FINALLY: UKRAINE will replace "Russia" with "Muscovy"

No Litwin, the Russians do not consider themselves Europeans, and why in the damn world would they want to be Europeans? Because they, (or rather the Germanic tribes), like to gratify their egos and believe their ethnicity and standards as being superior, doesn't mean they are, or that people should want to be like them? Unless of course they have a slave looking up to their master mentality. ..like some of the Eastern Europeans who they conquered.

Come on Litwin, if the Germans had anything to base their arrogance on, they wouldn't have done their digging in ancient Greece. They would have done it in Germany.

As for Russia, its foundation is the Christian Byzantine Empire, and that is based on Greek and Latin Rome... a much more ancient civilization than the Germanic Rome of the later Frank conquests.

As for the Rus, well they did come down the Volga to Constantinople in the 9th century according to Byzantine historians. ..and I don't think the Volga starts in Lviv or Kiev.

 

Oh that's too bad. Then the German people will only have the CIA paid medias.

[video=youtube;4Bf5G-zLrh0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bf5G-zLrh0[/video]

 

i just pointed out weakens of your Stalin primary school narrative , and Monomakh is part of your imperial "Muscovy =Rus´" narrative. i have couple of questions. which can be interesting for you and me. 1) what do you know about Tartary ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary 2) most of all your "Muscovite" artifacts have Arabic or other Muslim letters on them. why? were Juchi Mongols/Muscovites(elites or all population ) Muslims , or something like many Bulgarians in 18-19c. Muslim in Friday and Christians in Sunday? as we all know German semi - professional historians made up your History in 19 c. how much did they hide and make up actually?

 

zhanna i know, question why to you still call Muscovite/Juchi Mongols still for "Russians"? dont you know that Rus´/Ruthenia(s) have belonged (in all forms) to European civilization?

 

litwin you are not pointing to me something, you are trolling to me something. What are you going to prove to me showing your fantastic ignorance? What concept and what narrative are you talking about? I just ask you to show me the primary source that proves your statement. You can not even understand what I'm asking about, because you have no any idea of basic things which base any historical research from a student's essay for colloquium up to a monography of Doc. of history.

Now I have to explain to you the basic things while you babble to me something about a primary school. Mr. litwin I have to upset you, history is very exact science, all historical researches must be based on primary sources. A primary source is a basis of any work it does not matter the concept. No matter the concept and country, the first thing which is said by any Professor to his students is "guys base your works on primary sources, if you are unable to prove your statement by a primary source, your work is a fiction that has nothing to do with science and there is no a subject of talk".

So all I want is to see here is the proof of your concept confirmed by primary sources. The complete Collection of Russian Chronicles consists of 43 volumes and it contains over 700 separate chronicles that describe the events from IX to XVII centuries. So the whole medieval Russian history is documented. Come on litwin, show me the ancient chronicle were it is said that the Duchy of Moscow was ulus of Golden Horde. What a problem? Just show me the source of your concept and I'll believe you. What a problem?

As to your questions about Tataria, Arabic inscriptions, Bulgaria and other stuff you ask. I think nothing about it. Because, in the first place - I do not see your concept. Secondly, I do not see your sources that confirm this concept. In other words, I do not see the subject of talk.

 

The name Rus was the name the Byzantines used for the Vikings that sailed down the Volga... But look if the others want to use the Latin name Ruthenia to differentiate them from their Orthodox brethren in the Russian Federation, then I'm sure there wouldn't be any objection. They are entitled to it.

By the way did you know the Swedes have 3% Mongolian DNA and are related to the American Indians? I bet you didn't, so now when they start to act more 'European' than thou, you can call them Mongolians.

 

Lol I like it and adding it to my collection!

Never seen it before, is it a Russian saying? (Or your country whatever that is, sorry on phone can't see avatar)

 

Hmmm, my history isn't nearly as good in this area, but didn't the first Rus' start with Rurik in Kiev?

From wiki: "The modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural ancestors."

So why should they not be called "Russian"?

Anyways, too bad the Mongols nuked it, I truthfully think the more "authoritarianism" of Russia all started because of them.

With enemies like that it was 'fight for your existence' not some Fuedal battle where you change lords.

"... you will once again be fighting for our freedoms. Not from tyranny or oppression or persecution, but from annihilation. We're fighting for our right to live, to exist!"

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on!! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our ...."

Sorry couldn't resist the best speech written in all history!!!!!!

 

Yes, it's a translation of a Russian fable by a 17th century poet.

 

If they want to be called Russians, why not. No one's stopping them. They have the same DNA according to studies made...even the ones in the Western part. The only difference is in the northern parts of Russia and Belarus where they mingled with some other ethnicities. The name Ukraine comes from the Greek meaning the people who lived on the edge of Russia. (There were Greeks there you know?)

Not really! It's a cultural thing because the Ruthenians fell under the strong authority of the Pope. They had a different upbringing than the Orthodox so that nations such as Croatia and Western Ukraine leaned towards Germany and Nazism in WWII, while the Orthodox which places more emphasis on spirituality than on rote obedience, were more independent in their thoughts...so they tended towards communism.

Anyway it's these personality differences in their upbringing that makes them distrustful of one another. (My opinion).

But you didn't say by who?

 

19c. (XIX), in 17c. the bears wrote poems to Bayars and rebels and then ate them alive in public " squares " in Ulus Juchi

 

Rus was created by Rurik in the north-west part of the modern Russian Federation. 862 is the year of the creation of the Russian state. The first capital was in the city Ladoga, now this is Staraya Ladoga in Leningrad Oblast. Later, in 865, Rurik has moved his capital to Novgorod. After the death of Rurik his relative Oleg has conquered Kiev in 882 and moved the capital of Rus' in Kiev. All these events are described at the beginning of the Primary Chronicle. There is the English translation of this chronicle, you can read. http://sites.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf

As to the cultural heritage of modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. Yes we all are cultural ancestors of Kievan Rus'. But that is another story why we have three people instead of one who are descendants of this old state. I can explain it to you, but even a brief explanation is very long story. We must go back to the events of medieval Russia viewing several centuries.

 

ps

.....

 

Your short explanation of the events in early medvedial times put it on the point, same as Jeanettes DNA-analysis (although that kind of argumentation seems a little rasistic to me). If russian history would have been one strait line from 1200 to 2016 we would have one RUS and that would be reasonable.

But building of nations is only little of ancient history or DNA, but much of common understanding, habbits and experience in the last 300-500 years. Otherwise Netherlands would not be seperate from Germany.

The first part of the 13 th century and the Mongolian storm led to seperation of RUS in:
- an cultural European western part under government by Lithuania/Poland and
- an cultural Asian eastern part under government (later tribute, free after 1702) of Mongolian/Golden Horde. In the late 18th century the east occupied the west of former RUS.

But in the years between 1240 and 1794 those areas had a complete different developement.


In the western parts of former RUS:
- much higher alphabetisation,
- contact with european enlightenment,
- end of serfdom,
- lithuanian liberalism and religious freedom,
- polish constituionalism
- massive jewish influence.

In the eastern parts:
- serfdom,
- an allmighty upper class
- small contacts with foreign ideas
- a strong military, that first helped to get rid of Tartarian rule, later beated Swedish, Polish and Ottoman neighbors.

From 1794 to 1918, the end of czarist russia, the eastern part tried to roll back the developement of the western part (and install their kind of state in Poland too) with iron hand, but they never succeded.
The only thing, they succeded is spreading hate between Polish, Ukrainian, Jewish and Russian people and actually more important installing a system of oligarchism. A burden Ukraine has to fight hard with (and I'm not sure it will win), while Russia still didn't start fighting.

Btw.: Independent from these historical explanations I see the renaming of Russia in Muskovy as a nonsens. If the Russians want themselves be called Russians they shoud be so. Same with the greek veto on calling the state "FYROM" Macedonia or the former naming "BRD" for the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" by the Comecon countries to avoid to use the word "Germany" for us.

 

Mister Europe2050 if you disagree with my point and if you want to criticize my brief explanation, the first thing you have to do is to read my explanation. But as I did not write it, I wonder what are you criticizing?

I also wrote nothing about DNA. Although I absolutely agree with Jeanette, we really belong to the same halogrup. This is the medical fact. But there is no need to be tested, it is enough to visit the archives of many Ukrainian cities to be sure that Russians and Ukrainians have common ancestors. 200 years ago, Kiev was the provincial town, now this is the city with a population of over 2 million people. There is no secret that the majority of modern Kiev inhabitants are descendants of people who arrived there during the last 200 years from all regions of the former Russian Empire. As well as all modern south and the east of Ukraine was populated by peasants from the central provinces of Russian empire. All of this is written in archival documents which still are stored.

But let's get back to our explanation. You are absolutely right, we have three people instead of one because of the location of different parts of the former Kievan Rus in the different states. But I would start my explanation from the Council of Liubech 1097 which has started the process of feudal fragmentation in Kievan Rus. By the middle of the XIII century, former Rus' was completely disintegrated Although we had some form of cultural, linguistic and even political unity which did not prevented from entering the western part of Rus' into Poland and Lithuania, and this did not prevent the transformation of the eastern Russian principalities into the vassal state of Golden Horde. However, it was just the beginning of the process which lasted for several centuries and is not completely finished today.Though it is necessary to mention misters bolsheviks they have made much for the creation of so-called Ukrainian ethnos.

However, your post is written in the spirit as if the eastern part of Rus' was violently suppressed by Mongol conquerors up to the present time, while the western part of Rus' got into some kind of Polish-Lithuanian paradise on Earth. I understand that the desire to spit into the history of my country can overcome the desire for truth. However, let's come to the facts.

The so-called lithuanian liberalism and religious freedom, meant the subordinated position of the Orthodox population in the real life. Old Russian elite was polonised and catholicised to the beginning of XVIII century.

The polish constitutionalism and lithuanian liberalism probably are good things but for Szlachta only which made about 10% of the population of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It has nothing to do with 90% of the peasant population that was in the position of cattles. By the way about cattles. You obviously confuse Western and Eastern Europe having written about the end of a serfdom.

Obviously you know nothing about the so-called second edition of serfdom. It was England and France that abolished serfdom in XIV-XV centuries. While in the Eastern Europe since the end of XV early XVI centuries was started the process of enslavement of peasants. Poland is one of the first who reinforced serfdom. Moscow Duchy started this process since the publications of Sudebnik of 1497 and fully legalized the serfdom just in the middle of XVII century. Approximately during the same time England and France have started to create their colonial empires transforming into slaves the African population.

The abolition of the serfdom in Russian empire was started from Estonia in 1816, Courland in 1817, Livonia in 1819. The total abolition in 1861. But it concerned only the western and central provinces as there were no serfs in the northern, southern provinces, and Siberia.

The abolition of serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe took place in the next chronological order: Czechia in 1781, Hungary in 1785, Prussia in 1808, Bavaria 1808. In Poland, serfdom was abolished by Napoleon in 1811. Parallel to this, Britain and France abolished slavery in their colonies. Britain 1833-1834. All colonies of France and Denmark - 1848, the United States abolished slavery in 1865. So if you want to accuse Russia of long period of serfdom, do not forget to look at enlightenment Western countries. As for the Polish-Lithuanian paradise this is just ridiculous.

 

explain why Belarusians , Ukrainians speak rusin language, you guys your version of old -Bulgarian , why you has always had an Asiatic (Mongolian) undemocratic - form or governance? and what of Kyiv rus´ you guys actually have?))) nothing ...

 

LOL)) a German knows history of East Europe way better then entire Putin´s crew here)) man, you just proved high level of German education ....

just 2 questions : 1) why is 1702? , was it 1783? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Crimean_khans

2)

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/25816/alexander-nevskys-helmet
does it mean that Muscovites were Muslims and Christians in the same time during Juchi Times, much like many Bulgarians under ottomans? on Friday Muslims, on Sunday - Christians? what do you think?

 

shame on you Muscovite guys, a German came and bring topic back to the academic level ...thats why your satellites are too heavy ... and "your(semi - fiat?LOL)" Lada sold only 12 cars in Germany this year ...

 

Well there are others such as Moskalshichina - that is Muskovy
Stalinshicina -- Himnoyidshchina---- we can do on and on but the only real solution would be a long and deadly civil war followed by "Moskalshichina falling apart into 20 pieces.

Too bad that there are so few us people here who are this well informed about the history of Eastern Europe that your humored goes for naught.

 

To every Russia Basher. Please watch this fellow American.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v6l-j0gty4

 

Mr. litwin Belarusians and Ukrainians speak in quite understandable dialect of Russian language. Ukrainian surzhik has few differences from the Russian literary language. These are Galicians who speak in the mixture of Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian and Romanian languages ​​and who have made their language as the official state language 20 years ago. So tell your fable about the Bulgarian language to someone else. Old-Bulgarian that is known as Old Slavonic used in church services only, since the days of Kievan Rus. This is the top of ignorance to confuse the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages. By the way, read the ancient Russian chronicles in the original. Both those that were written in the Lithuanian duchy and those that were written in the Duchy of Moscow are written in the same language. Unlike you,I know the subject, as I read them and had a course of ancient Russian language.

 

It' a reaction to the racism of the Western Ukrainians who consider themselves as being more Rus than the Rus living in Moscow. They should be flattered though, because if I was a Russian, I wouldn't want people to know I'm related to the Banderites. They're nuts!

They developed differently because Western Rus fell under the authority of the Pope. The Catholic system of education teaches obedience with a strict adherence to rules. It has a lot less flexibility than the Orthodox, which is more spiritual, and emphasizes the heart rather than laws and ethics.

The difference in their development was because Western Ukraine fell under the Frank influenced Papacy in Rome while the foundation and influence of the Russian Church remained the Greek Church of Constantinople. .

I have news for you, the only oligarchs in Russia are those who pay their taxes and contribute to the welfare of Russia. The ones who didn't were kicked out like Khodorovsky by Putin, and they are the ones who want to take over Russia again and grab its wealth and strip the country the way they did under Yeltsin. .

As for the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet system, it was a foreign takeover of Russia. The first Soviet Congress consisted of 85% Jews, Poles, Finns and Ukrainians. There were no Russians in it.

 

According to an article by Sharon Tennyson titled: Is Putin Incorruptible, this is what happened to Russia's oligarchs when Putin became president:

February 2000 ​

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia's oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: "What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop."

This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West's capitalists nervous. After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen - - good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal: They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized .... IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin's "elegant solutions" to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia.

But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn't pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia's largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).​

http://www.sott.net/article/278407-...nts-character-and-his-countrys-transformation

 

I wasn't critcicing your correct explanation, only completing

Yes

No, the liberation of Russia was a steady process, beginning in the 15th century and ending about 1700 with different states from complete government to more or less tribute-system.
And the Commonwealth was surely no paradise, but I don't see any state on earth in the late medvedial and early moderntimes, that would fit in actual measures. For those times it was at least very good average and better than ist western and eastern neighbors.

In Poland (=Ukraine) perhaps, in Lithuania (= see statute of GDL 1566 or Confederation of Warsaw 1573) surely no. But you should also see, that in late medvedial/early modern times Poland was (with Italy) among the top of european science (Kopernikus etc.), so the intelligent class of the Commonwealth tended to polish language (= and livestyle and religion). In 1815 far more subjects of the czar could read Polish than Russian.

The question: is 10% a lot or a few? I would say, a lot. Until the revolution in France and the US independence I don't know any country, in which 10% of people had influence on the state.

At least history isn't black and white, but lots of grey. Nevertheless - and that was my aim - was to show why the western and the eastern part of early medvedial RUS took different developements. It was not my aim to judge in good and bad, but to find a reason why people behave like they do.