# "Russian aggression" in Ukraine



## Stratford57

Today, August 28, 2014 in Kiev  over 500 hundred  people are  protesting  and the amount of the people is increasing. Their main demand is an impeachment of Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president (and it’s not even been hundred days of his presidency). The relatives of Ukrainian army soldiers are  demanding their sons, husbands and brothers back home because thousands of them are already killed or just missing after a week of numerous and successful contra-attacks  of Donbass Territorial Army.  And exactly at the same time Poroshenko has announced: “Russia invaded Ukraine” (as usually without showing any proof except some pictures which could be taken anywhere and at any time). Doing that he  pushed the demands about his impeachment to the background, distracting the attention from his own failures. By his previous declarations, Russian troops have been already fighting in Donbass for months, so – what’s new??


David Stulik, a representative of EU in Ukraine also made an announcement about “Russian aggression in Ukraine”. EU called that “his own opinion” at EU’s official page on Facebook. At the same time OSCE representatives, who are monitoring the situation at the Russian-Ukrainian border every day, confirmed: no trespassing the border from Russian side. (Meanwhile over 40 Ukrainian soldiers crossed Russian border today, claiming they were abandoned by their commanders and asked for help).


So, if there truly is Russian aggression in Ukraine, then quite a few questions appear:


  1. Why  800 thousand people from Donbass came to Russia as refugees (these numbers are provided by OSCE)?

   2. Where are the official satellite pictures of Russian troops locations on Ukrainian territory?

   3. Why are there no protests in “occupied ”Crimea against Russian aggression?

  4. Why are Ukrainians protesting against their president and government and those protests are growing every day? 

  5.Why the majority of Russian citizens are not demanding to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine (sorry, there was actually a protest on the Red Square today, with 1 (one) person with a placard). 







  6 .Poroshenko promised to finish his “Anti-terror operation” (which is de-facto terror operation against all Donbass population) within a few days, where is the Victory Parade?

   7. One day of war costs $7 million, where the does the money come from?


Looks like Poroshenko badly needs to invent something to slow down recent success of Donbass Territorial army before they capture Kiev  and start judging all war criminals including himself. A month ago shooting Malaysian Boeing helped him a lot (in the link below you can see what Malaysian experts think about it), this time he had to invent something different… 

US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft New Straits Times

In any case Donbass is a historical Russia territory, the people whom junta is killing there have Russian roots, they would be happy if Russians came and saved them from genocide. Meanwhile on Ukrainian side there are Polish, Lithuanians, Georgians, private American military companies fighting from the very beginning of this ugly war started by the Kiev Junta against Donbass people.


----------



## 1776

Putin will crush anyone inside Russian territory which now includes Crimea if they protest anything he does. Does Gulag ring a bell?

Right now Russia is paying off anyone in Crimea that opposes them and if that doesn't work then the hammer comes down via violence.

The same thing is going on inside eastern Ukraine where Russian criminals, special forces, spies, etc have been parading around as "locals" mad about the government in Kyiv. The real locals in eastern Ukraine don't like these outsiders terrorizing them and killing anyone that speaks out. Of course the Russian media isn't going to cover this because they too don't want to be beaten up or die at the hands of Putin's goons.

This is the same actions Hitler did in the build-up of WW2 during invasions of weaker neighbors terrorizing them and his own people into submission and obeying his orders.

The only option is for someone to kill Putin, that might have to be one of his own once they realize the monster they have in charge.


----------



## Richard-H

Stratford57 said:


> Today, August 28, 2014 in Kiev  over 500 hundred  people are  protesting  and the amount of the people is increasing. Their main demand is an impeachment of Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president (and it’s not even been hundred days of his presidency). The relatives of Ukrainian army soldiers are  demanding their sons, husbands and brothers back home because thousands of them are already killed or just missing after a week of numerous and successful contra-attacks  of Donbass Territorial Army.  And exactly at the same time Poroshenko has announced: “Russia invaded Ukraine” (as usually without showing any proof except some pictures which could be taken anywhere and at any time). Doing that he  pushed the demands about his impeachment to the background, distracting the attention from his own failures. By his previous declarations, Russian troops have been already fighting in Donbass for months, so – what’s new??
> 
> 
> David Stulik, a representative of EU in Ukraine also made an announcement about “Russian aggression in Ukraine”. EU called that “his own opinion” at EU’s official page on Facebook. At the same time OSCE representatives, who are monitoring the situation at the Russian-Ukrainian border every day, confirmed: no trespassing the border from Russian side. (Meanwhile over 40 Ukrainian soldiers crossed Russian border today, claiming they were abandoned by their commanders and asked for help).
> 
> 
> So, if there truly is Russian aggression in Ukraine, then quite a few questions appear:
> 
> 
> 1. Why  800 thousand people from Donbass came to Russia as refugees (these numbers are provided by OSCE)?
> 
> 2. Where are the official satellite pictures of Russian troops locations on Ukrainian territory?
> 
> 3. Why are there no protests in “occupied ”Crimea against Russian aggression?
> 
> 4. Why are Ukrainians protesting against their president and government and those protests are growing every day?
> 
> 5.Why the majority of Russian citizens are not demanding to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine (sorry, there was actually a protest on the Red Square today, with 1 (one) person with a placard).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 .Poroshenko promised to finish his “Anti-terror operation” (which is de-facto terror operation against all Donbass population) within a few days, where is the Victory Parade?
> 
> 7. One day of war costs $7 million, where the does the money come from?
> 
> 
> Looks like Poroshenko badly needs to invent something to slow down recent success of Donbass Territorial army before they capture Kiev  and start judging all war criminals including himself. A month ago shooting Malaysian Boeing helped him a lot (in the link below you can see what Malaysian experts think about it), this time he had to invent something different…
> 
> US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft New Straits Times
> 
> In any case Donbass is a historical Russia territory, the people whom junta is killing there have Russian roots, they would be happy if Russians came and saved them from genocide. Meanwhile on Ukrainian side there are Polish, Lithuanians, Georgians, private American military companies fighting from the very beginning of this ugly war started by the Kiev Junta against Donbass people.



Wow, it's interesting the Malaysian news media is reporting that the evidence points to Ukrainian jets shooting down MH17. I'd think that they'd be the ones most interested in finding out the truth.

I guess that's why American media barely mentions this issue anymore.


----------



## Stratford57

This is my response to a person "...an all the things"  who posted :" The same thing is going on inside eastern Ukraine where Russian criminals, special forces, spies, etc have been parading around as "locals" mad about the government in Kyiv. The real locals in eastern Ukraine don't like these outsiders terrorizing them and killing anyone that speaks out."

Millions of people from SE Ukraine (where I’m from) are dreaming about becoming a part of Russia again (we were a part of Russia till 1917, when Lenin joined us with Ukraine and and call that "creation" Ukrainian Soviet Republic) and are fighting with Nazis for that possible privilege now. We (the ones who are not Nazis or brainwashed by local media, which to me is the same) would love Putin to bring his troops and to help us, but he has not yet, unfortunately. If he had the war would be over long time ago.

About Crimea. Have you ever been there? I’ve been a lot of times. And every time everybody there would tell me: we want to be with Russia again and we will be. An annexation of Crimea occurred when Khrushchev “moved” it from Russian Federation to Ukraine. In March 2014 a huge majority of Crimean residents were happy to go back to Russia and asked Putin “never to give them to anybody else again”. I know many people from Crimea who confirm that. If Russia did not return Crimea, Ukrainians would do the same there like in Donbass now. A couple of weeks ago we talked to a family of refugees from Lugansk, who confirmed: Ukrainians are every day shooting the civilians with Grads, Uragans, apply phosphor and cassette bombs, tearing women, children, seniors into pieces, ruining houses and infrastructure to ground level, keeping them without food, water, gas, electricity, medicine and doing even more evil things to civilians than Germans did during World War 2. And it’s not Donbass people who came to bomb Kiev, it’s Kiev who came to Donbass to exterminate those who did not want to support the new Nazis’ regime.

We (the huge majority of SE) love Putin and dream to have him our president, however saying that in Ukraine  more than likely will end you up in prison as a minimum.


----------



## Stratford57

Yes, Mr. Richard-H, it really does. May be that explains why in the USA or Europe we don't hear anything about investigation of the Boeing crash any more. See, the USA officials cover Ukraine's butt regardless what it does (with the current junta as government/president). Who is now reading the black boxes? Britain. Who is Britain to the United States? We know the answer. To me to ask Britain to investigate that accident, where the USA have their interest,  is the same as to ask Belarus to investigate smth, where Russia has its interest.


----------



## 1776

Go stand in line for your toilet paper, shitstain Russian.




Stratford57 said:


> This is my response to a person "...an all the things"  who posted :" The same thing is going on inside eastern Ukraine where Russian criminals, special forces, spies, etc have been parading around as "locals" mad about the government in Kyiv. The real locals in eastern Ukraine don't like these outsiders terrorizing them and killing anyone that speaks out."
> 
> Millions of people from SE Ukraine (where I’m from) are dreaming about becoming a part of Russia again (we were a part of Russia till 1917, when Lenin joined us with Ukraine and and call that "creation" Ukrainian Soviet Republic) and are fighting with Nazis for that possible privilege now. We (the ones who are not Nazis or brainwashed by local media, which to me is the same) would love Putin to bring his troops and to help us, but he has not yet, unfortunately. If he had the war would be over long time ago.
> 
> About Crimea. Have you ever been there? I’ve been a lot of times. And every time everybody there would tell me: we want to be with Russia again and we will be. An annexation of Crimea occurred when Khrushchev “moved” it from Russian Federation to Ukraine. In March 2014 a huge majority of Crimean residents were happy to go back to Russia and asked Putin “never to give them to anybody else again”. I know many people from Crimea who confirm that. If Russia did not return Crimea, Ukrainians would do the same there like in Donbass now. A couple of weeks ago we talked to a family of refugees from Lugansk, who confirmed: Ukrainians are every day shooting the civilians with Grads, Uragans, apply phosphor and cassette bombs, tearing women, children, seniors into pieces, ruining houses and infrastructure to ground level, keeping them without food, water, gas, electricity, medicine and doing even more evil things to civilians than Germans did during World War 2. And it’s not Donbass people who came to bomb Kiev, it’s Kiev who came to Donbass to exterminate those who did not want to support the new Nazis’ regime.
> 
> We (the huge majority of SE) love Putin and dream to have him our president, however saying that in Ukraine  more than likely will end you up in prison as a minimum.


----------



## Stratford57

1776 said:


> Go stand in line for your toilet paper, shitstain Russian.



Yes, I am proud to be Russian, thanks for noticing it.


----------



## Aex_alex_alex_777

Take a look at how Russian propaganda works to trigger a war in Ukraine:


----------



## waltky

Big ol' ammo dump blows up in Ukraine...




*Ukraine says ammo depot explosions huge blow to combat capability*
_September 28, 2017  - The destruction of two ammunition depots this year have dealt the biggest blow to Ukraine’s combat capability since the start of its separatist conflict, security and military officials said on Thursday._


> Massive explosions at a military depot in the Vynnytsya region, 270 km (170 miles) west of Kiev, forced the authorities to evacuate 24,000 people on Wednesday. Another large depot was destroyed in March.  “The country has suffered the biggest blow to our fighting capacity since the start of the war,” the secretary of the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, told journalists.  Earlier the defense ministry said the Vynnytsya depot contained 83,000 tonnes of ammunition.
> 
> It is not clear if the explosions were accidents or sabotage, either of which would underscore poor security systems at the bases.  “There are many violations of fire and air safety at our arsenals. And these are the consequences,” Turchynov said. “We’ve shown that we’re not capable of protecting our strategic arsenals.”  Prosecutors have launched an investigation into the Vynnytsya blaze, which the authorities have said may have been set off deliberately, blaming “external factors”.
> 
> Chief military prosecutor Anatoly Matios said the site’s alarm system was out of order and its security team lacked sufficient guards and up-to-date equipment.  “The main issue which must be addressed is the personnel problem of guards whose salaries are very low, and in general security is carried out by elderly people, who certainly don’t have hawk-eye vision,” Matios told journalists.
> 
> There have been four large fires at ammunition and weapons depots since late 2015 - an additional drain on Ukraine’s military, which has been fighting Russia-backed separatists in eastern regions for more than three years.  “It will be hard for the government to restore the military reserves that have destroyed by explosions over the past two years. This is hundreds of billions of hryvnias,” Matios said.
> 
> Thousands evacuated in Ukraine as ammunition depot explodes



See also:

*30,000 evacuated after Ukrainian ammunition depot explodes*
[i|Sept. 27, 2017 -- Over 30,000 people were evacuated Wednesday after massive explosions and a fire struck a military ammunition depot in central Ukraine.[/i]


> Blasts at the defense ministry's arsenal at Kaynivka, about 170 miles west of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, began late Tuesday. Ukrainian Security Services spokeswoman Olena Hitlyanska said Wednesday that investigators are treating the incident as an act of sabotage.  Ukraine's National Police, about 600 National Guardsmen and hundreds of police officers from surrounding communities led the evacuation from towns in a six-mile radius of the explosion.  About 1,200 firefighters are involved in extinguishing the fire. Buses and trains were used to remove civilians from the area, and rail traffic in the area was later rerouted. The military unit overseeing the arsenal was also closed as personnel left.
> 
> A report by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine noted that nearly 22,000 civilians and 500 families of servicemen were evacuated during the night.  Nearby roads and rail lines were closed after the evacuation, as was air traffic within a 30-mile radius of the blast. Power and gas lines to local towns were cut off, the Kyiv Post reported Wednesday.  No injuries were initially reported.
> 
> The continuing wave of explosions broke windows in the town of Kalynivka administration building. Witnesses said the sound of the blasts could be heard in Kiev.  Zoryan Shkiryak, and adviser to the Ukraine's Interior Minister, commented that the incident was an example of "Russian sabotage," noting that it was the seventh fire at the arsenal. He added that a government investigation will be organized.
> 
> 30,000 evacuated after Ukrainian ammunition depot explodes


----------



## Eugene

Actually ammo ware houses burn and explode regularly in Ukraine. It is done to hide facts of theft. Common practice for deeply corrupted state.


----------



## Stratford57

waltky said:


> Big ol' ammo dump blows up in Ukraine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ukraine says ammo depot explosions huge blow to combat capability*
> _September 28, 2017  - The destruction of two ammunition depots this year have dealt the biggest blow to Ukraine’s combat capability since the start of its separatist conflict, security and military officials said on Thursday._
> 
> 
> 
> Massive explosions at a military depot in the Vynnytsya region, 270 km (170 miles) west of Kiev, forced the authorities to evacuate 24,000 people on Wednesday. Another large depot was destroyed in March.  “The country has suffered the biggest blow to our fighting capacity since the start of the war,” the secretary of the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, told journalists.  Earlier the defense ministry said the Vynnytsya depot contained 83,000 tonnes of ammunition.
> 
> It is not clear if the explosions were accidents or sabotage, either of which would underscore poor security systems at the bases.  “There are many violations of fire and air safety at our arsenals. And these are the consequences,” Turchynov said. “We’ve shown that we’re not capable of protecting our strategic arsenals.”  Prosecutors have launched an investigation into the Vynnytsya blaze, which the authorities have said may have been set off deliberately, blaming “external factors”.
> 
> Chief military prosecutor Anatoly Matios said the site’s alarm system was out of order and its security team lacked sufficient guards and up-to-date equipment.  “The main issue which must be addressed is the personnel problem of guards whose salaries are very low, and in general security is carried out by elderly people, who certainly don’t have hawk-eye vision,” Matios told journalists.
> 
> There have been four large fires at ammunition and weapons depots since late 2015 - an additional drain on Ukraine’s military, which has been fighting Russia-backed separatists in eastern regions for more than three years.  “It will be hard for the government to restore the military reserves that have destroyed by explosions over the past two years. This is hundreds of billions of hryvnias,” Matios said.
> 
> Thousands evacuated in Ukraine as ammunition depot explodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See also:
> 
> *30,000 evacuated after Ukrainian ammunition depot explodes*
> [i|Sept. 27, 2017 -- Over 30,000 people were evacuated Wednesday after massive explosions and a fire struck a military ammunition depot in central Ukraine.[/i]
> 
> 
> 
> Blasts at the defense ministry's arsenal at Kaynivka, about 170 miles west of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, began late Tuesday. Ukrainian Security Services spokeswoman Olena Hitlyanska said Wednesday that investigators are treating the incident as an act of sabotage.  Ukraine's National Police, about 600 National Guardsmen and hundreds of police officers from surrounding communities led the evacuation from towns in a six-mile radius of the explosion.  About 1,200 firefighters are involved in extinguishing the fire. Buses and trains were used to remove civilians from the area, and rail traffic in the area was later rerouted. The military unit overseeing the arsenal was also closed as personnel left.
> 
> A report by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine noted that nearly 22,000 civilians and 500 families of servicemen were evacuated during the night.  Nearby roads and rail lines were closed after the evacuation, as was air traffic within a 30-mile radius of the blast. Power and gas lines to local towns were cut off, the Kyiv Post reported Wednesday.  No injuries were initially reported.
> 
> The continuing wave of explosions broke windows in the town of Kalynivka administration building. Witnesses said the sound of the blasts could be heard in Kiev.  Zoryan Shkiryak, and adviser to the Ukraine's Interior Minister, commented that the incident was an example of "Russian sabotage," noting that it was the seventh fire at the arsenal. He added that a government investigation will be organized.
> 
> 30,000 evacuated after Ukrainian ammunition depot explodes
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Since the 2014 coup in Ukraine, the new Ukrainian rulers blame Russia for everything which  goes wrong in their corrupt country [which is just about everything] because otherwise they had to admit it was their own faults. Of course, nobody bothers to present any sane evidence of those accusations.

Compare to Democrats and RINOs in USA: they now keep blaming Russia to distract the public opinion from their own corruption. And again: without any sane proof, just a lot of words.

Everything becomes clear with the help of one small fact: Kiev junta and American Democrats  and RINOs have been controlled by the same people: Soros and his Deep State buddies.

Records: Soros Fund Execs Funded Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham in 2016 - Breitbart


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Stratford57 said:


> Today, August 28, 2014 in Kiev  over 500 hundred  people are  protesting  and the amount of the people is increasing. Their main demand is an impeachment of Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president (and it’s not even been hundred days of his presidency). The relatives of Ukrainian army soldiers are  demanding their sons, husbands and brothers back home because thousands of them are already killed or just missing after a week of numerous and successful contra-attacks  of Donbass Territorial Army.  And exactly at the same time Poroshenko has announced: “Russia invaded Ukraine” (as usually without showing any proof except some pictures which could be taken anywhere and at any time). Doing that he  pushed the demands about his impeachment to the background, distracting the attention from his own failures. By his previous declarations, Russian troops have been already fighting in Donbass for months, so – what’s new??
> 
> 
> David Stulik, a representative of EU in Ukraine also made an announcement about “Russian aggression in Ukraine”. EU called that “his own opinion” at EU’s official page on Facebook. At the same time OSCE representatives, who are monitoring the situation at the Russian-Ukrainian border every day, confirmed: no trespassing the border from Russian side. (Meanwhile over 40 Ukrainian soldiers crossed Russian border today, claiming they were abandoned by their commanders and asked for help).
> 
> 
> So, if there truly is Russian aggression in Ukraine, then quite a few questions appear:
> 
> 
> 1. Why  800 thousand people from Donbass came to Russia as refugees (these numbers are provided by OSCE)?
> 
> 2. Where are the official satellite pictures of Russian troops locations on Ukrainian territory?
> 
> 3. Why are there no protests in “occupied ”Crimea against Russian aggression?
> 
> 4. Why are Ukrainians protesting against their president and government and those protests are growing every day?
> 
> 5.Why the majority of Russian citizens are not demanding to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine (sorry, there was actually a protest on the Red Square today, with 1 (one) person with a placard).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 .Poroshenko promised to finish his “Anti-terror operation” (which is de-facto terror operation against all Donbass population) within a few days, where is the Victory Parade?
> 
> 7. One day of war costs $7 million, where the does the money come from?
> 
> 
> Looks like Poroshenko badly needs to invent something to slow down recent success of Donbass Territorial army before they capture Kiev  and start judging all war criminals including himself. A month ago shooting Malaysian Boeing helped him a lot (in the link below you can see what Malaysian experts think about it), this time he had to invent something different…
> 
> US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft New Straits Times
> 
> In any case Donbass is a historical Russia territory, the people whom junta is killing there have Russian roots, they would be happy if Russians came and saved them from genocide. Meanwhile on Ukrainian side there are Polish, Lithuanians, Georgians, private American military companies fighting from the very beginning of this ugly war started by the Kiev Junta against Donbass people.


*Chickenhawk Kiev*

Does The Ukraine have a draft?  Any country that doesn't draft all healthy males at 18 can't be taken seriously.  It will either lose its war or get bailed out by playing victim and begging other countries to sacrifice their own sons and money to fight a war it itself provoked.


----------



## anotherlife

The Ukraine shouldn't draft some national army.  The Ukraine should stop at territorial armies, never national.  The Ukraine is not a nation state.


----------



## anotherlife

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, August 28, 2014 in Kiev  over 500 hundred  people are  protesting  and the amount of the people is increasing. Their main demand is an impeachment of Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president (and it’s not even been hundred days of his presidency). The relatives of Ukrainian army soldiers are  demanding their sons, husbands and brothers back home because thousands of them are already killed or just missing after a week of numerous and successful contra-attacks  of Donbass Territorial Army.  And exactly at the same time Poroshenko has announced: “Russia invaded Ukraine” (as usually without showing any proof except some pictures which could be taken anywhere and at any time). Doing that he  pushed the demands about his impeachment to the background, distracting the attention from his own failures. By his previous declarations, Russian troops have been already fighting in Donbass for months, so – what’s new??
> 
> 
> David Stulik, a representative of EU in Ukraine also made an announcement about “Russian aggression in Ukraine”. EU called that “his own opinion” at EU’s official page on Facebook. At the same time OSCE representatives, who are monitoring the situation at the Russian-Ukrainian border every day, confirmed: no trespassing the border from Russian side. (Meanwhile over 40 Ukrainian soldiers crossed Russian border today, claiming they were abandoned by their commanders and asked for help).
> 
> 
> So, if there truly is Russian aggression in Ukraine, then quite a few questions appear:
> 
> 
> 1. Why  800 thousand people from Donbass came to Russia as refugees (these numbers are provided by OSCE)?
> 
> 2. Where are the official satellite pictures of Russian troops locations on Ukrainian territory?
> 
> 3. Why are there no protests in “occupied ”Crimea against Russian aggression?
> 
> 4. Why are Ukrainians protesting against their president and government and those protests are growing every day?
> 
> 5.Why the majority of Russian citizens are not demanding to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine (sorry, there was actually a protest on the Red Square today, with 1 (one) person with a placard).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 .Poroshenko promised to finish his “Anti-terror operation” (which is de-facto terror operation against all Donbass population) within a few days, where is the Victory Parade?
> 
> 7. One day of war costs $7 million, where the does the money come from?
> 
> 
> Looks like Poroshenko badly needs to invent something to slow down recent success of Donbass Territorial army before they capture Kiev  and start judging all war criminals including himself. A month ago shooting Malaysian Boeing helped him a lot (in the link below you can see what Malaysian experts think about it), this time he had to invent something different…
> 
> US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft New Straits Times
> 
> In any case Donbass is a historical Russia territory, the people whom junta is killing there have Russian roots, they would be happy if Russians came and saved them from genocide. Meanwhile on Ukrainian side there are Polish, Lithuanians, Georgians, private American military companies fighting from the very beginning of this ugly war started by the Kiev Junta against Donbass people.
> 
> 
> 
> *Chickenhawk Kiev*
> 
> Does The Ukraine have a draft?  Any country that doesn't draft all healthy males at 18 can't be taken seriously.  It will either lose its war or get bailed out by playing victim and begging other countries to sacrifice their own sons and money to fight a war it itself provoked.
Click to expand...


You mean cannon fodders?


----------



## Stratford57

anotherlife said:


> The Ukraine is not a nation state.



Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:

newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law

I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.

“We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people

*Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e

Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"


----------



## anotherlife

Stratford57 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
Click to expand...


This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.


----------



## Camp

Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.


----------



## Stratford57

anotherlife said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
Click to expand...

The smartest thing would be to split Ukraine among the countries, which historical lands it consists of. All the nations wpuld reunite, the civil war in Donbass would automatically stop and everybody would be happy. Except for Official Kiev's puppeteers: Soros&Co, who need Ukraine as a pawn in their dirty globalist games. And misery/ corruption/ Nazis/ high criminal activities in Ukraine keep decreasing its population, which is another Globalist's  goal for this miserable country. And 40 million of residents of Ukraine have to remain  hostages of those Globalists' goals.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
Click to expand...

If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.

And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?


----------



## Camp

Nations all over Europe, especially eastern Europe share the same situation as Ukraine. The history of Europe and European wars are of continuous disputes caused by one country conquering another, even if hundreds of years ago. Pockets of ethnic demographics exist almost everywhere. Countries colonize after conquering and when the host country obtains independence from the conquering nation the remnants of that colonization remain.
People who remain in those countries as the remnants of occupation and colonization have options if they do not want to swear allegiance and become loyal citizens of the host country. They have the option of leaving and returning to the country of their ethnicity and preferred allegiance.


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
> Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.


No, because we are talking about the prohibition of the other languages, not the prohibition of the state language in the public schools.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
Click to expand...


To my understanding, Odessa, Lvov, and the other west Ukrainian cities were all founded by early medieval French traders, who worked on expanding the trade routes of the Frankish Empire.


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> Nations all over Europe, especially eastern Europe share the same situation as Ukraine. The history of Europe and European wars are of continuous disputes caused by one country conquering another, even if hundreds of years ago. Pockets of ethnic demographics exist almost everywhere. Countries colonize after conquering and when the host country obtains independence from the conquering nation the remnants of that colonization remain.
> People who remain in those countries as the remnants of occupation and colonization have options if they do not want to swear allegiance and become loyal citizens of the host country. They have the option of leaving and returning to the country of their ethnicity and preferred allegiance.


No, because then you have to leave your own capital city, de colonialize it if you like. For example, Vienna, Austria, was settled by Slavs after the fall of the Roman Empire.  Would you want the Austrians to de colonialize Vienna then?


----------



## Camp

anotherlife said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
> Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we are talking about the prohibition of the other languages, not the prohibition of the state language in the public schools.
Click to expand...

There is no prohibition in the new law. In fact, the law allows the schools to use and teach languages of their choice in elementary school. The requirement to change over to Ukrainian does not happen until the student enters secondary school at about the age of 10. The schools still will have the option of teaching whatever language they want as additional language classes. The new law only demands that the primary language used for instruction purposes and the primary language taught is the native language of Ukraine once the child completes elementary school. By the age of 10, a child should be fluent in whatever language the parents and school chose and decided on. Ukraine is simply saying that once a child learns their ethnic language it is time to learn the language of their country as well.


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
> Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we are talking about the prohibition of the other languages, not the prohibition of the state language in the public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no prohibition in the new law. In fact, the law allows the schools to use and teach languages of their choice in elementary school. The requirement to change over to Ukrainian does not happen until the student enters secondary school at about the age of 10. The schools still will have the option of teaching whatever language they want as additional language classes. The new law only demands that the primary language used for instruction purposes and the primary language taught is the native language of Ukraine once the child completes elementary school. By the age of 10, a child should be fluent in whatever language the parents and school chose and decided on. Ukraine is simply saying that once a child learns their ethnic language it is time to learn the language of their country as well.
Click to expand...


The incorrect part of the law is that they demand this at age 10.  The proper time to do this would be 16 or higher.  And even then, not all subjects, but only those that teach how to interact with administration and court systems.  With the internet used everywhere in government these days though, even that language skill is only needed at actual real court appearances.  For that, you can hire a lawyer also.  

So this Ukrainian law is as incorrect as the ancient 1930's laws were about aggressively assimilating citizens.  The purpose of this education law is the same as it was then, namely to take away people's lands and businesses, using the excuse of language. B

No wonder it is against European Union standards and is unethical altogether.


----------



## Stratford57

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
Click to expand...

How can you say that "Ukraine has chosen the Western orientation" without asking the opinion of Ukrainian citizens i.e. without referendum?

So far we know what Soros and his puppets official Kiev have chosen for Ukraine without any referendum. And why do you think the referendum(-s) have not been allowed? Because the people who lead Ukraine towards "Western orientation" (translation: towards misery, chaos and significant decreasing its population) kinda knew in advance what the referendum would reveal and didn't want to reveal it to both the East and the West.

P.S. anotherlife, Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine and wants to be with Russia as well as many other Eastern Ukrainian cities. That's where Nazis burned about hundred protesters alive and in 3 years official Kiev has not punished anybody but some protesters for that.

Just a few days ago:
Ukrainian nationalists battle police outside court after anti-Maidan activists declared ‘not guilty’

Video:
Ukraine: Protesters and police brawl after court acquits 5 defendants in Odessa Massacre case


----------



## Camp

anotherlife said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
> Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we are talking about the prohibition of the other languages, not the prohibition of the state language in the public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no prohibition in the new law. In fact, the law allows the schools to use and teach languages of their choice in elementary school. The requirement to change over to Ukrainian does not happen until the student enters secondary school at about the age of 10. The schools still will have the option of teaching whatever language they want as additional language classes. The new law only demands that the primary language used for instruction purposes and the primary language taught is the native language of Ukraine once the child completes elementary school. By the age of 10, a child should be fluent in whatever language the parents and school chose and decided on. Ukraine is simply saying that once a child learns their ethnic language it is time to learn the language of their country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The incorrect part of the law is that they demand this at age 10.  The proper time to do this would be 16 or higher.  And even then, not all subjects, but only those that teach how to interact with administration and court systems.  With the internet used everywhere in government these days though, even that language skill is only needed at actual real court appearances.  For that, you can hire a lawyer also.
> 
> So this Ukrainian law is as incorrect as the ancient 1930's laws were about aggressively assimilating citizens.  The purpose of this education law is the same as it was then, namely to take away people's lands and businesses, using the excuse of language. B
> 
> No wonder it is against European Union standards and is unethical altogether.
Click to expand...

Or it could be just about getting the whole country to speak at least one common language. Gee, it's Ukraine, maybe everyone should know how to speak Ukrainian. But there will always be those who will find an argument like insisting the kids should not learn the language until they are 16 instead of 10.


----------



## Camp

Stratford57 said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you say that "Ukraine has chosen the Western orientation" without asking the opinion of Ukrainian citizens i.e. without referendum?
> 
> So far we know what Soros and his puppets official Kiev have chosen for Ukraine without any referendum. And why do you think the referendum(-s) have not been allowed? Because the people who lead Ukraine towards "Western orientation" (translation: towards misery, chaos and significant decreasing its population) kinda knew in advance what the referendum would reveal and didn't want to reveal it to both the East and the West.
> 
> P.S. anotherlife, Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine and wants to be with Russia as well as many other Eastern Ukrainian cities. That's where Nazis burned about hundred protesters alive and in 3 years official Kiev has not punished anybody but some protesters for that.
> 
> Just a few days ago:
> Ukrainian nationalists battle police outside court after anti-Maidan activists declared ‘not guilty’
> 
> Video:
> Ukraine: Protesters and police brawl after court acquits 5 defendants in Odessa Massacre case
Click to expand...

Why would you tell someone that Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine? That is an easily provable lie to anyone who can Google a map. It's a half hour drive to the western border with Moldova. Maybe because that lie about it being in eastern Ukraine supports the lie about the people of Odessa wanting to be linked to the Russians and people in southeastern Ukraine.But hey, go ahead and post that map of Ukraine that shows Odessa being in eastern Ukraine.


----------



## Stratford57

Camp said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you say that "Ukraine has chosen the Western orientation" without asking the opinion of Ukrainian citizens i.e. without referendum?
> 
> So far we know what Soros and his puppets official Kiev have chosen for Ukraine without any referendum. And why do you think the referendum(-s) have not been allowed? Because the people who lead Ukraine towards "Western orientation" (translation: towards misery, chaos and significant decreasing its population) kinda knew in advance what the referendum would reveal and didn't want to reveal it to both the East and the West.
> 
> P.S. anotherlife, Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine and wants to be with Russia as well as many other Eastern Ukrainian cities. That's where Nazis burned about hundred protesters alive and in 3 years official Kiev has not punished anybody but some protesters for that.
> 
> Just a few days ago:
> Ukrainian nationalists battle police outside court after anti-Maidan activists declared ‘not guilty’
> 
> Video:
> Ukraine: Protesters and police brawl after court acquits 5 defendants in Odessa Massacre case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you tell someone that Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine? That is an easily provable lie to anyone who can Google a map. It's a half hour drive to the western border with Moldova. Maybe because that lie about it being in eastern Ukraine supports the lie about the people of Odessa wanting to be linked to the Russians and people in southeastern Ukraine.But hey, go ahead and post that map of Ukraine that shows Odessa being in eastern Ukraine.
Click to expand...


This may be the first time you are right, Camp: Odessa belongs to the region called SE Ukraine which would vote for reunification with Russia any time if allowed. Don't believe me? We are ready for a referendum to demonstrate that to the whole world. And since there was NO referendum so far, you are not supposed to tell me if it is a lie or not. We live in Ukraine and you don't.

Odessa has paid a very high price with quite a few lives of peaceful (!) protesters whom Nazis burned alive on May 2, 2014. The author of French documentary "Masks of Revolution" had a talk to a Nazi participating in it (he's still free, nobody even tried to arrest him!). And he said: "There is only one thing I regret about: we didn't burn more Russian separatists!"

Watch the documentary, may be you'll finally figure out a  bit of the hidden truth.
FINALLY: 'Masks of Revolution' Maidan Documentary - Full Eng Subs (Video)


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if a law was passed in America that allowed individual public schools to reject English as the primary language and allow them to teach Spanish, Arabic, etc. as the primary and main language to be taught in the public school. How would that go over with Americans?
> Ukraine is doing the same thing all countries do. They allow citizens to learn any language they want but want everyone to speak and be educated in the native language.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we are talking about the prohibition of the other languages, not the prohibition of the state language in the public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no prohibition in the new law. In fact, the law allows the schools to use and teach languages of their choice in elementary school. The requirement to change over to Ukrainian does not happen until the student enters secondary school at about the age of 10. The schools still will have the option of teaching whatever language they want as additional language classes. The new law only demands that the primary language used for instruction purposes and the primary language taught is the native language of Ukraine once the child completes elementary school. By the age of 10, a child should be fluent in whatever language the parents and school chose and decided on. Ukraine is simply saying that once a child learns their ethnic language it is time to learn the language of their country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The incorrect part of the law is that they demand this at age 10.  The proper time to do this would be 16 or higher.  And even then, not all subjects, but only those that teach how to interact with administration and court systems.  With the internet used everywhere in government these days though, even that language skill is only needed at actual real court appearances.  For that, you can hire a lawyer also.
> 
> So this Ukrainian law is as incorrect as the ancient 1930's laws were about aggressively assimilating citizens.  The purpose of this education law is the same as it was then, namely to take away people's lands and businesses, using the excuse of language. B
> 
> No wonder it is against European Union standards and is unethical altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it could be just about getting the whole country to speak at least one common language. Gee, it's Ukraine, maybe everyone should know how to speak Ukrainian. But there will always be those who will find an argument like insisting the kids should not learn the language until they are 16 instead of 10.
Click to expand...


No because this logic has already failed in 1920.  People shouldn't speak a common language in any country.  The last country that required a common language was the Kingdom of Hungary, and it was partitioned to 7 small countries as a result.  This, as precedence, makes it a legal necessity to partition the Ukraine too, the same way.


----------



## anotherlife

Stratford57 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you say that "Ukraine has chosen the Western orientation" without asking the opinion of Ukrainian citizens i.e. without referendum?
> 
> So far we know what Soros and his puppets official Kiev have chosen for Ukraine without any referendum. And why do you think the referendum(-s) have not been allowed? Because the people who lead Ukraine towards "Western orientation" (translation: towards misery, chaos and significant decreasing its population) kinda knew in advance what the referendum would reveal and didn't want to reveal it to both the East and the West.
> 
> P.S. anotherlife, Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine and wants to be with Russia as well as many other Eastern Ukrainian cities. That's where Nazis burned about hundred protesters alive and in 3 years official Kiev has not punished anybody but some protesters for that.
> 
> Just a few days ago:
> Ukrainian nationalists battle police outside court after anti-Maidan activists declared ‘not guilty’
> 
> Video:
> Ukraine: Protesters and police brawl after court acquits 5 defendants in Odessa Massacre case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you tell someone that Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine? That is an easily provable lie to anyone who can Google a map. It's a half hour drive to the western border with Moldova. Maybe because that lie about it being in eastern Ukraine supports the lie about the people of Odessa wanting to be linked to the Russians and people in southeastern Ukraine.But hey, go ahead and post that map of Ukraine that shows Odessa being in eastern Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be the first time you are right, Camp: Odessa belongs to the region called SE Ukraine which would vote for reunification with Russia any time if allowed. Don't believe me? We are ready for a referendum to demonstrate that to the whole world. And since there was NO referendum so far, you are not supposed to tell me if it is a lie or not. We live in Ukraine and you don't.
> 
> Odessa has paid a very high price with quite a few lives of peaceful (!) protesters whom Nazis burned alive on May 2, 2014. The author of French documentary "Masks of Revolution" had a talk to a Nazi participating in it (he's still free, nobody even tried to arrest him!). And he said: "There is only one thing I regret about: we didn't burn more Russian separatists!"
> 
> Watch the documentary, may be you'll finally figure out a  bit of the hidden truth.
> FINALLY: 'Masks of Revolution' Maidan Documentary - Full Eng Subs (Video)
Click to expand...


The nazi question is interesting, to this day it is one of the most powerful. Propaganda tool.  Here is a mysterious question.  Why do Western European countries sponsor Nazis in Eastern European countries, whilst opposing the nazis at home in Western Europe?  And why do east European countries still struggle against soviet style communists when Western Europe is working to adopt those communist policies?


----------



## Eugene

Stratford57 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smartest thing would be to split Ukraine among the countries, which historical lands it consists of. All the nations wpuld reunite, the civil war in Donbass would automatically stop and everybody would be happy. Except for Official Kiev's puppeteers: Soros&Co, who need Ukraine as a pawn in their dirty globalist games. And misery/ corruption/ Nazis/ high criminal activities in Ukraine keep decreasing its population, which is another Globalist's  goal for this miserable country. And 40 million of residents of Ukraine have to remain  hostages of those Globalists' goals.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Those territories are historically Ukrainian (I call them Russian as artificial state&nation Ukraine doesn’t exist for me) and they must not be split.
Lvov was under Polish and Austro-Hungarian rule while some period but it is Russian city.
I hope for changing government in Ukraine for smarter one which will realize that culture, economy do not allow to tear this part of Russia from the one called Russian Federation.



ESay said:


> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?


And again you write bs about history.
Check the map of 10-11 century to understand that there was no sny Ukraine that time.
Besides 10-11 century cannot be taken into account when speaking about today’s borders.



anotherlife said:


> To my understanding, Odessa, Lvov, and the other west Ukrainian cities were all founded by early medieval French traders, who worked on expanding the trade routes of the Frankish Empire.


Odessa was founded by Russian Empress Catherine II.
Thogh city on that place existed in ancient times - greek one.

I was born in Odessa. I know its history.

French traders did not found any cities but they had huge influence at some period even ruled some cities like duc de Richelieu in Odessa.


Camp said:


> Why would you tell someone that Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine? That is an easily provable lie to anyone who can Google a map. It's a half hour drive to the western border with Moldova. Maybe because that lie about it being in eastern Ukraine supports the lie about the people of Odessa wanting to be linked to the Russians and people in southeastern Ukraine.But hey, go ahead and post that map of Ukraine that shows Odessa being in eastern Ukraine.


Before claiming someone in speaking lies you should get educated first!
Odessa is south-east part of Ukraine. From Donbass to the Ukraine-Moldova border all those territories including Tiraspol region are pro Russian. All those territories were founded by Russians in 18 century and still they have few nationalistic Ukrainian marginalized population.
That is why in Odessa on the 2 of May in 2014 that tragedy happened nazi lead by Porubiy (2nd person in Ukrainian government today) killed more than hundred unarmed people. They used guns, chemicals and burned them.
Odessa remembers that date. Odessa knows that neither Kiev nor EU investigate it.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ukraine is not a nation state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine has been artificially created on historical lands of many nations: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, etc. But official Kiev wants to make Ukrainians from all those nations and to use only one language: Ukrainian:
> 
> newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
> Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law
> 
> I guess, sooner or later they will start blaming Russia for that too.
> 
> “We continue to regard as s*hameful and outrageous the new Education Act*, which drastically restricts the access of minorities, including the Hungarian national minority, to native language teaching in a manner that makes that practically impossible from the age of 10 and is incompatible with European values and regulations”, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó   stressed.
> Our duty is to protect the Hungarian people
> 
> *Hungary says Ukraine’s new school law hurts minority rights*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.e2848ba3b10e
> 
> Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that *his country will block any Ukrainian steps within the European Union* after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has signed a notorious education law that critics say will infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities.
> Hungary on Ukrainian education law: "This will be painful for Ukraine"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting dynamics.  Before post Soviet Ukraine switched to western orientation, there was no big education problem there.  Now that they have switched to Western European orientation, they have alienated the one ally that they used to have in the European Union.  And in the same time, they gave good reason for Russian border modifications.  I think the best would be at this stage is that a few days before the Ukraine will switch back to Russian orientation, the European Union annexes the lands that were Poland and Hungary in 1939.  But the secret groups that control the EU will probably do different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smartest thing would be to split Ukraine among the countries, which historical lands it consists of. All the nations wpuld reunite, the civil war in Donbass would automatically stop and everybody would be happy. Except for Official Kiev's puppeteers: Soros&Co, who need Ukraine as a pawn in their dirty globalist games. And misery/ corruption/ Nazis/ high criminal activities in Ukraine keep decreasing its population, which is another Globalist's  goal for this miserable country. And 40 million of residents of Ukraine have to remain  hostages of those Globalists' goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.
> Those territories are historically Ukrainian (I call them Russian as artificial state&nation Ukraine doesn’t exist for me) and they must not be split.
> Lvov was under Polish and Austro-Hungarian rule while some period but it is Russian city.
> I hope for changing government in Ukraine for smarter one which will realize that culture, economy do not allow to tear this part of Russia from the one called Russian Federation.
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to understand the reasons why contemporary Ukraine won’t be part of Russia and why it has chosen the Western orientation, you should look on much earlier times, namely the 10-11th centuries.
> 
> And why the EU should annex the lands which were Polish in 1939? Do you know who founded the city of Lvov, for example? Any guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again you write bs about history.
> Check the map of 10-11 century to understand that there was no sny Ukraine that time.
> Besides 10-11 century cannot be taken into account when speaking about today’s borders.
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my understanding, Odessa, Lvov, and the other west Ukrainian cities were all founded by early medieval French traders, who worked on expanding the trade routes of the Frankish Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odessa was founded by Russian Empress Catherine II.
> Thogh city on that place existed in ancient times - greek one.
> 
> I was born in Odessa. I know its history.
> 
> French traders did not found any cities but they had huge influence at some period even ruled some cities like duc de Richelieu in Odessa.
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you tell someone that Odessa is in Eastern Ukraine? That is an easily provable lie to anyone who can Google a map. It's a half hour drive to the western border with Moldova. Maybe because that lie about it being in eastern Ukraine supports the lie about the people of Odessa wanting to be linked to the Russians and people in southeastern Ukraine.But hey, go ahead and post that map of Ukraine that shows Odessa being in eastern Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before claiming someone in speaking lies you should get educated first!
> Odessa is south-east part of Ukraine. From Donbass to the Ukraine-Moldova border all those territories including Tiraspol region are pro Russian. All those territories were founded by Russians in 18 century and still they have few nationalistic Ukrainian marginalized population.
> That is why in Odessa on the 2 of May in 2014 that tragedy happened nazi lead by Porubiy (2nd person in Ukrainian government today) killed more than hundred unarmed people. They used guns, chemicals and burned them.
> Odessa remembers that date. Odessa knows that neither Kiev nor EU investigate it.
Click to expand...


I am French.  In school the teacher said that Odessa was established by French traders.  I guess re established now?  IN any case, Odessa seems a French mandate before Catherine II. 

And what would be the real borders of the Russian federation, in your opinion? (West and South West?)

And the 10th -11th century must be taken into account for today's purposes, because that is what created you.  If you don't take it into account then you have no right to exist.


----------



## Camp

No matter what these propagandist try to fool and dupe the readers here, Odessa is not a Russian city in eastern Ukraine as they are claiming. The rebel and Russian goal is to claim all of southern Ukraine. Southeastern Ukraine is in civil war and the rebels want to drag all of southern Ukraine, including the southwest into the sphere of civil war. That is why they insist it is a part of eastern Ukraine.   All you have to do is look at a map. The name Odessa refers to an Oblast, or region, as well as a city. It is in the southwestern corner of Ukraine on the western shores of the Black Sea. That is easily verified simply by looking at a map. Further, if a reader looks up the demographics they will learn that depending on the source, Odessa is between 60% to 75% ethnic Ukrainian and 32% to 25% ethnic Russian. The majority of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> No matter what these propagandist try to fool and dupe the readers here, Odessa is not a Russian city in eastern Ukraine as they are claiming. The rebel and Russian goal is to claim all of southern Ukraine. Southeastern Ukraine is in civil war and the rebels want to drag all of southern Ukraine, including the southwest into the sphere of civil war. That is why they insist it is a part of eastern Ukraine.   All you have to do is look at a map. The name Odessa refers to an Oblast, or region, as well as a city. It is in the southwestern corner of Ukraine on the western shores of the Black Sea. That is easily verified simply by looking at a map. Further, if a reader looks up the demographics they will learn that depending on the source, Odessa is between 60% to 75% ethnic Ukrainian and 32% to 25% ethnic Russian. The majority of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.



I think Odessa is historically more Moldovan, so I would rather transfer it to the Republic of Moldva.  It was a military strategy move that Russia in the war against the Ottoman Empire decided to annex the norther part of the historic principality of Moldva, and then separated the Odessa region out of it.  But Odessa remains Moldovan as per its heritage nonetheless.


----------



## Camp

anotherlife said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what these propagandist try to fool and dupe the readers here, Odessa is not a Russian city in eastern Ukraine as they are claiming. The rebel and Russian goal is to claim all of southern Ukraine. Southeastern Ukraine is in civil war and the rebels want to drag all of southern Ukraine, including the southwest into the sphere of civil war. That is why they insist it is a part of eastern Ukraine.   All you have to do is look at a map. The name Odessa refers to an Oblast, or region, as well as a city. It is in the southwestern corner of Ukraine on the western shores of the Black Sea. That is easily verified simply by looking at a map. Further, if a reader looks up the demographics they will learn that depending on the source, Odessa is between 60% to 75% ethnic Ukrainian and 32% to 25% ethnic Russian. The majority of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Odessa is historically more Moldovan, so I would rather transfer it to the Republic of Moldva.  It was a military strategy move that Russia in the war against the Ottoman Empire decided to annex the norther part of the historic principality of Moldva, and then separated the Odessa region out of it.  But Odessa remains Moldovan as per its heritage nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Which Ottoman-Turkish-Russian wars are you talking about? Are you referring to the ones from 200 years ago or the more recent ones from 150 years ago? How does any of that change the geography of Odessa from being in western Ukraine to being in eastern Ukraine, if that is even a debatable topic?


----------



## anotherlife

Camp said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what these propagandist try to fool and dupe the readers here, Odessa is not a Russian city in eastern Ukraine as they are claiming. The rebel and Russian goal is to claim all of southern Ukraine. Southeastern Ukraine is in civil war and the rebels want to drag all of southern Ukraine, including the southwest into the sphere of civil war. That is why they insist it is a part of eastern Ukraine.   All you have to do is look at a map. The name Odessa refers to an Oblast, or region, as well as a city. It is in the southwestern corner of Ukraine on the western shores of the Black Sea. That is easily verified simply by looking at a map. Further, if a reader looks up the demographics they will learn that depending on the source, Odessa is between 60% to 75% ethnic Ukrainian and 32% to 25% ethnic Russian. The majority of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Odessa is historically more Moldovan, so I would rather transfer it to the Republic of Moldva.  It was a military strategy move that Russia in the war against the Ottoman Empire decided to annex the norther part of the historic principality of Moldva, and then separated the Odessa region out of it.  But Odessa remains Moldovan as per its heritage nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Ottoman-Turkish-Russian wars are you talking about? Are you referring to the ones from 200 years ago or the more recent ones from 150 years ago? How does any of that change the geography of Odessa from being in western Ukraine to being in eastern Ukraine, if that is even a debatable topic?
Click to expand...


I was the one who said that Odessa is in western Ukraine.  Everyone else except you disagreed.  I think Odessa is in western Ukraine, simply by looking at the map.  

Also, before the Ottoman Empire, Odessa was a part of the principality of moldva.  So I am not sure if it should be called Slavonic or Ukrainian in the first place.


----------



## Eugene

Oh my god! What are you talking about? What western Ukraine? What moldavian city?
Jesus...simply check the info in some sources.

1. Odessa was founded by Catherine II in 1795. It was decided to build there a port as it is situated in strategic important place.

2. Duc de Richelieu was governor of Novorossia from 1805 with Odessa as main city of the region. Novorossia included territories of contemporary Russia Rostov and Stavropol, contemporary east-southern Moldova, including Tiraspol and all regions between them - northern coast of the Black and Azov Seas.
Novorossia became Russian territory as a result of war against Ottoman Empire in 18 century.
While Richelieu’s ruling Odessa became 4th largest city of Russian Empire after Moscow, Sankt Petersburg and Warsaw.
He did a lot of good for Odessa and region but he did not found it.

3. As Odessa and Novorossia in common was almost not inhabited territory people from nearby territories were resettled here. By 1800 60% of population were Ukrainians (though they were called Malorussians that time) - they were village population, agricultural, 25-30% were Russians (Velikorussians), jews, germans, greeks and moldavians (Bessarabians). Russians, Jews and Germans were a kind of ruling class living in cities.
By 1989 about 49% of Odessa’s population called themselves Ukrainians, 40% - Russians, 6% - Jews and 2% - Bulgarians.

4. West Ukraine. Historically it is the name of territory which was returned to Ukraine in 1939. So Odessa cannot be called West Ukrainian city. Odessa is one of the most Russian city in contemporary Ukraine.
While in the USSR and untill 2014 one could hardly meet someone speaking Ukrainian language. Until 2014 Russian was official language for all administrative organizations though everyone could freely speak Ukrainian.

5. Moldova never possessed territory where Odessa is situated. The nearest Moldovian territory was the right riverside of Dnestr. A place where Ovidiopol is situated today.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> Oh my god! What are you talking about? What western Ukraine? What moldavian city?
> Jesus...simply check the info in some sources.
> 
> 1. Odessa was founded by Catherine II in 1795. It was decided to build there a port as it is situated in strategic important place.
> 
> 2. Duc de Richelieu was governor of Novorossia from 1805 with Odessa as main city of the region. Novorossia included territories of contemporary Russia Rostov and Stavropol, contemporary east-southern Moldova, including Tiraspol and all regions between them - northern coast of the Black and Azov Seas.
> Novorossia became Russian territory as a result of war against Ottoman Empire in 18 century.
> While Richelieu’s ruling Odessa became 4th largest city of Russian Empire after Moscow, Sankt Petersburg and Warsaw.
> He did a lot of good for Odessa and region but he did not found it.
> 
> 3. As Odessa and Novorossia in common was almost not inhabited territory people from nearby territories were resettled here. By 1800 60% of population were Ukrainians (though they were called Malorussians that time) - they were village population, agricultural, 25-30% were Russians (Velikorussians), jews, germans, greeks and moldavians (Bessarabians). Russians, Jews and Germans were a kind of ruling class living in cities.
> By 1989 about 49% of Odessa’s population called themselves Ukrainians, 40% - Russians, 6% - Jews and 2% - Bulgarians.
> 
> 4. West Ukraine. Historically it is the name of territory which was returned to Ukraine in 1939. So Odessa cannot be called West Ukrainian city. Odessa is one of the most Russian city in contemporary Ukraine.
> While in the USSR and untill 2014 one could hardly meet someone speaking Ukrainian language. Until 2014 Russian was official language for all administrative organizations though everyone could freely speak Ukrainian.
> 
> 5. Moldova never possessed territory where Odessa is situated. The nearest Moldovian territory was the right riverside of Dnestr. A place where Ovidiopol is situated today.



Very interesting!  Thanks for the cultural overview. 

You seem to start at the 18th century.  That's all good, but the principality of Moldova was there since the 1290's till the ottoman times.  That must count for something.  Even if the ottomans emptied out its region as they did everywhere.  Nevertheless, if the republic of moldva doesn't claim to be the creator of Odessa, then it could do well as an independent country. 

The problem is, that probably no principality or kingdom would claim the creation of Odessa. But also there is no just way to join it to Russia or the Ukraine.  So as an independent country, it would function best.  Short of anything chartered, the case of Catherine II could be used so then Odessa is Russian.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further. 

If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.

So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.

While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._


Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country. 

Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia. 

Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century. 

If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken. 
That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
Click to expand...


Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
Click to expand...


Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.

 Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
Click to expand...

 I agree with you about only one thing: Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.

On July 15, 2013, Poland's Sejm adopted a special resolution dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Volyn massacre. The resolution stated that *crimes committed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army* were of "the nature of an ethnic cleansing with signs of genocide." The resolution also specifies *the number of Polish victims, killed in Volyn and Eastern Galicia in 1942-1945, to be around 100,000 people.*

The document States that “the Volyn massacre, *in addition to the poles killed Jews, Armenians, Czechs and representatives of other national minorities as well as Ukrainians who tried to help the victims.”*
Senate of Poland voted for recognizing Volyn 1940 massacre as a genocide

The Polish Senate adopted a resolution on recognizing Volyn tragedy genocide

Poland says WWII massacre by Ukraine was a genocide
---
Bandera is an official Ukrainian hero.
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
---
Cohen: Trump should have spoken out against what many see as Ukraine’s troubling glorification of Nazi collaborators. Trump should have broadened the agenda to call out Kiev for its official state policy of honoring controversial figures from World War Two.

The latest example: local authorities in the capital recentlyvoted to rename a major street after a former Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite named Roman Shukhevych.

Shukhevych led the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), an organization responsible for the mass slaughter of Poles and Jews during the war. Even inside Ukraine the renaming is a disputed move, with hundreds of people taking to the streets last Friday to protest the decision – only to be attacked by an ultra-nationalist neo-Nazi group called C14.
Commentary: How Trump can show he’s tough on anti-Semitism
---

My question is: why the EU leaders haven't condemned official Kiev for glorification of those who fought on Hitler's side and were so cowardly that their victims were mainly children, women and old people? The only answer I know is: because the EU "leaders" are just a bunch of promoters for double standards and do what Soros&Co tell them to do.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain your statement?

Here is what I know:
Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
- The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
- Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
- Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.

So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to argue about kindness of Polish in 15 century. But mass killings took place for sure. And permanent struggling of western Russian population against their Polish masters which lead to a full victory by 17 century when Poland became de facto part of Russian Empire (de jure - in 18 century). 

If they were so humanic why such a hate of Ukrainians still remains against you?

Even Russians have no such attitude to Polish though Moscow was burnt by them. 

Russia had many war conflicts with Germany and Turkey but we don’t feel them enemy. 
Polish are very aggressive to Russia...you bark and you hope that soon you will dare to bite if some strong friend would stand near. 
Inferiority complex for whole the nation...I do really feel condolence to you.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)



Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222. 

Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments. 

Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance. 

So, who was it?  And which year?


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._



Kievan Rus could never be Ruthenian.  Kievan Rus was established by Vikings, not Hungarians.


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
Click to expand...


Why do you call the Polish colonists in East Europe?  The eastern border of Poland today is like 70 miles from Poland's capital, Warsaw.  In England, Cambridge is more than 70 miles off London.  In the state of New York, New York City is more than 70 miles off the state capital Akbany.  Would you call the English colonialists in Cambridge, and New Yorkers colonialists in New York City?


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very difficult to argue about kindness of Polish in 15 century. But mass killings took place for sure. And permanent struggling of western Russian population against their Polish masters which lead to a full victory by 17 century when Poland became de facto part of Russian Empire (de jure - in 18 century).
> 
> If they were so humanic why such a hate of Ukrainians still remains against you?
> 
> Even Russians have no such attitude to Polish though Moscow was burnt by them.
> 
> Russia had many war conflicts with Germany and Turkey but we don’t feel them enemy.
> Polish are very aggressive to Russia...you bark and you hope that soon you will dare to bite if some strong friend would stand near.
> Inferiority complex for whole the nation...I do really feel condolence to you.
Click to expand...


I can explain the hate part.  European majority ethnicities are mostly full of hate.  That is because the more you want your loot, the more hate you have to conjure up to keep it.  And the ww2 entente put endless loot into the hands of some selected ethnicities, the Ukrainian being one of them.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you call the Polish colonists in East Europe?  The eastern border of Poland today is like 70 miles from Poland's capital, Warsaw.  In England, Cambridge is more than 70 miles off London.  In the state of New York, New York City is more than 70 miles off the state capital Akbany.  Would you call the English colonialists in Cambridge, and New Yorkers colonialists in New York City?
Click to expand...


Western Galicia is probably more Polish, going back to Lendians a Polish tribe. but there were Polish claims to Kiev, and beyond at one point.

The Polish acquired these lands with Lithuanians against the Golden Horde splinter.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very difficult to argue about kindness of Polish in 15 century. But mass killings took place for sure. And permanent struggling of western Russian population against their Polish masters which lead to a full victory by 17 century when Poland became de facto part of Russian Empire (de jure - in 18 century).
> 
> If they were so humanic why such a hate of Ukrainians still remains against you?
> 
> Even Russians have no such attitude to Polish though Moscow was burnt by them.
> 
> Russia had many war conflicts with Germany and Turkey but we don’t feel them enemy.
> Polish are very aggressive to Russia...you bark and you hope that soon you will dare to bite if some strong friend would stand near.
> Inferiority complex for whole the nation...I do really feel condolence to you.
Click to expand...


So sorry, but Russians invited Poles into Moscow in the Muscovite war.

So, it's not just the Polish fault.

I'm of a Polish heritage, but I'm not particularly anti-Russian, or anti-Ukrainian.

I actually hate Western Europeans much more, the dirties who mock Poles as thieves, plumbers, drunks, and prostitutes, and thrust Islamic refugees upon Poles, even threatening sanctions upon Poland for resisting Islamic refugees.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
Click to expand...


Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.

It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
Click to expand...


They sure don't do a good job teaching Russian history in Polish schools, I can see. Same thing is going on in Ukraine now: the alleged stories poor Ukrainian children have to learn at schools have nothing to do with historical facts (in fact, I'm terrified even to think whom Ukrainian schools are raising now: looks like those children will grow up and become brainwashed Nazis denying their blood and history).

Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

In the year of 988 knyaz' Vladimir has baptized all Rus' (into orthodox Christianity) in Kiev and since then (I believe) everybody has been calling *Kiev "Mother of Russian cities" .*

Christianization of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

Over 10 centuries the vast majority of the people living on those territories (known now as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine [both Western and Eastern!]) have one more thing in common (besides roots and history): their religion, they profess  Russian Orthodox Christian religion having one and only Patriarch  (currently it's Patriarch Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and whole Russia, and we are talking about all historical Russia with Belarus', Ukraine ans Moldova). Of course, during Soviet times the majority of population was atheist but the most devoted Christians have preserved our religion and now more and more people start attending our churches each year and big number of churches has been restored or built from scratch.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sure don't do a good job teaching Russian history in Polish schools, I can see. Same thing is going on in Ukraine now: the alleged stories poor Ukrainian children have to learn at schools have nothing to do with historical facts (in fact, I'm terrified even to think whom Ukrainian schools are raising now: looks like those children will grow up and become brainwashed Nazis denying their blood and history).
> 
> Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia
> 
> In the year of 988 knyaz' Vladimir has baptized all Rus' (into orthodox Christianity) in Kiev and since then (I believe) everybody has been calling Kiev "Mother of Russian cities" .
> 
> Over 10 centuries the vast majority of the people living on those territories (known now as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine [both Western and Eastern!]) have one more thing in common (besides roots and history): their religion, they attend Russian Orthodox Christian Church having one and only Patriarch  (currently it's Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and whole Russia, and it includes all historical Russia with Belarus', Ukraine ans Moldova). Of course, during Soviet times the majority of population was atheist but the most devoted Christians have preserved our religion and now more and more people start attending our churches each year and big number of churches has been restored or built from scratch.
Click to expand...


I'm Polish American, as in one of Polish heritage born in the U.S.

But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.

First off, not only do ancient texts found in Kiev the capital of Rus resemble Ukrainian most.

But, we know Russia started in the Vladimir Suzdal, and only reached West only a few centuries ago._


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _


Clearly *for whom*?

Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.

However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
Click to expand...


Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.

These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.

anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes, and encouraging Catholicism are hardly tyranny, you
> re pretty much proving Polish were the most humane colonists ever.
> 
> Ukrainians killed millions of Poles between the Cossack Uprisings, and Wolyn Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you call the Polish colonists in East Europe?  The eastern border of Poland today is like 70 miles from Poland's capital, Warsaw.  In England, Cambridge is more than 70 miles off London.  In the state of New York, New York City is more than 70 miles off the state capital Akbany.  Would you call the English colonialists in Cambridge, and New Yorkers colonialists in New York City?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Western Galicia is probably more Polish, going back to Lendians a Polish tribe. but there were Polish claims to Kiev, and beyond at one point.
> 
> The Polish acquired these lands with Lithuanians against the Golden Horde splinter.
Click to expand...


I have always thought that something was up with Lvov/Lemberg.  So now we know that it was the capital of the Lendians, a tribe of the Kingdom of Poland.  No wonder every local language in that region that is not Slavonic knows the Poles as Lendiels.


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
Click to expand...


This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.

And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
Click to expand...


Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
Click to expand...

Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control. 
Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate. 
Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate. 

So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus could never be Ruthenian.  Kievan Rus was established by Vikings, not Hungarians.
Click to expand...

Not by Vikings but by Varyags!
Vikings were scandinavians, Varyags were Slavanians. Different languages, different way of living, different religion though they had close relations.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
Click to expand...

Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
Click to expand...

Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enemy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
...and again - same language, culture, religion...


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
Click to expand...

I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland. 

In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
- language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south. 
- religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after. 
- same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]

And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet. 

Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me. 
The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
Click to expand...


This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
Click to expand...


So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
Click to expand...


What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.


----------



## skye

The Crimea always!  ALWAYS belonged  to Russia...Nicholas II and his family spend long periods of vacations there.

My God, how can anybody say or  even hint that the Crimea is not Russian????? Total ignorants! total idiots.



Olga and Tatiana at the beach in Crimea









Grand Duchess Anastasia on the beach in the Crimea c. 1912.







...and so many more photos ....so much History!

Crimea  =  Russia.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say but you are the real ‘ignorant of history’!

1. Ukrainians appeared in 20 century. If you mention 15-19 century you’d better use term ‘Malorussians’ which means Russians living under Polish heel from 15 till 17 century and were rejoined after long period. 

2. Cossacks are not a nation. They are free armed people owners of wide lands given by authorities. They appeared thanks to Svyatoslav who allowed old warriors to settle in steppes to the south of Kiev with their families. It was a kind of pension for them and award for serving. Svyatoslav needed them for protection against Pechenegs’ tribes attacks. 
Later in 14 century they got their name ‘Cossacks’. 
In 17 century they became regular border army serving Russian Tsars. 

3. Belorussians - same as Malorussians but more northern geographically. 

4. Rusyns - same as Malorussians and Belorussians but in Carpatian mountain region.

All of them together with Velikorussians are descendants of Rus’. 
Not just Kievan period, but Rus’ in common.


----------



## skye

Livadia in the Crimea  WAS always  the holiday house of the Tzar ....forever......I mean  that's where they spend their holidays .... always....among their other palaces.....

People can NOT change History ok????

My God! It is what it is!


----------



## anotherlife

skye said:


> The Crimea always!  ALWAYS belonged  to Russia...Nicholas II and his family spend long periods of vacations there.
> 
> My God, how can anybody say or  even hint that the Crimea is not Russian????? Total ignorants! total idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Olga and Tatiana at the beach in Crimea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Duchess Anastasia on the beach in the Crimea c. 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and so many more photos ....so much History!
> 
> Crimea  =  Russia.



Excellent point!  Shows how the entente globalist bullies are re writing history.   

I could imagine giving Crimea to the Tatars, because that used to be their homeland before the ottomans and the Russians, but that would probably not ring well with any historic holly decree.


----------



## skye

anotherlife said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Crimea always!  ALWAYS belonged  to Russia...Nicholas II and his family spend long periods of vacations there.
> 
> My God, how can anybody say or  even hint that the Crimea is not Russian????? Total ignorants! total idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Olga and Tatiana at the beach in Crimea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Duchess Anastasia on the beach in the Crimea c. 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and so many more photos ....so much History!
> 
> Crimea  =  Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point!  Shows how the entente globalist bullies are re writing history.
> 
> I could imagine giving Crimea to the Tatars, because that used to be their homeland before the ottomans and the Russians, but that would probably not ring well with any historic holly decree.
Click to expand...




Yes, they are rewriting History!   all into a lie....

But those of us who know....and there are millions of us......will  always tell  the truth for the world to know.


----------



## anotherlife

skye said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Crimea always!  ALWAYS belonged  to Russia...Nicholas II and his family spend long periods of vacations there.
> 
> My God, how can anybody say or  even hint that the Crimea is not Russian????? Total ignorants! total idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Olga and Tatiana at the beach in Crimea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Duchess Anastasia on the beach in the Crimea c. 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and so many more photos ....so much History!
> 
> Crimea  =  Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point!  Shows how the entente globalist bullies are re writing history.
> 
> I could imagine giving Crimea to the Tatars, because that used to be their homeland before the ottomans and the Russians, but that would probably not ring well with any historic holly decree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are rewriting History!   all into a lie....
> 
> But those of us who know....and there are millions of us......will  always tell  the truth for the world to know.
Click to expand...


Interestingly, our very own Napoleon Bonaparte said in 1804, that history is a bunch of lies, then we change it to other lies.  Albeit but the buildings in your photos speak for themselves, even if revolutionary globalist intellectuals kill us all for their globalist moral superiority.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.
Click to expand...

Hungarian tribes or it would be right to say Madyars came from east (Ural) to Volga region. In 9 century they were beaten by Khazars and were forced to move further to west and defeated Moravians. In 10 century they were nightmare of Western Europe- burnt cities, got loot and slaves. Their light cavalry was very strong and dangerous. But they prefered not to raid to Rus’. At that time Rus’ defeated Khazaria. 
In 10 or 11 century Hungarians got christened and became ally to Romans. 
I am very surprised to know that someone in 11 century ‘invited’ Russians to the territory which was conquered by Vladimir in 10 century. 

And I am very surprised that Russian speaking orthodox nation living today in Ukraine is a ‘descent’ of Hungarians. 
For your information in Karpatian mountains there are many Hungarian villages where people speak Hungarian. I used to vidit such villages in 2007 and 2008.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.
Click to expand...

Russian monarchy finished in 1917. 
As for Rurik’s and Romanov’s dynasties they were consecrated by Orthodox Patriarch.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
Click to expand...

In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?


----------



## Eugene

skye said:


> The Crimea always!  ALWAYS belonged  to Russia...Nicholas II and his family spend long periods of vacations there.
> 
> My God, how can anybody say or  even hint that the Crimea is not Russian????? Total ignorants! total idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Olga and Tatiana at the beach in Crimea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Duchess Anastasia on the beach in the Crimea c. 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and so many more photos ....so much History!
> 
> Crimea  =  Russia.


Not always but since 17 century


----------



## Eugene

skye said:


> Livadia in the Crimea  WAS always  the holiday house of the Tzar ....forever......I mean  that's where they spend their holidays .... always....among their other palaces.....
> 
> People can NOT change History ok????
> 
> My God! It is what it is!


Frankly speaking it is not correct to refer to facts you show in those photos.  
Let’s show here Nicolay’s residence in Warsaw and try to say Poland ‘always belonged to Russia’
Same about Finland...and Alaska. 

It is better to refer to some official documents. 
In case of Crimea they are:
- Illegal cession of Crimea from Russian Republic to Ukrainian in 1954;
- Incorrect dividing of territories between Russia and Ukraine in 1991;
- The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. UN Charter. And this right was realized by the most democratic instrument- referendum.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
Click to expand...


Ruthenians - Wikipedia


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to say but you are the real ‘ignorant of history’!
> 
> 1. Ukrainians appeared in 20 century. If you mention 15-19 century you’d better use term ‘Malorussians’ which means Russians living under Polish heel from 15 till 17 century and were rejoined after long period.
> 
> 2. Cossacks are not a nation. They are free armed people owners of wide lands given by authorities. They appeared thanks to Svyatoslav who allowed old warriors to settle in steppes to the south of Kiev with their families. It was a kind of pension for them and award for serving. Svyatoslav needed them for protection against Pechenegs’ tribes attacks.
> Later in 14 century they got their name ‘Cossacks’.
> In 17 century they became regular border army serving Russian Tsars.
> 
> 3. Belorussians - same as Malorussians but more northern geographically.
> 
> 4. Rusyns - same as Malorussians and Belorussians but in Carpatian mountain region.
> 
> All of them together with Velikorussians are descendants of Rus’.
> Not just Kievan period, but Rus’ in common.
Click to expand...


They were Ruthenians, rather than Russians living there.

It seems Russia still teaches propaganda.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukra_inian, rather than Russian._
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
Click to expand...


Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

anotherlife said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
Click to expand...


These guys lived on Polish territory of the time.

Zaporozhian Cossacks - Wikipedia


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
Click to expand...


No, Ruthenians, and Russians didn't have the same language.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ruthenians - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Funny to see that this article is based on only 2 sources and both are Catholic Church books. Catholic Church is the most lying organization ever. 
They twisted history into own favor. Even today Vatikan’s library is almost unavailable. A huge number of restrictions, no right to copy and  numerous forbidden for investigators books. 

So this is absolutely unreliable article.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to say but you are the real ‘ignorant of history’!
> 
> 1. Ukrainians appeared in 20 century. If you mention 15-19 century you’d better use term ‘Malorussians’ which means Russians living under Polish heel from 15 till 17 century and were rejoined after long period.
> 
> 2. Cossacks are not a nation. They are free armed people owners of wide lands given by authorities. They appeared thanks to Svyatoslav who allowed old warriors to settle in steppes to the south of Kiev with their families. It was a kind of pension for them and award for serving. Svyatoslav needed them for protection against Pechenegs’ tribes attacks.
> Later in 14 century they got their name ‘Cossacks’.
> In 17 century they became regular border army serving Russian Tsars.
> 
> 3. Belorussians - same as Malorussians but more northern geographically.
> 
> 4. Rusyns - same as Malorussians and Belorussians but in Carpatian mountain region.
> 
> All of them together with Velikorussians are descendants of Rus’.
> Not just Kievan period, but Rus’ in common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were Ruthenians, rather than Russians living there.
> 
> It seems Russia still teaches propaganda.
Click to expand...

Nobody can compete to west in brainwashing.
Term ‘Propaganda’ is widely used by #1 propagandists of the world.

I refer to historic facts, you - on very doubtful unreliable statements.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Term “Kievan Rus’” appeared in the end of 19 century thanks to historian Soloviov, who devided periods of Russian history by the name of main city. Kievan, Novgorodian, Yaroslavian, Moscovian Rus’...it didn’t changed anything but the place of living of the main Knyaz’ ruling the country.
> 
> Rus’ as some kind of centralized country began in 9 century after Rurik’s taking power. Since that time till Ivan IV Grozny (you call him Terrible though it is wrong translation) that dynasty ruled Russia.
> 
> Ukraine and Ukrainians appeared in the beginning of 20 century.
> 
> If you try to say that period of history when huge part of Russia (western one, including contemporary Ukraine and Belorussia) was under Polish is the period of real Rus’, you are greatly and deeply mistaken.
> That was a time of Polish tyranny - they tried people to change religion, they didn’t allow local people to take part in local authorities, taxes were huge... That is the reason of hate of Ukrainians to Polish until today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’. 
How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These guys lived on Polish territory of the time.
> 
> Zaporozhian Cossacks - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Right. For a certain period of time a part of Cossacks from Zaporozhie took Polish side. But they were soon defeated by other Zaporozhian Cossacks who didn’t betray their Tsar.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rus history is Ukrainian most of all, Russians were just a fringe tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
Click to expand...


No, Russia did not successful join Ruthenians with Russia, which explains why Ukra_ine, and Belarus exist._


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These guys lived on Polish territory of the time.
> 
> Zaporozhian Cossacks - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. For a certain period of time a part of Cossacks from Zaporozhie took Polish side. But they were soon defeated by other Zaporozhian Cossacks who didn’t betray their Tsar.
Click to expand...


Because of their Eastern Christian faith.... Besides that was a mistake to invite in Russians, most Ukrainians today agree.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ruthenians - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny to see that this article is based on only 2 sources and both are Catholic Church books. Catholic Church is the most lying organization ever.
> They twisted history into own favor. Even today Vatikan’s library is almost unavailable. A huge number of restrictions, no right to copy and  numerous forbidden for investigators books.
> 
> So this is absolutely unreliable article.
Click to expand...


anything is better than a Putin propagandist, who thinks Ruthenians, and Russians are the same.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> anything is better than a Putin propagandist, who thinks Ruthenians, and Russians are the same.


In this impotent rancour those ‘mlado-europeans’ are ready to sell their souls to devil just to be able to harm Russia. Putin is in your media a kind of demon eating innocent babies every breakfast.

I told you few post ago that ‘my’ version of history is the one written by numerous historians from many countries including Poland. Officially acknowledged. Based on annals of different nations and archeological researches. Systematized by Lomonosov in 17 century and further by many others.

All you can say as an answere - PROPAGANDA.
Well known strategy. Typical.



SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Because of their Eastern Christian faith.... Besides that was a mistake to invite in Russians, most Ukrainians today agree


Ukrainians (I am one of them, btw!) do not agree!
But many of them are foolished by western propaganda. 
From1991 till today school books are published by Soros foundation. With ‘correct’ view on many subjects. 
Media is under total control. 

Thanks to such activity people of Ukraine do not have real picture of the past and present. They cannot have own opinion. They are puppets. 
Thanks god not all of them. Still there are many who hadn’t lost ability to think and analyze.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> anything is better than a Putin propagandist, who thinks Ruthenians, and Russians are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> In this impotent rancour those ‘mlado-europeans’ are ready to sell their souls to devil just to be able to harm Russia. Putin is in your media a kind of demon eating innocent babies every breakfast.
> 
> I told you few post ago that ‘my’ version of history is the one written by numerous historians from many countries including Poland. Officially acknowledged. Based on annals of different nations and archeological researches. Systematized by Lomonosov in 17 century and further by many others.
> 
> All you can say as an answere - PROPAGANDA.
> Well known strategy. Typical.
Click to expand...


Calling Ukrainians as the descendants of Kievan Rus, is fact, saying Kiev was once the capital of Russia is madness.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Russia did not successful join Ruthenians with Russia, which explains why Ukra_ine, and Belarus exist._
Click to expand...

Ukraine and Belorussia appeared in 20 century after Russian Empire collapse. From 18 century till 1917 those territories were Russian Empire as well as Poland btw. 

Idea to divide Russia into Ukraine and Belorussia had administrative aims. Whole tge country was divided into republics. 

And only in 1991 because of Gorbachev’s terrible crime the USSR was torn and Russia was divided again.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Eugene said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> 
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Russia did not successful join Ruthenians with Russia, which explains why Ukra_ine, and Belarus exist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ukraine and Belorussia appeared in 20 century after Russian Empire collapse. From 18 century till 1917 those territories were Russian Empire as well as Poland btw.
> 
> Idea to divide Russia into Ukraine and Belorussia had administrative aims. Whole tge country was divided into republics.
> 
> And only in 1991 because of Gorbachev’s terrible crime the USSR was torn and Russia was divided again.
Click to expand...


Ruthenians like Ukra_inians, and Belarussians_ appeared with Kievan Rus.


----------



## Eugene

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret to inform you that this ‘Putin’s propaganda’ started in 18 century by Lomonosov and numerous historians from different countries including Poland.
> 
> In order my statement was not just my words here are some facts:
> - language. Same language all over the territory of Rus’ - from Lvov in west to Suzdal and Murom in the east; from Novgorod on the north to Tmutarakan on the south.
> - religion. Same religion all that territory. Before christening and after.
> - same way of living and same structure of administration. [the only exception was Novgorod and its Veche which was later used by Cossacks]
> 
> And all that began after Svyatoslav’s conquering of all that wide territory. Rech Pospolita didn’t exist yet.
> 
> Your mistakes in history come from politically based wrong theories of some polish historians. Politically based history is PROPAGANDA - exactly what you try to blame me.
> The difference is - I can protect my position with obvious facts, but you haven’t yet anything in your favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal is traditionally perceived as a cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality, and it gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
> 
> Vladimir-Suzdal - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Russia did not successful join Ruthenians with Russia, which explains why Ukra_ine, and Belarus exist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ukraine and Belorussia appeared in 20 century after Russian Empire collapse. From 18 century till 1917 those territories were Russian Empire as well as Poland btw.
> 
> Idea to divide Russia into Ukraine and Belorussia had administrative aims. Whole tge country was divided into republics.
> 
> And only in 1991 because of Gorbachev’s terrible crime the USSR was torn and Russia was divided again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ruthenians like Ukra_inians, and Belarussians_ appeared with Kievan Rus.
Click to expand...

Сколько ни повторяй «халва», во рту слаще не станет!


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hungarian tribes or it would be right to say Madyars came from east (Ural) to Volga region. In 9 century they were beaten by Khazars and were forced to move further to west and defeated Moravians. In 10 century they were nightmare of Western Europe- burnt cities, got loot and slaves. Their light cavalry was very strong and dangerous. But they prefered not to raid to Rus’. At that time Rus’ defeated Khazaria.
> In 10 or 11 century Hungarians got christened and became ally to Romans.
> I am very surprised to know that someone in 11 century ‘invited’ Russians to the territory which was conquered by Vladimir in 10 century.
> 
> And I am very surprised that Russian speaking orthodox nation living today in Ukraine is a ‘descent’ of Hungarians.
> For your information in Karpatian mountains there are many Hungarian villages where people speak Hungarian. I used to vidit such villages in 2007 and 2008.
Click to expand...


Some of this is impossible too, because no Russian conqueror has ever traveled across the Karpatians, and the Hungarian state was already in place there in the 10th century.  I forgot the name of the Slavonic noble that the king of Hungary invited, but all that is a record in the Vatican.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian monarchy finished in 1917.
> As for Rurik’s and Romanov’s dynasties they were consecrated by Orthodox Patriarch.
Click to expand...


Yes, Russian monarchy finished in 1917, and that is Russia's biggest problem.  Without the office of the monarch, a consecrated office, Russia has a problem of where it derives its merit to exist from. 

If your country is not derived from God, then what can you derive it from?  A political party?  An ethnic belligerency?  Somebody's ideology?  None are real, because all of these things go only as far as your gun.  And guns always come around and go around.  When your gun happens to be going then, you immediately lose your merit to exist.  A very serious problem for Russia and for all the countries that it created.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain your statement?
> 
> Here is what I know:
> Russian statehood appeared...grew out of Rurik’s dynasty ruling Rus’. Rurik was northwestern Slavanian Knyaz - Varyag. Varyags lived in territory of contemporary Sanct Petersburg and they had close relations to Vikings. They even took part in their raids to Britain and France.
> So how can you say that “Rus’ history is Ukrainian most of all”?
> - The word “Rus’” comes from Slavic “army”. In annals one often meets phrases like “Rurik and his rus’ came...” or “Oleg sent his rus’ to...”
> - Ukrainian coat of arms is one of Rurik’s. An attacking hawk. Hawk and wolf were his totem animals.
> - Supposed to be Ukrainian hairstyle - forelock on a bold head and long mustache are Varyag’s attribute for warrior. In Roman annals detailed description of Svyatoslav (Rurik’s grandson) is met - and he had such appearance.
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?
Click to expand...

exactly.  Neither your language, nor your culture, can become a relevant argument for which kingdom you live in, as long as that kingdom did not violate the borders of its founding charter.  If the Russians invited Poland to Moscow, as you mentioned earlier, then Poland did not violate any borders.  That way, Russian speakers can live in Poland, or Polish administration is legal over Russians.  The language and culture doesn't matter.


----------



## anotherlife

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it's clearly that Ukra_inians are the descendants of Kievan Rus.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly *for whom*?
> 
> Only for ignorant or brainwashed people. Official Kiev teaches children that Ukrainians were the first people on the Earth. So, for those who believe that BS, it's also *clearly*.
> 
> However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God. We learned basically all Russian literature at school before there appeared certain people in the world who decided to rewrite the history to suit their own profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ruthenians - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The first map in the link shows, that the Kievan Rus, "Russkaya Zemlya", did not include the Karpatians.  Also in the text, Rusyns consider themselves separate from Ukrainians and Russians, to the point, that the Soviet Union prosecuted them for it.  This all contradicts your statement that Rusyns were created by Russians, and supports that they are of different origins, such as Hungarian.  Not linguistically, of course.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russians, and Poles encountered a people in between them  early on called Ruthenians which include Ukrainians, Cossacks, Belarussians, Rusyns etc.
> 
> These are the real descendants of Kievan Rus.
> 
> anyone who denies this must be ignorant of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hungarian tribes or it would be right to say Madyars came from east (Ural) to Volga region. In 9 century they were beaten by Khazars and were forced to move further to west and defeated Moravians. In 10 century they were nightmare of Western Europe- burnt cities, got loot and slaves. Their light cavalry was very strong and dangerous. But they prefered not to raid to Rus’. At that time Rus’ defeated Khazaria.
> In 10 or 11 century Hungarians got christened and became ally to Romans.
> I am very surprised to know that someone in 11 century ‘invited’ Russians to the territory which was conquered by Vladimir in 10 century.
> 
> And I am very surprised that Russian speaking orthodox nation living today in Ukraine is a ‘descent’ of Hungarians.
> For your information in Karpatian mountains there are many Hungarian villages where people speak Hungarian. I used to vidit such villages in 2007 and 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of this is impossible too, because no Russian conqueror has ever traveled across the Karpatians, and the Hungarian state was already in place there in the 10th century.  I forgot the name of the Slavonic noble that the king of Hungary invited, but all that is a record in the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Svyatoslav had 2 raids to Bulgaria and Croatia in 10 century but he didn’t fight Hungarian Prince’s Taksony though they were not ally. 
Those raids were in the south not in Karpatian mountains.
Later in 10 century his son Vladimir conquered White Croatia in Karpatian region. And those territories become Russian. An agreement with Hungarian prince Stefan I was signed. 
In 11 century all the Karpatian region got Hungarian when Yaroslav was Kiev’s Knyaz. 
Later Svyatopolk had war conflicts with Hungarians. 
That’s why karpatian region is full of both Hungarians and Russians.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife I don’t understand why do you try to divide Ukraine. Odessa is a city of Ukraine and let it be further.
> 
> If talking about more ancient history of the territory,
> There were greek cities in northern coast of the Black Sea and in Crimea. The name Odessa comes from Odessos - antique port city. [but later ruins of Odessos were found not far from Bulgarian Varna]
> Then those steppes were home for different nomad tribes - Pechenegs until 10-11 century until Slavanians got those lands, 12-13 century those lands were under nomad tribes Polovtsy (Kipchaks) until Mongols came.
> Mongols also defeated whole Rus’ and planned to move to Europe but lost too many warriors fighting agains Rus’, so they were only in some Polish and Hungarian lands for a pretty short period.
> After 3 centuries under Mongols Rus’ was divided into Velikorus’ (Great Rus’ - Moscovian), Malorus’ (southwestern one, including Kiev) and Belorus’ (White Rus’). Polish and Lituanian Principality took lands of Malorussia and Belorussia under their control until 15 century when Rus’ was finally rejoined. But northern coast of the Black Sea was under Ottoman Empire which appeared after Eastern Roman Empire collapsed.
> In 17th century Peter the Great moved borders of Russia to Baltic coast thanks to victory over Sweden and to The Black Sea coast. After numerous war conflicts between Russia and Ottoman/Turkey Russia got those territories and that was until 1991.
> 
> So if speaking basing on history Odessa region may belong to either Turkey or Russia or Ukraine. All other nations do not exist anymore.
> But Turkey lost it in 17th century as well as Crimea.
> Russia - Ukraine conflict is a kind of divorce as they are the same nation with the same history.
> 
> While Malorussia and Belorussia were under Polish some difference in culture and way of living appeared in those lands comparing to Velikorussia (Russia). Their language switched closer to Polish, catholics appeared and became major confession. Those changes were used later in political aims by Russia’s external enemies who wished to cut Russia into some pieces. National and confessional frictions are still the main instrument for Brits to create problems inside their enemy’s states (India, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Middle East...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian monarchy finished in 1917.
> As for Rurik’s and Romanov’s dynasties they were consecrated by Orthodox Patriarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Russian monarchy finished in 1917, and that is Russia's biggest problem.  Without the office of the monarch, a consecrated office, Russia has a problem of where it derives its merit to exist from.
> 
> If your country is not derived from God, then what can you derive it from?  A political party?  An ethnic belligerency?  Somebody's ideology?  None are real, because all of these things go only as far as your gun.  And guns always come around and go around.  When your gun happens to be going then, you immediately lose your merit to exist.  A very serious problem for Russia and for all the countries that it created.
Click to expand...

What god are you talking about?
Each country in the world appeared and exists only by weapon. 
Check European history. Only the strongest lands survived and exist now. 
Look at the USA - do you really believe that got could allow that terrible genocide of Indians and  Americans ‘derived those lands by God’? If your theory is true that God must die!


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians agree that Kievan Rus were dominantly Ruthenian which would includes Ukrainians, Belarussians, Rusyns.
> 
> It's basically just foul Russian propaganda, much from Putin to pretend Kievan Rus were Russian, Russians were on the outskirts of Kievan Rus in the Vladimir Suzdal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly.  Neither your language, nor your culture, can become a relevant argument for which kingdom you live in, as long as that kingdom did not violate the borders of its founding charter.  If the Russians invited Poland to Moscow, as you mentioned earlier, then Poland did not violate any borders.  That way, Russian speakers can live in Poland, or Polish administration is legal over Russians.  The language and culture doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Russians never invited Polish. But Polish tried to get power over Russia. They even created false heir to the throne. It happened in a very hard period but Russian people could get organized even without noble leader and  to clean Russian lands.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to say but this is bullshit.  The Cossacks leave in the east, far from the lands around Poland.  The Belorussians and Ukrainians are not Ruthenians, the Rusyns are, but they are not around Poland or Russia either, because they live west of the Karpathian ridge.
> 
> 
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hungarian tribes or it would be right to say Madyars came from east (Ural) to Volga region. In 9 century they were beaten by Khazars and were forced to move further to west and defeated Moravians. In 10 century they were nightmare of Western Europe- burnt cities, got loot and slaves. Their light cavalry was very strong and dangerous. But they prefered not to raid to Rus’. At that time Rus’ defeated Khazaria.
> In 10 or 11 century Hungarians got christened and became ally to Romans.
> I am very surprised to know that someone in 11 century ‘invited’ Russians to the territory which was conquered by Vladimir in 10 century.
> 
> And I am very surprised that Russian speaking orthodox nation living today in Ukraine is a ‘descent’ of Hungarians.
> For your information in Karpatian mountains there are many Hungarian villages where people speak Hungarian. I used to vidit such villages in 2007 and 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of this is impossible too, because no Russian conqueror has ever traveled across the Karpatians, and the Hungarian state was already in place there in the 10th century.  I forgot the name of the Slavonic noble that the king of Hungary invited, but all that is a record in the Vatican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Svyatoslav had 2 raids to Bulgaria and Croatia in 10 century but he didn’t fight Hungarian Prince’s Taksony though they were not ally.
> Those raids were in the south not in Karpatian mountains.
> Later in 10 century his son Vladimir conquered White Croatia in Karpatian region. And those territories become Russian. An agreement with Hungarian prince Stefan I was signed.
> In 11 century all the Karpatian region got Hungarian when Yaroslav was Kiev’s Knyaz.
> Later Svyatopolk had war conflicts with Hungarians.
> That’s why karpatian region is full of both Hungarians and Russians.
Click to expand...

So looks like we agree, that the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary, from the Vatican, included the entire Karpatian region.  But even if we reject this precedence, the current state of the Ukraine does not consider itself a derivative of Kiev Rus, whilst Hungary derives itself from the crown of St Steven.  Plus the Kiev Rus was not provided with a crown from Byzantium, another problem.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  As in Britain as well as throughout Europe, lands and countries are and have been created by the offices that were instituted by God.  Even the preamble of the American constitution submits to this basic legal principle.  First written formally in the Magna Carta under King John in 1222.
> 
> Typically, the offices of royals and heads of principalities fulfill this godly precondition, because royal crowns are received through the Pontifex Maximus (pope) of Rome or the Byzantine Empire.  Once such a crown is received, all changes to the land in question become illegal, as per the clause of the Holly Bible where it says that changing or inventing borders is theft and violates the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Following this principle, the history that you have presented here seems to place Odessa squarely into Russian interest.  But to clarify, and validate this assignment, we need to figure out who was the first souvereign ruler of Odessa, who received a crown from Rome or from Byzance.
> 
> So, who was it?  And which year?
> 
> 
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian monarchy finished in 1917.
> As for Rurik’s and Romanov’s dynasties they were consecrated by Orthodox Patriarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Russian monarchy finished in 1917, and that is Russia's biggest problem.  Without the office of the monarch, a consecrated office, Russia has a problem of where it derives its merit to exist from.
> 
> If your country is not derived from God, then what can you derive it from?  A political party?  An ethnic belligerency?  Somebody's ideology?  None are real, because all of these things go only as far as your gun.  And guns always come around and go around.  When your gun happens to be going then, you immediately lose your merit to exist.  A very serious problem for Russia and for all the countries that it created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What god are you talking about?
> Each country in the world appeared and exists only by weapon.
> Check European history. Only the strongest lands survived and exist now.
> Look at the USA - do you really believe that got could allow that terrible genocide of Indians and  Americans ‘derived those lands by God’? If your theory is true that God must die!
Click to expand...


If you base countries on military might alone, then you can create warlords but not stately services.  It is true that every country that was created after the 30 year war, is based on military only and no god.  This is reflected in the world wars and even in today's European push against Russia through the Ukraine.  This way you get war forever and not much else.  

On the other hand, if you base your country on the holly bible, then you get the right to establish a state.  With a state, you have the right to open schools, pay pensions, run hospitals, and so on.  A warlord can't do this, and it is halfway even when they try.  This thread has already shown what problems a war based godless state can create in school history curriculum to begin with.


----------



## anotherlife

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is impossible.  Ruthenian and Slav are not the same thing.  Ruthenian and Russian are not the same thing either.
> 
> And the word Suzdal means acquisition or addition.  That says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly.  Neither your language, nor your culture, can become a relevant argument for which kingdom you live in, as long as that kingdom did not violate the borders of its founding charter.  If the Russians invited Poland to Moscow, as you mentioned earlier, then Poland did not violate any borders.  That way, Russian speakers can live in Poland, or Polish administration is legal over Russians.  The language and culture doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russians never invited Polish. But Polish tried to get power over Russia. They even created false heir to the throne. It happened in a very hard period but Russian people could get organized even without noble leader and  to clean Russian lands.
Click to expand...


But the problem remains, that Poland had a crown from the Pontifex Maximus, but Russia refused even the Byzantine crown.  At best, this puts Russia into a stately partner position but not a real state.  In real states, the godly principles of foundation are stronger that the state itself to start with.  The best example of this is Greece, the inheritor of Byzantium, where it is the case to this day.


----------



## Stratford57

anotherlife , I have a lot of respect to you for willing to find out the truth about the history of our country (which is a foreign country for you!). You deserve a lot of credit. Merci beaucoup!

Eugene , your knowledge of Russian history is absolutely priceless for this forum which is full of people who either prefer to stay ignorant or repeat Western propaganda (and when you tell them the truth they accuse you in Putin propaganda). Thank you и низкий поклон,Eugene, for bringing a lot of true historical facts to this forum. You make it really hard for ignorant/brainwashed people (who don't care about the truth on the top of everything) to post their BS.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> anotherlife , I have a lot of respect to you for willing to find out the truth about the history of our country (which is a foreign country for you!). You deserve a lot of credit!
> 
> Eugene , your knowledge of Russian history is absolutely priceless for this forum which is full of people who either prefer to stay ignorant or repeat Western propaganda (and when you tell them the truth accuse you in Putin propaganda). Thank you, Eugene, for bringing a lot of true historical facts to this forum. You make it really hard for ignorant/brainwashed people (who don't care about the truth on the top of everything) to post their BS.



Haha, the only truth to you is Russian propaganda.


----------



## anotherlife

Stratford57 said:


> anotherlife , I have a lot of respect to you for willing to find out the truth about the history of our country (which is a foreign country for you!). You deserve a lot of credit. Merci beaucoup!
> 
> Eugene , your knowledge of Russian history is absolutely priceless for this forum which is full of people who either prefer to stay ignorant or repeat Western propaganda (and when you tell them the truth they accuse you in Putin propaganda). Thank you и низкий поклон,Eugene, for bringing a lot of true historical facts to this forum. You make it really hard for ignorant/brainwashed people (who don't care about the truth on the top of everything) to post their BS.



An Ukrainian girl showed me art works that her family had before the communist chased her grand parents out long ago.  The art is very beautiful.  You call them icons, I think.  They depict saints of the church often with gold and many other noble colors.

She said that all the Russian churches and Russian dachas(?) used to be full of them.  Russia/Ukraine is really a very beautiful country.  But they don't paint any more, no pictures and no churches.

Well at least the girls Look still good, and luckily they don't stop.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rusyns are descendants of Russians who found themselves on enrmy territory after borders’ changes because of their being far on west while Mongols, Polish, Hungarians and Austro-hungarians conquered those territories.
> ...and again - same language, culture, religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem possible, because the kingdom of Hungary existed before the Ruthenians existed.  It was the king of Hungary and the office of his holly crown that invited the Ruthenians to the Karpathian mountains, in the 11th century.  The Rusyn people didn't exist before that time.  Russians maybe but not Rusyns.  This also means, that the Rusyns are of Hungarian descent and origin although not by language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hungarian tribes or it would be right to say Madyars came from east (Ural) to Volga region. In 9 century they were beaten by Khazars and were forced to move further to west and defeated Moravians. In 10 century they were nightmare of Western Europe- burnt cities, got loot and slaves. Their light cavalry was very strong and dangerous. But they prefered not to raid to Rus’. At that time Rus’ defeated Khazaria.
> In 10 or 11 century Hungarians got christened and became ally to Romans.
> I am very surprised to know that someone in 11 century ‘invited’ Russians to the territory which was conquered by Vladimir in 10 century.
> 
> And I am very surprised that Russian speaking orthodox nation living today in Ukraine is a ‘descent’ of Hungarians.
> For your information in Karpatian mountains there are many Hungarian villages where people speak Hungarian. I used to vidit such villages in 2007 and 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of this is impossible too, because no Russian conqueror has ever traveled across the Karpatians, and the Hungarian state was already in place there in the 10th century.  I forgot the name of the Slavonic noble that the king of Hungary invited, but all that is a record in the Vatican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Svyatoslav had 2 raids to Bulgaria and Croatia in 10 century but he didn’t fight Hungarian Prince’s Taksony though they were not ally.
> Those raids were in the south not in Karpatian mountains.
> Later in 10 century his son Vladimir conquered White Croatia in Karpatian region. And those territories become Russian. An agreement with Hungarian prince Stefan I was signed.
> In 11 century all the Karpatian region got Hungarian when Yaroslav was Kiev’s Knyaz.
> Later Svyatopolk had war conflicts with Hungarians.
> That’s why karpatian region is full of both Hungarians and Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So looks like we agree, that the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary, from the Vatican, included the entire Karpatian region.  But even if we reject this precedence, the current state of the Ukraine does not consider itself a derivative of Kiev Rus, whilst Hungary derives itself from the crown of St Steven.  Plus the Kiev Rus was not provided with a crown from Byzantium, another problem.
Click to expand...

To tell the truth I don’t pay much attention on who blessed some prince or Knyaz.
In 10 century Hungarian prince Taksony was pagan. After Vladimir decided to christen himself and Rus’ in common more than 10 years passed and Stefan I began looking for pope to christen him. He was in war against Byzantine, so Orthodox couldn’t be taken. Between Roman pope and german he had chosen german. So what Vatican’s blessing of Hungarian Kingdom you’re talking about is not quite clear for me.

All those confessions were not from God but it was a tool for controlling lands.

But even if one follows your logic Vladimir derived his lands including Karpatian region earlier than Stefan I. 
But I wouldn’t use that argument for understanding whom Karpaty should belong to. It goes from absolutely other grounds.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magna Carta is your inner British document. Pope had power only in territories under catholic control.
> Russia is ancient state never allowed pope to dictate.
> Even after Rus’ was christened in 10 century by Vladimir it never allowed Byzantine Empire to dictate.
> 
> So all your reasoning about allotment of lands do not   refer to Russia and the most of the earth. It’s only your western european inner concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then where did the crown of the Zar's come from?  Also, Russia was consecrated in the late 1990s in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian monarchy finished in 1917.
> As for Rurik’s and Romanov’s dynasties they were consecrated by Orthodox Patriarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Russian monarchy finished in 1917, and that is Russia's biggest problem.  Without the office of the monarch, a consecrated office, Russia has a problem of where it derives its merit to exist from.
> 
> If your country is not derived from God, then what can you derive it from?  A political party?  An ethnic belligerency?  Somebody's ideology?  None are real, because all of these things go only as far as your gun.  And guns always come around and go around.  When your gun happens to be going then, you immediately lose your merit to exist.  A very serious problem for Russia and for all the countries that it created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What god are you talking about?
> Each country in the world appeared and exists only by weapon.
> Check European history. Only the strongest lands survived and exist now.
> Look at the USA - do you really believe that got could allow that terrible genocide of Indians and  Americans ‘derived those lands by God’? If your theory is true that God must die!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you base countries on military might alone, then you can create warlords but not stately services.  It is true that every country that was created after the 30 year war, is based on military only and no god.  This is reflected in the world wars and even in today's European push against Russia through the Ukraine.  This way you get war forever and not much else.
> 
> On the other hand, if you base your country on the holly bible, then you get the right to establish a state.  With a state, you have the right to open schools, pay pensions, run hospitals, and so on.  A warlord can't do this, and it is halfway even when they try.  This thread has already shown what problems a war based godless state can create in school history curriculum to begin with.
Click to expand...

What about muslim countries, budda and others? They have no right for existing and must be eliminated? Smells like religious fascism.

And another example.
The USSR was a state without official confession and even more - religion was not welcome and supposed to be harmful.
Nevertheless the USSR built a lot of schools, hospitals, houses for living, factories, roads, etc in many territories where there was nothing: 3-baltic republics, Middle Asian republics and even in Afghanistan in 70s until ‘blessed Americans’ came ruined most of that and created drugs and terrorists producing in the region.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruthenia = Rus’ = Russia.
> Ruthenia is term used in 12-13 century in Europe. It is met in some annals.
> Polish historians later tried to use ‘Ruthenia’ naming Kievan part of Rus’ which was under Polish control and used term ‘Moscovia’ for Rus’ which remained independent. But those theories were confirmed to be wrong as so-called ruthenians and russians spoke same language, had same culture, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly.  Neither your language, nor your culture, can become a relevant argument for which kingdom you live in, as long as that kingdom did not violate the borders of its founding charter.  If the Russians invited Poland to Moscow, as you mentioned earlier, then Poland did not violate any borders.  That way, Russian speakers can live in Poland, or Polish administration is legal over Russians.  The language and culture doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russians never invited Polish. But Polish tried to get power over Russia. They even created false heir to the throne. It happened in a very hard period but Russian people could get organized even without noble leader and  to clean Russian lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the problem remains, that Poland had a crown from the Pontifex Maximus, but Russia refused even the Byzantine crown.  At best, this puts Russia into a stately partner position but not a real state.  In real states, the godly principles of foundation are stronger that the state itself to start with.  The best example of this is Greece, the inheritor of Byzantium, where it is the case to this day.
Click to expand...

After Byzantine collapsed Orthodox Church has 2 branches - one of them is Moscovian. Patriarch Kirill today is its chief pope. 

But seems to me you overvalue role of Church and God.


----------



## Eugene

anotherlife said:


> An Ukrainian girl showed me art works that her family had before the communist chased her grand parents out long ago.  The art is very beautiful.  You call them icons, I think.  They depict saints of the church often with gold and many other noble colors.
> 
> She said that all the Russian churches and Russian dachas(?) used to be full of them.  Russia/Ukraine is really a very beautiful country.  But they don't paint any more, no pictures and no churches.
> 
> Well at least the girls Look still good, and luckily they don't stop.


Still many people have a small corner with icons in it. Here is one in my bedroom. 

 

And many churches are built now in Russian cities. In Moscow and in Kiev they are in every district, every village has own church. 
Here is a view from my son’s kindergarten:


----------



## Stratford57

Eugene said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if language and culture is immaterial?  Language is immaterial because for example Croatia and Serbia speak the same language yet not even Yugoslavia could unite them.  And culture is immaterial because for example Slovenia and Croatia have the same culture yet demand separate statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case what was the reason for people living under polish ruling to speak russian to stay orthodox to suffer on that reason and still to go on with all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly.  Neither your language, nor your culture, can become a relevant argument for which kingdom you live in, as long as that kingdom did not violate the borders of its founding charter.  If the Russians invited Poland to Moscow, as you mentioned earlier, then Poland did not violate any borders.  That way, Russian speakers can live in Poland, or Polish administration is legal over Russians.  The language and culture doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russians never invited Polish. But Polish tried to get power over Russia. They even created false heir to the throne. It happened in a very hard period but Russian people could get organized even without noble leader and  to clean Russian lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the problem remains, that Poland had a crown from the Pontifex Maximus, but Russia refused even the Byzantine crown.  At best, this puts Russia into a stately partner position but not a real state.  In real states, the godly principles of foundation are stronger that the state itself to start with.  The best example of this is Greece, the inheritor of Byzantium, where it is the case to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After Byzantine collapsed Orthodox Church has 2 branches - one of them is Moscovian. Patriarch Kirill today is its chief pope.
> 
> But seems to me you overvalue role of Church and God.
Click to expand...


Our holy Rus' is under protection of Holy Virgin Mary. Our holy Rus' has been going through a lot of troubles, wars, revolutions and extremely tough times, but survived. When Germans were next to Moscow in December 1941, Mother Mary visited a Greek monk during his sleep and told him to take Her Tykhvin icon on a flight around Moscow 3 times so Germans would never step in Moscow. The monk let Stalin know about that dream and even atheist Stalin, the leader of the atheist country, told his people to do that.

There have been so many wonders from our saints, not too many people bother to know about them. Patriarch Kirill always says that our historical Rus' (I'm so grateful to him for not differing Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and keeping calling them all historical Russia!) is alive and will be alive due to the prayers of all the saints of Russian lands (всех святых, в земле Русской просиявших).


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> And again you write bs about history.
> Check the map of 10-11 century to understand that there was no sny Ukraine that time.
> Besides 10-11 century cannot be taken into account when speaking about today’s borders.


Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Where did I write that there was Ukraine in that time?



Eugene said:


> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?


Don’t try to make equal the terms Russian and Rus. Ukraine hasn’t taken anything from Russian symbols, but adopted some symbols of Rus, because the history of ancient Rus is history of Ukraine too. And if you attempt to say that contemporary Russia and Russians are direct descendants of Rus while contemporary Ukraine and Ukrainians aren’t, then it is pure bullshit (if use your terminology). All contemporary nations which were formed from East Slavic tribes – Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians – are descendants of Rus and have equal rights to use its symbols and live on territories on which lived their ancestors.



Eugene said:


> Not by Vikings but by Varyags!
> Vikings were scandinavians, Varyags were Slavanians. Different languages, different way of living, different religion though they had close relations.


It would be good if you put ‘imho’ on this statement. Because who the Varyags are and where they came from is still a point of discussions. As I said before, there exists so-called Normanist and anti-Normanist views about the terms of Varyags and Rus and the area of their origin. Among the scientists of the West, for example, the Normanist theory is predominant.



Eugene said:


> - Illegal cession of Crimea from Russian Republic to Ukrainian in 1954;


If not talking about the fairness or historical justice of that decision, the legality of it was all fine.



Eugene said:


> Incorrect dividing of territories between Russia and Ukraine in 1991;


The territories where the majority of population was Ukrainian (except of Crimea) became a part of a Ukrainian state. So, I don’t see any incorrectness.



Eugene said:


> - The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. UN Charter. And this right was realized by the most democratic instrument- referendum.


Do the Crimean Tatars have this right also?



Eugene said:


> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.


It is a lame explanation. The wars between the various knyazs (so called междоусобные войны) were a common case, and I think the fingers on both hands won’t be enough to count them. Before joining Novgorod to Moscow there were 3 wars between them, for example.



Eugene said:


> To tell the truth I don’t pay much attention on who blessed some prince or Knyaz.
> In 10 century Hungarian prince Taksony was pagan. After Vladimir decided to christen himself and Rus’ in common more than 10 years passed and Stefan I began looking for pope to christen him. He was in war against Byzantine, so Orthodox couldn’t be taken. Between Roman pope and german he had chosen german. So what Vatican’s blessing of Hungarian Kingdom you’re talking about is not quite clear for me.


What german are you talking about? Stefan I was coronized by a Rome Pope. The crown the Pope sent to him was considered as a sacred relic during centuries.

In what years Stefan I was at war with Byzantium, btw?


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you write bs about history.
> Check the map of 10-11 century to understand that there was no sny Ukraine that time.
> Besides 10-11 century cannot be taken into account when speaking about today’s borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Where did I write that there was Ukraine in that time?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t try to make equal the terms Russian and Rus. Ukraine hasn’t taken anything from Russian symbols, but adopted some symbols of Rus, because the history of ancient Rus is history of Ukraine too. And if you attempt to say that contemporary Russia and Russians are direct descendants of Rus while contemporary Ukraine and Ukrainians aren’t, then it is pure bullshit (if use your terminology). All contemporary nations which were formed from East Slavic tribes – Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians – are descendants of Rus and have equal rights to use its symbols and live on territories on which lived their ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Vikings but by Varyags!
> Vikings were scandinavians, Varyags were Slavanians. Different languages, different way of living, different religion though they had close relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be good if you put ‘imho’ on this statement. Because who the Varyags are and where they came from is still a point of discussions. As I said before, there exists so-called Normanist and anti-Normanist views about the terms of Varyags and Rus and the area of their origin. Among the scientists of the West, for example, the Normanist theory is predominant.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Illegal cession of Crimea from Russian Republic to Ukrainian in 1954;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not talking about the fairness or historical justice of that decision, the legality of it was all fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect dividing of territories between Russia and Ukraine in 1991;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The territories where the majority of population was Ukrainian (except of Crimea) became a part of a Ukrainian state. So, I don’t see any incorrectness.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. UN Charter. And this right was realized by the most democratic instrument- referendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do the Crimean Tatars have this right also?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a lame explanation. The wars between the various knyazs (so called междоусобные войны) were a common case, and I think the fingers on both hands won’t be enough to count them. Before joining Novgorod to Moscow there were 3 wars between them, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> To tell the truth I don’t pay much attention on who blessed some prince or Knyaz.
> In 10 century Hungarian prince Taksony was pagan. After Vladimir decided to christen himself and Rus’ in common more than 10 years passed and Stefan I began looking for pope to christen him. He was in war against Byzantine, so Orthodox couldn’t be taken. Between Roman pope and german he had chosen german. So what Vatican’s blessing of Hungarian Kingdom you’re talking about is not quite clear for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What german are you talking about? Stefan I was coronized by a Rome Pope. The crown the Pope sent to him was considered as a sacred relic during centuries.
> 
> In what years Stefan I was at war with Byzantium, btw?
Click to expand...

At last I see dome smart sentences from you. I am really glad I made you read something on history. 

1. I checked history and yes, I was wrong about Stefan I. Tacsony a prince ruling Hungarians before him was in war against Byzantine in 968-970. And that was Tacsony who began looking for ways to get christened. And that was german king Otton I who wanted to christen Hungary. 
But anyway Stefan wasn’t christened same way as all his western neighbors. They all were pope’s vassals he - wasn’t!

2. I won’t discuss Crimea here. A lot is to argue about regarding to documents of 1954 and 1991. 
I’d pay attention only to the Crimeans’ wish where and how to live. And their opinion was expressed in referendum of 2014. Tatars as well. In Russia there is no any national discrimination so they gave their voices too...at least those of them who wanted their opinion to be taken into account. 
As for Tatars now in Crimea, they at last got moscue built which wasn’t done by Ukrainian authorities; they got legal rights for the land where their houses are situated while for Ukrainian authorities it was a great problem they couldn’t solve. 

3. Normanic and Slavic theories do exist but it is more political than historical question. It started in 18 century when Muller one of numerous germans invited by Peter I started to claim that statehood was brought to Rus’ from Europe, from Scandinavia. Lomonosov was the opposite side to this theory and he had done a great research including analysis of numerous annals Slavic, European, Byzantinian and Arabic. 
- How is it possible for some nation to call some great warriors from outside to come and rule? It is nonsense!
- Is it possible that some dominant nation would come to rule over people and they, noble leaders with their army would stop speaking their native language and start speaking language of people they come to?
- If Varyags were Scandinavians why they used ships of absolutely another construction? Why they had another religion? Why they used horses gor fighting?
- In Scandinavia Rus’ was called Gardarika - land of cities because Normans never built big cities. 
- In Scandinavian sagas a lot is told about their raids to Britain, France, even to Italy but nothing about visits to Rus’ and Byzantine. 
- There are much more about that to say...


----------



## Stratford57

Eugene said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you write bs about history.
> Check the map of 10-11 century to understand that there was no sny Ukraine that time.
> Besides 10-11 century cannot be taken into account when speaking about today’s borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Where did I write that there was Ukraine in that time?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you mean Ukrainian in Russian history?
> Why all “Ukrainian” symbols are taken from Russians?
> And how can Russian history be Ukrainian if Ukraine appeared only in 20 century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t try to make equal the terms Russian and Rus. Ukraine hasn’t taken anything from Russian symbols, but adopted some symbols of Rus, because the history of ancient Rus is history of Ukraine too. And if you attempt to say that contemporary Russia and Russians are direct descendants of Rus while contemporary Ukraine and Ukrainians aren’t, then it is pure bullshit (if use your terminology). All contemporary nations which were formed from East Slavic tribes – Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians – are descendants of Rus and have equal rights to use its symbols and live on territories on which lived their ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Vikings but by Varyags!
> Vikings were scandinavians, Varyags were Slavanians. Different languages, different way of living, different religion though they had close relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be good if you put ‘imho’ on this statement. Because who the Varyags are and where they came from is still a point of discussions. As I said before, there exists so-called Normanist and anti-Normanist views about the terms of Varyags and Rus and the area of their origin. Among the scientists of the West, for example, the Normanist theory is predominant.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Illegal cession of Crimea from Russian Republic to Ukrainian in 1954;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not talking about the fairness or historical justice of that decision, the legality of it was all fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect dividing of territories between Russia and Ukraine in 1991;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The territories where the majority of population was Ukrainian (except of Crimea) became a part of a Ukrainian state. So, I don’t see any incorrectness.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. UN Charter. And this right was realized by the most democratic instrument- referendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do the Crimean Tatars have this right also?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to that Duchy our state remained alive and was able to rejoin great country and great nation of Rus’.
> How would we were able to join all Russian territories do quickly and without any wars if we were not the same nation?
> Your ancestors ruled huge part of Rus’ gor a very long time but were unable to make joint to Polish. Because they were aliens for locals. Hated aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a lame explanation. The wars between the various knyazs (so called междоусобные войны) were a common case, and I think the fingers on both hands won’t be enough to count them. Before joining Novgorod to Moscow there were 3 wars between them, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> To tell the truth I don’t pay much attention on who blessed some prince or Knyaz.
> In 10 century Hungarian prince Taksony was pagan. After Vladimir decided to christen himself and Rus’ in common more than 10 years passed and Stefan I began looking for pope to christen him. He was in war against Byzantine, so Orthodox couldn’t be taken. Between Roman pope and german he had chosen german. So what Vatican’s blessing of Hungarian Kingdom you’re talking about is not quite clear for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What german are you talking about? Stefan I was coronized by a Rome Pope. The crown the Pope sent to him was considered as a sacred relic during centuries.
> 
> In what years Stefan I was at war with Byzantium, btw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last I see dome smart sentences from you. I am really glad I made you read something on history.
> 
> 1. I checked history and yes, I was wrong about Stefan I. Tacsony a prince ruling Hungarians before him was in war against Byzantine in 968-970. And that was Tacsony who began looking for ways to get christened. And that was german king Otton I who wanted to christen Hungary.
> But anyway Stefan wasn’t christened same way as all his western neighbors. They all were pope’s vassals he - wasn’t!
> 
> 2. I won’t discuss Crimea here. A lot is to argue about regarding to documents of 1954 and 1991.
> I’d pay attention only to the Crimeans’ wish where and how to live. And their opinion was expressed in referendum of 2014. Tatars as well. In Russia there is no any national discrimination so they gave their voices too...at least those of them who wanted their opinion to be taken into account.
> As for Tatars now in Crimea, they at last got moscue built which wasn’t done by Ukrainian authorities; they got legal rights for the land where their houses are situated while for Ukrainian authorities it was a great problem they couldn’t solve.
> 
> 3. Normanic and Slavic theories do exist but it is more political than historical question. It started in 18 century when Muller one of numerous germans invited by Peter I started to claim that statehood was brought to Rus’ from Europe, from Scandinavia. Lomonosov was the opposite side to this theory and he had done a great research including analysis of numerous annals Slavic, European, Byzantinian and Arabic.
> - How is it possible for some nation to call some great warriors from outside to come and rule? It is nonsense!
> - Is it possible that some dominant nation would come to rule over people and they, noble leaders with their army would stop speaking their native language and start speaking language of people they come to?
> - If Varyags were Scandinavians why they used ships of absolutely another construction? Why they had another religion? Why they used horses gor fighting?
> - In Scandinavia Rus’ was called Gardarika - land of cities because Normans never built big cities.
> - In Scandinavian sagas a lot is told about their raids to Britain, France, even to Italy but nothing about visits to Rus’ and Byzantine.
> - There are much more about that to say...
Click to expand...


*1.  *Eugene said:* How is it possible for some nation to call some great warriors from outside to come and rule? It is nonsense!*

After the 2014 coup official Kiev "invited" Georgians, Lithuanians and even Americans to rule Ukraine. They were not great warriors but the majority of them (except for those who resigned like Abramavichus) seem to be great crooks. ESay is still sure that letting foreigners rule your country is a sign of greatness.  However the foreigners  normally push the interests of *their* countries, not the interests other countries, especially if a country is such of a corrupt swamp as Ukraine.

NY Times:
Fund and the donor nations, like United States, can’t continue to shovel money into a *corrupt swamp* unless the government starts shaping the democratic rule that Ukrainians demanded in their protests.
Opinion | Ukraine’s Unyielding Corruption

*2. *Eugene said:*  As for Tatars now in Crimea, they at last got moscue built which wasn’t done by Ukrainian authorities; they got legal rights for the land where their houses are situated while for Ukrainian authorities it was a great problem they couldn’t solve.*

And suddenly after Crimea reunited with Russia, official Kiev and everybody who bark in unison with them started_ worrying _about Tatars in Crimea. Ukraine officials never gave a sh*t neither about Tatars (they are minority) or Russians (the majority) of population in Crimea.

Guess what: now Tatars have their language official in Crimea (one of three official languages in Crimea after the reunification with Russia) while official Kiev keeps suppressing all the languages in Ukraine except for the Ukrainian language (with almost half a country considers Russian as a first language).

newly enacted Ukrainian law on education places restrictions on the use of minority languages in Ukraine.
Hungary is on the warpath against Ukraine’s education law

A year or two ago the delegation of French parliamentarians led by member of National Assembly, ex-Minister of transport of France Thierry Mariani visited the Crimea with a three-day visit. “Those who describe the Crimea as occupied territory, you’d better have been there and seen what is happening… *Crimea has chosen its path in the referendum*”  and "It's better to be Crimean Tatar than Russian in Baltics"— said Mariani at the press conference in Moscow.
Thierry Mariani: Better to be Crimean Tatar than Russian in Baltics

Crimea to have 3 official languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar - Putin

Russian Crimean Status in 2017 - myMusings
---

Question to ESay: were you worrying about Tatars in Crimea too much before the coup and what makes you worry about them _after the coup_? If I were you I would worry about the fate of 40 million population of Ukraine being in the criminal and bloody hands of Soros puppets. The fate of Ukraine doesn't seem to be pretty, does it?


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> - How is it possible for some nation to call some great warriors from outside to come and rule? It is nonsense!


To answer this question, one should understand that there weren’t ‘some’ nation which invited overseas rulers. At that time there were a number of East Slavic tribes which didn’t live peacefully with each other who had their own rulers and add to that Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes. Moreover, those tribes had already paid tribute to the Varyags, so they already were something like vassals to the Varyags.



Eugene said:


> Is it possible that some dominant nation would come to rule over people and they, noble leaders with their army would stop speaking their native language and start speaking language of people they come to?


Why not? The Mongol invaders and rulers completely dissolved in the Chinese society, also a number of Turkic conquerors and their dynasties in the medieval Persia also dissolved there.



Eugene said:


> - If Varyags were Scandinavians why they used ships of absolutely another construction? Why they had another religion? Why they used horses gor fighting?


I can’t say something about the ships and horses, but the religion they do have the same. This religion is called by common name paganism. The distinctive feature of it is the wide number of gods and customs which may differ even between neighbor tribes. This was the case in Rus too and it was one of the reasons to adopt Christianity for Vladimir the Great  - to consolidate his power.


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - How is it possible for some nation to call some great warriors from outside to come and rule? It is nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> To answer this question, one should understand that there weren’t ‘some’ nation which invited overseas rulers. At that time there were a number of East Slavic tribes which didn’t live peacefully with each other who had their own rulers and add to that Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes. Moreover, those tribes had already paid tribute to the Varyags, so they already were something like vassals to the Varyags.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that some dominant nation would come to rule over people and they, noble leaders with their army would stop speaking their native language and start speaking language of people they come to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? The Mongol invaders and rulers completely dissolved in the Chinese society, also a number of Turkic conquerors and their dynasties in the medieval Persia also dissolved there.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> - If Varyags were Scandinavians why they used ships of absolutely another construction? Why they had another religion? Why they used horses gor fighting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t say something about the ships and horses, but the religion they do have the same. This religion is called by common name paganism. The distinctive feature of it is the wide number of gods and customs which may differ even between neighbor tribes. This was the case in Rus too and it was one of the reasons to adopt Christianity for Vladimir the Great  - to consolidate his power.
Click to expand...

Paganism has a lot of different religions in fact.
Varyags’ chief god was Perun who had power over smaller gods of different elements like water, land, etc.
Scandinavians had Odin who had power over whole pantheon of gods.
Absolutely different rites and everything else.
According to your logic buddism, induism, woodoo and many others are the same confessions - they are pagan too.


----------



## Camp

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> This was the case in Rus too and it was one of the reasons to adopt Christianity for Vladimir the Great - to consolidate his power.


For your information Vladimir had got power fighting against Christianity and supporting Slavic pagan gods. 
He had consolidated his power and joined different tribes basing on pagan religion!

And only several years later he decided to get christened and to christen Rus’. 
It was nothing but political decision. He needed it for his foreign policy.


----------



## Eugene

Camp said:


> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.


Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine. 

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> Paganism has a lot of different religions in fact.
> Varyags’ chief god was Perun who had power over smaller gods of different elements like water, land, etc.
> Scandinavians had Odin who had power over whole pantheon of gods.
> Absolutely different rites and everything else.
> According to your logic buddism, induism, woodoo and many others are the same confessions - they are pagan too.


Actually, the main point is what may be considered as paganism. The term was used by Christians to describe local beliefs which existed before the adoption of Christianity and had a negative tone.



Eugene said:


> For your information Vladimir had got power fighting against Christianity and supporting Slavic pagan gods.
> He had consolidated his power and joined different tribes basing on pagan religion!
> 
> And only several years later he decided to get christened and to christen Rus’.
> It was nothing but political decision. He needed it for his foreign policy.


Yes, firstly he wanted to unite the tribes by spreading a common pagan religion. Perun was the main god there, btw. His idea failed.


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
> If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.
> 
> Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.
Click to expand...

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
> If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.
> 
> Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!

This position is nothing but propaganda. 
As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
> If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.
> 
> Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!
> 
> This position is nothing but propaganda.
> As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.
Click to expand...

Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones. 

*annexation*
 noun
the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
annexation


----------



## Camp

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion


----------



## Stratford57

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
> If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.
> 
> Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!
> 
> This position is nothing but propaganda.
> As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones.
> 
> *annexation*
> noun
> the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
> annexation
Click to expand...


FYI, Russia has observed the International Law in Crimea and had a referendum.
According to UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

While in Kososvo its parliament decided to separate from Serbia and there was NO referendum, but all "democratic" countries recognized Kososvo but are mumbling about "annexation" in Crimea.

Also, let's talk about Ukraine exiting USSR twice bigger than entering. After the USSR collapse Ukraine basically ANNEXED Russian lands which were given to a *Ukrainian republic within one country of the USSR.*





This map has been exposed in a big article about Ukraine by CIS-EMO political analyst of an International Monitoring Organization, Stanislav Byshok (a Pole, not a Russian). an independent observer.
The truth about Ukraine: Byshok's lecture at Brown University - Fort Russ

Of course, your Ukrainian "leaders" would tell you a different story, fully alleged, which you are dragging from one thread to another.


----------



## Stratford57

Camp said:


> Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
> Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion


As always: no sane proof.

Look at the Russian army and its abilities demonstrated in Syria and how efficiently they are cleaning Syria from ISIS (over 87% of Syria is deliberated) then even you, Camp, will understand that if Russian regular troops were in Donbass (as you claim), Kiev would be ruled by Russians (not by Soros puppets) 3 years ago.

Missiles, warplanes & robots: Russian weaponry in Syrian military campaign (VIDEOS)

Russian air strikes kill 2,000+ ISIS, Al-Nusra terrorists in Syria in 11 days – military (VIDEO)

Russian airstrikes kill ISIS warlords, dozens of militants in Syria – MoD

Over 87% of Syrian territory liberated from ISIS – Russian MoD

Even Saudi King with his *1000* people visited Putin this week and signed a lot of documents about cooperation.

Bloomberg:
As Bloomberg writes today, "the Israelis and Turks, the Egyptians and Jordanians - *they’re all beating a path to the Kremlin in the hope that Vladimir Putin, the new master of the Middle East*, *can secure their interests and fix their problems*."

And now, none other than Saudi Arabia is the latest to make friendly overtures toward the Kremlin, when Saudi King Salman visits Moscow on Wednesday, *the first monarch of the oil-rich kingdom to do so*. At the top of his agenda will be reining in Iran, a close Russian ally seen as a deadly foe by most Gulf Arab states.
"Putin Is The New Master Of The Middle East"

And ISIS has been trained and supplied with the most modern weapons directly from Washington, while Ukrainian Army was neither trained nor well weaponed.


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country.  It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
> If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.
> 
> Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!
> 
> This position is nothing but propaganda.
> As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones.
> 
> *annexation*
> noun
> the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
> annexation
Click to expand...

Why don’t you check ‘the right of nations for determination’ in the same dictionary?


----------



## Eugene

Camp said:


> Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
> Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion


True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.


----------



## Camp

Eugene said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
> Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion
> 
> 
> 
> True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
> No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

100% wrong'
 America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria.  America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq. 

 Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
 UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.

No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.


----------



## Eugene

Camp said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
> Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion
> 
> 
> 
> True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
> No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% wrong'
> America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria.  America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq.
> 
> Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
> A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
> UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.
> 
> No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.
Click to expand...

1. USA in 2003 invaded Iraq. That was illegal aggression. USA violated UN resolution 1441. UN, France, Germany and Russia were point-blanc against that invasion. 
USA ruined the country. 1 million Iraq citizens dyed by today due to that aggression, ISIS got impact to be organized, the whole Middle East was destabilized. 

2. Lybia. UN Security Council announced ‘no flight area’ but after that wide-scaled invasion took place. Yes, that was done by so-called coalition but everyone knows who is ruling that coalition - USA! Europians are your vassals, NATO is your instrument. 

3. Syria. USA has no grounds to be there. They are intervents there and Syrian army has legsl rights to fight against the American invaders. 
Russia in Syria is officially invited and has right to help Syrians in their actions. 

4. In Ukraine there is no a single proof of Russian army presence. Russian authorities never denied that there are many volunteers from Russia in Donbass. 
As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence. 
Because of revolution you organized in Kiev nazi scuads moved to Crimea and were met by Crimeans. Several days later Russian army helped to prevent any unrest in the region. 
In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined. International observers were in Crimea! They were officially invited and everyone who wanted took part in observing. Btw there were more observers than usually allowed in the whole USA while your elections. 
To recognize or not - it is a question of political games not of international law. 
The point is - USA makes decision whether to obbey the law or not...in some case they recognize referendum like it was in Kosovo in others not to recognize. It only shows that USA is not a partner but aggressor.


----------



## Stratford57

Camp said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
> Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion
> 
> 
> 
> True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
> No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% wrong'
> America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria.  America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq.
> 
> Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
> A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
> UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.
> 
> No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.
Click to expand...


Ukrainian coup was ANTI-constitutional to begin with.  And it was inspired, sponsored and supported directly from Washington: by Obama’s administration+McCain+Soros.

So, according to democratic principles, which you want everybody to believe USA is supporting, *everybody should condemn that *all together: the coup, the sponsors, the supporters and the current illegal Ukrainian rulers and demand International Tribunal to judge their war crimes in Ukraine. But those war criminals have been distracting the public attention from themselves and pointing fingers on Russia (with ZERO evidence), whom millions of residents of Eastern Ukraine were expecting to help and to protect  from Washington occupation (but it has never happened except for Crimea which we all are very happy about).

The accusation of Russian regular troops present in SE Ukraine are as “convincing” as reports of those mysterious “17 intelligence agencies”  accusing Russia of interference in US elections and during the whole year couldn't find even a small hint of it to present to the brainwashed part of American public (which you, Camp, seem to belong to).

Putin: *There were no hostilities in Crimea, no bombing raids and no casualties. No one died there. *The only thing we did was to ensure the free expression of will by the people, by the way,* in strict compliance with the UN Charter. *We did almost the same you did in Kosovo, only more.

*In Kosovo, parliament approved a secession resolution, while people in Crimea expressed their opinion at a referendum.* After that, parliament ratified the decision, and Crimea as an independent state asked to be reintegrated with Russia.

*The bombing of Belgrade is intervention carried out in violation of international law. *Did the UN Security Council pass a resolution on military intervention in Yugoslavia? No. It was a unilateral decision of the United States.
--
*Did the UN sanction the operations in Iraq?* No. Before this there were operations in Afghanistan in 2001. Yes, we all know the tragedy of September 11, 2001, but even so, under existing international law, a relevant UN Security Council resolution should have been sought first, which was not done.

Then came Iraq, and then came the resolution on Libya. You are all experts here, you have read the resolution on Libya, and know that *it was about establishing a no-fly zone there. But what kind of no-fly zone can we speak of if airstrikes began against Libyan territory? This was a flagrant violation of the UN Charter*. And then came Syria.

Were there terrorists in Iraq? *There were no terrorists there until the country’s state structures were destroyed.* The same was true of Libya, where there were no terrorists at all. But as soon as this country’s statehood was destroyed, who came along to fill the vacuum? Terrorists. The same is happening in Syria.

But let’s remember that as soon as the conflict began in Syria, and it began long before we became involved, *terrorists appeared there and began receiving arms supplies.* Attempts were made *to train these terrorists and set them against al-Assad,* because there were no other options and these groups were the most effective. *This continues today* because these are the most effective fighting units and some think that it is possible to make use of them and then sort them out later.
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Destabilizing a lot of countries all over the world; creating, training, weaponing and supporting terrorists in Kosovo and ME as well as Nazis in Ukraine, that’s all above we should call "export of Washington democracy”. Our Russian humorist Michail Zadornov said a few years ago: “*For the sake of human rights Washington has been killing thousands of humans all over the world*”. It's sad, but it’s true.


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.


Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?



Eugene said:


> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.


Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?

And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?


----------



## Stratford57

This is just funny: yesterday Erdogan fall asleep during the press conference with Poroshenko. The "Russian occupation"" Poroshenko was talking about must have seemed _very important_ to Erdogan.


----------



## Stratford57

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
Click to expand...


Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.

My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?


Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:

The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist. 
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev

Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:


----------



## Eugene

ESay said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
Click to expand...

Text of the Agreement can easily be found in internet. 

Basic principles of territorial integrity of states was violated many times. In Europe there are such examples as Germany, Yugoslavia and the USSR. None of them happened in fully legal way according to international law. None of them happened basing on wishes of majority of population. 

And at last Crimean Tatars in Crimea at last got possibility to teach their children in Tatar language, at last they got moscue built and at last they got leagal right for tge land they live - all those problems were not solved from 1991 till 2014 by Ukrainian authorities.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
Click to expand...


They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.

So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.
> 
> So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?
Click to expand...

Hey, expert,  my close relative was fighting Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine for 10 years after the WW2 was over (until 1955). He has seen a lot of those "heroes" and horrible results of their activities *with his own eyes*. They were killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and burning the whole villages around if they thought somebody was helping or hiding partisans. And partisans were helping Red Army.

Besides the stories of my relative, I read quite a few books about that. You apparently know very little about WW2.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.
> 
> So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, expert,  my close relative was fighting Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine for 10 years after the WW2 was over (until 1955). He has seen a lot of those "heroes" and horrible results of their activities *with his own eyes*. They were killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and burning the whole villages around if they thought somebody was helping or hiding partisans. And partisans were helping Red Army.
> 
> Besides the stories of my relative, I read a lot of books about that. You apparently know very little about WW2.
Click to expand...


They killed mostly Poles, even if they targeted also others.


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.
> 
> So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, expert,  my close relative was fighting Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine for 10 years after the WW2 was over (until 1955). He has seen a lot of those "heroes" and horrible results of their activities *with his own eyes*. They were killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and burning the whole villages around if they thought somebody was helping or hiding partisans. And partisans were helping Red Army.
> 
> Besides the stories of my relative, I read a lot of books about that. You apparently know very little about WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even if they targeted also others.
Click to expand...

And if you ask Jews they will tell you: Ukrainian Nazis killed mostly Jews.

But I am not going to argue with you about the numbers of victims and what nationality they were. Ukrainian Nazis killed a lot of civilians, period. And they deserve to be condemned, not glorified. Official Kiev is not only glorifying them in all kinds of ways but keeps breeding Neo-Nazis. What poor Ukrainian children have to learn at school is unbelievable. And Western Media has been doing its best in keeping its audience misinformed. If EU doesn't wake up soon, there will be a 40 million Nazi country in the middle of Europe, and that is* really scary.*


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Stratford57 said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.
> 
> So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, expert,  my close relative was fighting Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine for 10 years after the WW2 was over (until 1955). He has seen a lot of those "heroes" and horrible results of their activities *with his own eyes*. They were killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and burning the whole villages around if they thought somebody was helping or hiding partisans. And partisans were helping Red Army.
> 
> Besides the stories of my relative, I read a lot of books about that. You apparently know very little about WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even if they targeted also others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you ask Jews they will tell you: Ukrainian Nazis killed mostly Jews.
> 
> But I am not going to argue with you about the numbers of victims and what nationality they were. Ukrainian Nazis killed a lot of civilians, period. And they deserve to be condemned, not glorified. Official Kiev is not only glorifying them in all kinds of ways but keeps breeding Neo-Nazis. What poor Ukrainian children have to learn at school is unbelievable. If EU doesn't wake up soon, there will be a 40 million Nazi country in the middle of Europe, and that is* really scary.*
Click to expand...



Wolyn Massacre mostly targeted Poles,  and so did  Ukrainian SS commander Michael Karkoc.


----------



## Stratford57

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.
> 
> So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, expert,  my close relative was fighting Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine for 10 years after the WW2 was over (until 1955). He has seen a lot of those "heroes" and horrible results of their activities *with his own eyes*. They were killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and burning the whole villages around if they thought somebody was helping or hiding partisans. And partisans were helping Red Army.
> 
> Besides the stories of my relative, I read a lot of books about that. You apparently know very little about WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They killed mostly Poles, even if they targeted also others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you ask Jews they will tell you: Ukrainian Nazis killed mostly Jews.
> 
> But I am not going to argue with you about the numbers of victims and what nationality they were. Ukrainian Nazis killed a lot of civilians, period. And they deserve to be condemned, not glorified. Official Kiev is not only glorifying them in all kinds of ways but keeps breeding Neo-Nazis. What poor Ukrainian children have to learn at school is unbelievable. If EU doesn't wake up soon, there will be a 40 million Nazi country in the middle of Europe, and that is* really scary.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wolyn Massacre mostly targeted Poles,  and so did  Ukrainian SS commander Michael Karkoc.
Click to expand...

Wolyn  Massacre was not their only crime. Just one of many.


----------



## ESay

Stratford57 said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
Click to expand...

I don’t know what you mean ‘ours’ questions because I basically don’t answer on your questions. Why? Because I don’t see any reason of doing that. I have expressed my opinion to your about Bandera and glorification of UPA, for example. But you aren’t interested in my opinion; you are only interested in advancing your own agenda.

No, I haven’t attended these events. Because that one who supports Euro-integration and supported Euromaidan not necessary is a Nazi, ultra-nationalist or supporter of Bandera or even a supporter of the so-called Ukrainian national idea in its classical view. But because of your narrow-mindedness and overall ignorance you look at the world like a dog – through a black-and-white matrix.

I think I gave an answer to your question. Good luck.


----------



## ESay

Eugene said:


> Text of the Agreement can easily be found in internet.


So, find it internet, give the citation and support your statement.



Eugene said:


> Basic principles of territorial integrity of states was violated many times. In Europe there are such examples as Germany, Yugoslavia and the USSR. None of them happened in fully legal way according to international law. None of them happened basing on wishes of majority of population.


As I can understand, all these events have given a right to Russia to break the international law and signed agreements. Right?



Eugene said:


> And at last Crimean Tatars in Crimea at last got possibility to teach their children in Tatar language, at last they got moscue built and at last they got leagal right for tge land they live - all those problems were not solved from 1991 till 2014 by Ukrainian authorities.


I have heard this from you already. Russia is good; Ukraine is bad, shame on it. Do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?


----------



## Stratford57

ESay said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?
> 
> And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.
> 
> My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of  a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?
> 
> 
> Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:
> 
> The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
> A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
> 
> Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
> View attachment 154501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know what you mean ‘ours’ questions because I basically don’t answer on your questions. Why? Because I don’t see any reason of doing that. I have expressed my opinion to your about Bandera and glorification of UPA, for example. But you aren’t interested in my opinion; you are only interested in advancing your own agenda.
> 
> No, I haven’t attended these events. Because that one who supports Euro-integration and supported Euromaidan not necessary is a Nazi, ultra-nationalist or supporter of Bandera or even a supporter of the so-called Ukrainian national idea in its classical view. But because of your narrow-mindedness and overall ignorance you look at the world like a dog – through a black-and-white matrix.
> 
> I think I gave an answer to your question. Good luck.
Click to expand...

You probably don't care but I'm glad you don't support Ukrainian Nazis.

However if you accept the external control of your country from US Deep State, then you have to accept the whole package of what they prepared (уготовали) for your country. You have to agree: if their puppets in Kiev had been doing something “wrong” from their foreign patron’s view, they would be history by now.

The last 3 years have demonstrated: the future of Ukraine is not a priority for Washington patrons, they don’t give a sh*t about life of 40 million people they took as hostages for achieving their geopolitical games. Washington patrons are trying to solve their own problems with the help of poor Ukrainian people, who are becoming more and more poor (in all the meanings of this word) every day and that fact doesn’t seem to bother any Western people if you have noticed. So, “European future” has been just a piece of cheese in a mousetrap to attract those who believe it and  those who don’t found themselves to be hostages of this ugly situation.  BTW, the slogan “Ukraine wants European future” has not been confirmed with any realistic numbers of any referendums. Why? Because Washington patrons don’t want Ukrainians to decide their future, the patrons have already decided it for Ukrainians.

There is only one question: how stupid one has to be to keep celebrating “Independence” of Ukraine. Whom Ukraine doesn’t depend on yet? May be only Mozambique or Honduras?..  BTW, there is a good Ukrainian joke (based on words game): The wrong country was named Honduras… Не ту страну назвали Гондурасом. Sad but true.


----------

