heir of the Romans? of course this doesn't prove anything in favour of Ukraine being the true heir either, but I have seen people make the arguement that Russia and Rus having a similar name automatically proves that they're the same country and I'm pointing out why it's fricking stupid.
>Ruskaya zemlya
>póycьcкaѧ зeмлѧ (According to Wikipedia)
Compare this to "Pyccкиe Зeмли" there's as much similarity between "Romani" and "Română". This is definitve proof that Romania and the Roman empire are the same country
As I said, it's a stupid argument, names alone prove very little
>So Romania is the direct heir of the Romans?
Romania implies "Roman" as in Roman empire. Wallach in Slavic languages is a term for Italians and Romans, but Wallachia is in Romania. There is clear connection between Romania and Roman empire, obviously the name did not came from vacuum.
In case of Russia, there is simply uninterrupted tradition, where the Russian lands were united into Russian Empire by one of Ruriks descendants and there is no other state with such a connection. The name is just one of the parts why Russian federation is the one true heir of Russia.
>póycьcкaѧ зeмлѧ (According to Wikipedia)
Its literally the same thing as today, see picrel. Pyccкиe Зeмли is plural. Playing semantic games with language you dont know is kinda moronic.
Why the single frick the Soviet Republics of Ukraine and Belarus even came to be? What drove the decision of the USSR's leadership?
anglos and their slaves do
Those "historians" are pay shill.
so you people actually believe that russians and ukrainians are one and the same?
seems pretty fishy all a sudden since we've had a bunch of ukrainian history threads here before
>Ukraine and Russia have a lot of shared history
>So you're saying they're the same?
>Do historians unironically believe in this shit?
Even Russia agrees there is a problem there.
But I feel like that problem is now growing universally as people become more apathetic to it. The covid effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech,_Czech,_and_Rus'
Its that simple
It doesn't matter. This war alone was really the birth of Ukraine as a nation.
No the Russian annexation of Crimea was the birth of the Ukrainian nation. Ot triggered the widespread suppression of the Russian language and political activity associated with it.
Ruled by mongol hordes half of their history, the other half was ruled by mongol russians
Moldovans didn't exist either until the Soviet Union forced the Romanians to send their children to schools that told them they were Moldovans
>slav, chud and so on confederation kicks out vikings
>start fighting eachother
>invite an outsider to be a ruler that would take no sides
>capital is novgorod
>his brother or son in law captures kiev and makes it the capital
>mongols invade and the rus rule is basically just tax collection
>novgorod stays the most autonomous
>slavs create moscow
>moscow becomes the capital of the slavs
>romanov family rises to power
they never called themselves the kievan rus
not a single time ever, that term is not even 200 years old
if you think ukrainian is a culture or ethnicity then how come their name itself is in the context of being the borderlands of muscovite rule?
might as well pretend youre the ancient tribe of south new york
I love to see blyatBlack folk seethe.
Anyone claiming little russians as they used to call themselves existed before the 1600s is high on crack
>YOU CANT HECKING VIOLATE THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF SOVIET SATELLITE #1488 THATS ILLEGAL THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL SAYS SO
This sentiment has become a driver for the modification of historical reality.
>>YOU CANT HECKING VIOLATE THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF SOVIET SATELLITE #1488 THATS ILLEGAL
Russia agreed to that.
Do you feel in control, NATO?
Things are looking pretty good. Russia has embarrassed itself in front of the world and are being pushed back.
Russia did not take a single loss in the 1 out of 3 Ukrop offensives that succeeded.
Ukraine belongs to Russia, it is naturally within the bosom of The Great Eastern Slavic race, from the Kievan Rus, who are closer to Novogorod Russians than to hohol ruthenians, to the natural organization of the early modern Russian state wherein Ukraine was a frontier then a pivotal location of the Russian Empire.
It's nice to know that any Russia-NATO conflict will end in complete Russian defeat
Is NATO in the room with you anon?
Yeltsin agreed to that. Putin did not. Russia is a nation of Great Men and always has been, be they Peter, Nicolas, or Stalin
Isn't it funny that nations that are at the moment beneficial to be supported by globohomosexual are allowed to claim continuity with medieval states and peoples?
>it happened in the land that now belongs to us therefore it was us
wtf is wrong with ukies?
That's how every country works. No one denies that England comes from medieval England.
when kievan rus collapsed they moved north to moscow, and the only stuff left behind in ukraine was a mongolian puppet
english people couldnt go anywhere
Who moved north to Moscow? Moscow was a small, insignificant town in the 13th century. The people who lived in southern Kievan Rus continued to live where they always had.
>No one denies that England comes from medieval England.
Maybe I worded it wrongly, I was thinking moreso alongside the lines of "nation states were invented in the 19th century" (which I guess technically isn't wrong) being used to discredit ethnonationalists in favor of replacement level immigration. The powers that be would never allow anyone west of ukraine to claim the right to national sovereignty and therefore ethonationalist policies on the basis of continuity with medieval states and modern peoples - they would simply attack the idea on the basis of medieval states not corresponding to modern peoples on the basis that the latter came from the former, and the former used to only refer to the king, his dynasty, and the nobility holding land, not the earth-tilling proles.
It's more like claiming modern England comes from the Danelaw; there was a severe civilizational collapse between Kievan Rus and 1922.
There's no doubt that the Mongol invasion was a catastrophe for Kievan Rus, but there was no civilizational collapse. Modern Ukrainians derive their language, culture and religion from there. The only thing they don't have is direct political continuity since those times, but neither do many countries. Poland didn't exist from 1795 to 1918, but no one pretends that Polish history began in 1918.
>Modern Ukrainians derive their language from there
They don't? Ukrainian "language" is a mishmash of polish and russian that was beginning to form only in 19th century.
Regional differences between the people descended from the Rus? Uh no sweaty all east slavs belong to Moscow
>Do ~~*historians*~~ unironically believe in this shit?
yes. the marxists who've infiltrated western academia does the same with each target country they infiltrate, insofar as rewriting their history to say it never happened, its people never existed, it was made up, its identity is false, ect., and normalize the vandalism of its place in history to propagandize politically contextualized scripts. for the propagandist that calls itself by any named profession, no amount of evidence to the contrary of their claims will ever get in the way of a 'correct' narrative, hence the existance of private american firms like david brocks 'correct the record'. these particular ~~*historians*~~ in the mockingbird media will never let pre peter the great russia's origins in kievan rus be a thing when trying to culturally erase russia from existance and memory.
>why would they do that if russia is the one who sent them to subvert the west?
that 'russia' is the old soviet union subverters (who came from a multitude of soviet republics, including ukraine), had their main central communist benefactor die out on them, and see the new russia as an enemy that is no longer their idealized soviet power and essentially 'betrayed real communism' in a sense, and must therefore be deconstructed. new russia is the 'not real communism' they came from, and so proceed to continue their subversion against their already target nations and engineer it against their new enemy that overthew their romanticized communist power structure.
It is very clear from your post, that you are mentally unwell. This idea that there is a Marxist infiltration of all academia, everywhere at once, and that everything happening today is the result of machinations from the Soviet Union, is completely Hyperborea tier outlandish, and there is a reason no serious discussion or thought is put forward on this.
I suggest you take a nap, and then go outside and reflect upon this world. You post such ridiculous nonsense and believe it fully, I know you are not feeling well brother.
Get better soon.
They certainly will have to now.
There's a lot of pig squealing in this thread.
Rurik, Askold, Dyre, Samo, and Catherine the Great. Why is it that Germanic people keep showing up as elected kings for Slavs? How weird.
>Ukrainian history doesn't exist at all
>It's literally just a bunch of city states before the commies took over
>"Ukraine" as a geographic term technically covers half of Poland
Pay gibs Poles
You mean the history of the Germanic Goths that were ruthlessly exiled from that region in the early modern period and with the remnants removed after WWII?
That said, I'm starting to believe the difference between slav and germanic is too blurry to give it proper distinction given the consistent back and forth migration between what we call Germanic regions nowadays and what we call slavic regions. There's some genetic heritage there, but it just seems so insignificant to be something to properly divide such races.
I would like to see the genetic flow over time more in depth though. I imagine some anon would deeply disagree with my opinion.
The problem is that they aren't different races. Germanics were originally I2 merged with R1A.
Any good genetic wikis and databases to clarify this? I think it's time for me to dig into this more.
Does IQfy have a wiki?
>Ukrainians are pigs
>Ukrainians are Russians
Poccner, bros...
Of course not, ukrainian identity was made by austro-hungarian foreign intelligence agencies to undermine the russians. The language is basically a con lang made up in the 1800's by amalgamating multiple hick dialects on the edges of poland and russia.
Shit like this is why I can't take historians seriously. Absolute political stooges who engage in presentism.
>ITT: morons learn what ethnogenesis is
Pro tip: Nations are born from shared blood, shared ways, or shared struggles
kys russian shill