"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However, there are historical documents to believe and Russian literature (which reflected all the historical events), thanks God.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.

Ruthenians - Wikipedia

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]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

- 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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

- 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?

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.

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?

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]

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?

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

- 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?

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.

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?

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...

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]

- 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.

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.

- 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]

- 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.

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.

- 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.

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.