"Russian aggression" in Ukraine

[anotherlife]

But, it's clearly that Ukrainians 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However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God.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.

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.

 

[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...)

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.

 

[Eugene]

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

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

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]

Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukrainian, 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.

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?

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.

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]

But, it's clearly that Ukrainians 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.

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.

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]

Kievan Rus were clearly Ruthenian dominant like Ukrainian, 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.

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?

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.

 

[anotherlife]

But, it's clearly that Ukrainians 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.

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.

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.

 

[anotherlife]

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?

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.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

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.

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.

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]

But, it's clearly that Ukrainians 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.

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 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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

But, it's clearly that Ukrainians 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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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

 

[Eugene]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.