# Historical Substitution in the Context of Ukrainian-russian Relations



## Kayola (Jun 17, 2022)

I recently came across an interesting article which led me to some thoughts on the topic of how the alternativeists, globalists and conspiracy theory worshippers are not perceived adequately by the global community and most people. And that the reason may lie in a much smaller scale of actual historical substitution, but with much simpler and more pragmatic goals. The following is a translation of the article via DeepL Translate: The world's most accurate translator - it would be interesting to know what the stolenhistory community thinks about the following and how familiar they are with the information given in the article.

Original link: 15 міфів російської історії

This post is primarily intended to show that Ukraine has always been a separate independent state with its own history and culture, and that Russia's "brotherly" attitude is just a myth to justify constant aggression against Ukraine.

There are many white spots in Russian history and many times history has been rewritten or entire chapters scorched from it, replaced with fictitious historical facts. I have been familiar with this study of myths for a long time. It is not mine, but it will be very timely to share it now. Much of what follows has validity.

MYTH 1. "Russia."

All nations name themselves and name themselves. Changes in the names of countries and nations are quite common. But, why did Russia need to take on a foreign name? This is a paradox that is rare. After all, it would be strange if the Germans suddenly started calling themselves something other than Deutsche, and took the name Allemand, i.e. as their neighbours the French call them. But in the case of Russia, it is considered normal. Why? Because it is simply profitable. This could still be understood if, say, the Greeks, who in a certain period called Russia "Russia", discovered it to Europe and to the world, i.e. all other peoples recognized Russia exactly as "Rus' from the Greeks - it would be understandable. But that's not how it works.

Tsar Peter in the 18th century takes the overseas name Russia for Muscovy to betray "antiquity" and to set the stage for the mythical "gathering of the lands of Russia" - but in reality an outright war of conquest.

Tsar Peter in the 18th century takes for Muscovy overseas name Russia, which has not been used for hundreds of years, and to the land of Moscow has never been used at all, and calls the country by it. Why? The answer is simple. So that Muscovy became to be regarded as Russia, to give "antiquity" to the Muscovite kingdom and, more importantly, to create the basis for a mythical policy of "gathering of the lands of Russia" - but in reality outright war of aggression, enslavement and plunder of neighboring peoples. That is why Peter renamed Russia - the land of Ruska - into some sort of Little Russia and Veliko-Russia, which no one has called by this name for over 400 years. Why Peter I just after the conquest of Russia - Kiev needed to take the Greek name, no one needs to explain - in the Middle Ages was Russia and was Muscovy, but under Peter was Velikorossiya and Little Russia, that is, as if Russia has not disappeared, but in a new quality appeared. The historical foundations were invented later.

MYTH 2: The Battle of Kulikovo

This is a myth about the "liberation" of Russians from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. However, the Moscow principality would stop paying tribute and gain real independence only after the collapse of the Horde and a break with the khanates. It will happen only in the 16th century, i.e. in several hundred years.

MYTH 3. "Kiev is the mother of Russian cities".

Like many other historical stamps, is a myth that is central to the created mythical history of Russia. Even if we assume that Oleg said these words, they have nothing to do with Muscovy and still less with modern Russia. In those days there was neither the former nor the latter. There was Rus. And the main territories of Rus in those days were the lands of modern Belarus and Ukraine. Even Novgorod and Suzdal entered the understanding of Russia only in a very broad sense of the term.

MYTH 4. "History of Russia".

Despite the fact that in 18th-19th centuries, court historians intensively create and write history of new Russia, up to 1946, in the academic history there was no consensus that the history of Russia began in Kiev. Karamzin, a novelist, Tatar by nationality (from the family of Kara Murza), was the first to compose "officially" a new version of the history of Russia. Tatishchev's was different, but Tatishchev's archives have disappeared almost without a trace. Rewriting history, the old "version" had to be destroyed. Which they did... Many historians hold the view that the history of Russia begins in the 13th-14th century with the formation of the Moscow principality and later in the 14th-15th century with the Russian nationality. And this is historically correct and fair. But then, there is another historical basis and in the opinion of the party leadership, not a good one, especially in the context of increased national self-determination in Ukraine and Belorussia.

In rewriting history, the old "version" had to be destroyed. Which they did...
The question arises: what was happening on 70% of modern Russia's territory before the Moscow principality? It is a mystery and a mystery shrouded in darkness. This was not taught in the "Soviet school". Nor do they teach it now in Russian schools. Why should they? The myth of Karamzin is enough. They taught the myths of the empire and the Soviets. Why is there no real history of the majority of the territories, i.e. the indigenous peoples of modern Russia, and of the Russian people themselves? There are many versions of the history of Russia, but it is all the history of the tsars and the empire, but there is no true history of the Russian people! The real history and culture of the peoples of Russia is reduced to the level of local folklore.

Why do Russian schoolchildren study the history of the Urals and Trans-Urals, Siberia, the Altai and the Far East from the period of the conquest by the Ermaks, the Dezhnevs, etc.? Was there nothing and no one there before that? If there were no Russians, it means there was no one? Yes, because there is no place in the history of Russia for anything "non-Russian", no place in the real history of the peoples who are this very Russia today. There was no place for the real Ukrainian and Belorussian history, culture and language of the Central Asians in tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. And if anything was mentioned, it was either in a diminutive sense, or only about the role of the natives of these peoples in the Russian state, who were immediately hastened to be declared or made Russian. At the same time, these natives had no right to write in their native language, no right to study, and often not even to be called by the name of their people.

N.V. Gogol, while travelling in Europe and staying in one of the boarding houses, when filling in the nationality column of his questionnaire, wrote down "ukrainien" in French. It is unlikely that the great writer could have afforded such a thing in St. Petersburg or Moscow. Such impertinence would have been unforgivable. It is a perfect example of what domestic politics were like in tsarist Russia and how Gogol himself felt. It was not for nothing that the slogan "Russia is a prison of nations" was known throughout Europe. Yes, today the Ukrainian language is taught in some schools in Kuban, and even then as an elective, but it is studied there as "local balachka", i.e. not even as a dialect of the Ukrainian language, but as a "misunderstanding". Mention of the Ukrainian language is taboo.

The slogan "Russia is a prison of nations" was known throughout Europe.

Why should a Russian schoolboy, Bashkir or Tatar, whose people have not less, but more ancient history, culture, written language and literature than the "Russian", be taught at school the history of his own country, which dates back to Kievan Rus? It's not their history, and not the history of the Karelians, Meri, etc., who have already been virtually wiped off the ethnic map in favour of an entity called Russia. Yes, in Tatarstan and other regions of Russia the history of their native land is studied, but this is more the level of ethnographic circles, rather than the study of the real history of their people. The real history of these peoples is being replaced by the "myth of Great Russia", which has swollen considerably in the last 300 years. Already substituted in fact.

MYTH 5. "Ancient Russians and Muscovite Russia".

The term is actively introduced in 19-20th centuries. That Russia thus tries to conduct continuity and show "antiquity" of the history, it is understandable. But more interesting is another. How these princes can be considered "Old Russian" if they did not know the word "Russian"? And there was no such word then. There was the word Rus and Ruskiy - but in Russia it certainly had no relation to the territory of modern Russia.

Russian philologist Dal emphasized and repeatedly insisted that the word Russian should be written with one "s" - Ruskiy. This particular word is derived from Rus. Consolidation of the name of the country as "Russia", the people as "Russian", and citizens as "Russians" - only once again emphasizes the artificiality of these names and concepts. And the emergence of the name "Russianspeaking" in modern usage, i.e. a separate cultural and linguistic unit, is actually a recognition of the emergence of some nationally depersonalized mass, which is a result of the "Soviet Russification" of the peoples of the former USSR.

There is no other country in the world, whose history is so artificial, contrived and untrue, created first to please the politics of the Tsarist Empire, and later to please the ideology of the Soviet Empire.

Princes of Kiev would be very surprised, if suddenly they learned that a thousand years later the state that is thousands kilometres away would consider them exclusively their "Russian" ancient ancestors, and the people, culture and language of modern Ukraine in the land of which these same princes lived and who they were - sort of "historical misunderstanding". No comments. But the whole history of Russia is based on that!!! Actually a historical misunderstanding is precisely Russia - for there is no other such country in the world, where so many cultures and peoples are intermingled, and whose history is so artificial, far-fetched and untrue, created at first to please the policy of the Tsarist Empire, and later to please the ideology of the Soviet Empire.

MYTH 6: "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" (and other written monuments)

The document was "found" under strange circumstances, but paradoxically, how could such an important historical document be "lost"? Even more interesting is the fact that the copy that survived was written in the 18th century, that is, at the time when the tsars of Moscow were strenuously writing and creating a history of "the Russian state". The text which exists today is an adapted and watered down copy of the 18th and 19th century which is stubbornly presented as the ancient original and model of "Old Russian". This is how it is taught in Russian schools.

MYTH 7. "Russia collected the lands of Ukraine."

From the Syan to the Don - so demanded Vinnichenko and Hrushevsky from Kerensky's provisional government to fix the borders of the Ukrainian lands - precisely according to the ethno-geographical principle. But this was impossible because the question arose: "Then where are the actual historical ethno-geographical lands of the Russians?" And there is no answer to this question. Very often one hears another myth that Russia collected Ukrainian lands for Ukraine. Perhaps even partly.

What should Ukraine be grateful for? For giving the Poles the Holm land and Podlasie? Or for the fact that millions of Ukrainians disappeared from Kursk, Voronezh, Kuban, Ryazan, Kursk, part of Smolensk, Bryansk and Oryol? These territories had a large Ukrainian population. According to the 1926 Russian Census, there were over 2.2 million ethnic Ukrainians living on these lands. But already in 1939 only thousands are mentioned. What to say - the process is going on even today: the census of 1989 in Russia - 4,3 million Ukrainians, the census of 2001 already 2,4 million Ukrainians. That's it ...

MYTH 8. "Ukraine is an outskirt, and the word was invented in the 19th century".

If we follow the logic, militia came not from the Greek word, but from the phrase "pretty faces", and "Russia" came from the word "scatter"? However, it is more like that "whoever wants what he hears what he wants"... It is enough to open European maps of the 16-19 centuries to see that the word "Ukraine" as a designation of lands and countries has long been known in Europe. For example, read Boplan (you can trust him), who in the 17th century was on Ukrainian land and called it on his map "Ukraine - land of the Cossacks", because so themselves and their land and called the people of Ukraine long before Boplan in Ukraine in the 17th century. And vice versa the same European maps of the 16-19 centuries depict Muscovy as part of the Great Tatars. These are facts with which it is difficult to argue...

MYTH 9. "Old Russian bylinas".

There is a myth that these are byliny of the 11th-13th centuries, allegedly recorded in central European and northern Russia. To begin with, in the northern part of Russia even in 15-16th century few spoke a language intelligible to Russian, there lived very different peoples. In fact all of them were written and recorded in 18th and 19th century, and adapted for mass "people's" reading in a common Great Russian dialect.

An interesting example of a "truly Russian" fairy tale "Kolobok" - there is not even a word "Kolo" in the Russian language, but there is one in Ukrainian and Russian. It means "circle", and only in this case the character of the tale itself becomes immediately understandable.

Pushkin is also interesting. Ruslan is a Russian (!) hero. The "Russian knight" might as well have been named Aslan or Nursultan. And it wouldn't raise any questions for Pushkin's contemporaries. There is no doubt in Pushkin's mind, it is normal, he speaks about Russian (!) vityaz. And it is true - they were often those who were called 'Russian' knights in the principality of Moscow. Kiryusha Minenbayev (Kirill Minin) together with Pozharsky should be commemorated as a truly 'Russian' person.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 18, 2022)

Kayola said:


> From the Syan to the Don - so demanded Vinnichenko and Hrushevsky from Kerensky's provisional government to fix the borders of the Ukrainian lands - precisely according to the ethno-geographical principle. But this was impossible because the question arose: "Then where are the actual historical ethno-geographical lands of the Russians?" And there is no answer to this question. Very often one hears another myth that Russia collected Ukrainian lands for Ukraine. Perhaps even partly.



I sent this article to a friend from Ukraine. She told me that Vinnichenko was related to her friend's family. Her friend's great grandparents were Vinnichenkos friends, they were put to jail and murdered for their political stance.


----------



## Kayola (Jun 20, 2022)

*The second part of this article:*

MYTH 10. "Reunification of Ukraine and Russia."

How could a treaty, a document of such great importance, be lost? Only copies remain. Well, and when there is no original it is clear even to a child that one can tell any fairy tales and create new legends and myths about "reunification". There was no "reunification". There was a military and religious alliance. And later Muscovy simply took power.

MYTH 11. "The Volga is a Russian river".

Historically the Volga region is the Tatar Khanate and home of Volga Bulgaria which had the state there, long before occurrence of Moscow and formation of so-called Russian. Final subjugation of the Volga region occurs only in 18-19 centuries. Thus even today 60 % of inhabitants of Volga region it is " moon-faced " the population, i.e. with obviously not Russ eyes cut and in the majority professing Islam.

Myth 12: "Russians and Russia".

I wonder who of the Meri, Vesi, Mordva, Veps, Komi, Udmurts, Permians, Meshchers, Chuds and other peoples who inhabited most of Russia in the Middle Ages considered themselves Russians or spoke Russian? Nobody! Were the forcibly baptized Tatars of Kazan, the Volga region and Siberia repeatedly Russian? Also no. So where are the "ancestral Russian lands", where are their Russian ancestral territories? Where is canonical Russia? It does not exist! Do these lands lie around Moscow? Probably. All kinds of "scientists" Zhirinovsky and Leontiev call Ukraine and Belorussia Russia, but they also consider Komi, and Buryatia, and Yakutia to be Russia. Is it a paradox?

It turns out that there is no Russia. And where is Russia itself? Where is its "Russian heart", so to speak? Where is its ethno-geographical homeland? In Kiev? It's funny ... and sad at the same time. Because it is not true. Why is it impossible to show on the map where is the original ethno-cultural land of Russians? Because there is no such land.

Someone may say that Novgorod, Suzdal, Rostov gave life to Muscovy and Russia, that after Kiev, Russia "moved" there. But this is a blatant lie and a myth created by imperial "historians" in the 19th century. Novgorod and Suzdal became part of Muscovy only under Ivan the Terrible after their sacking and looting. But before that they were considered separate principalities with their own ways of life, specific language, culture and mentality, which differed from that of Moscow.

And if we put aside all this "Great Russian" chauvinistic nonsense, let us see straightforwardly and realistically who lived where and on what land? What do we get? And what we will get is this:

Merja, Vse, Muroma, Veps etc. - Not Russia - these peoples where they lived in the 8th-10th century, they lived there in the 12th-14th centuries, but there they are not there today, because in the 15th-16th centuries and later they all became "Russians".

Krivichi, Dregovichi, Sivertsi, Polians - Russ - later all these lands Rus', people Rus', language Rus' called themselves "Rusins" and where they lived in 9-10 century, THERE ARE LIVING TODAY in 21 century. Even today they are called Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Novgorod and Suzdal were conquered and practically destroyed. The liberties and orders that existed in them were forbidden by special decrees of the Moscow princes. The nobles and merchants were either simply killed or forced to move to Moscow. The wild Moscow Empire was formed by fire and sword and lived by wars. Wars were the meat grinder that digested the smaller peoples and created a new people "Moscow-Russian". In other words, a "Russian person" is a bearer of "Russian culture and invented history", which was formed in the 15th-17th century and artificially "systematized" thanks to the policy of Peter the Great, and later in the 18th-19th century thanks to the activity of men of Russian science and culture, and later during Soviet rule thanks to the "correct" education of Soviet peoples.

The nobility and merchants were either simply murdered or forced to move to Moscow. The wild Moscow Empire was formed by fire and sword and lived by wars.

In the USSR everyone knew the educational boarding schools in Central Asia and Siberia. Children were taken away from their families, for many months. Far from home, under the guise of free compulsory (!) education, the usual russification was carried out. Children lost their language, culture, skills of crafts and economy of their ancestors, and were torn away from their traditional way of life. Thus, under the "good" name of accessible education the identity of many peoples of Russia was destroyed. The sad fate of the peoples of the North and Siberia is known to all - almost total drunkenness, disappearance of identity, traditional crafts and change of traditional way of life.

What is next? Extinction or complete Russification. Tatar, Chuvash, Kalmyk writing? We were taught at school that they had never had one and the Russians taught them to write and read. Almost like that... First, the Russians took their own literacy based on Arabic script, and then in 1920's made them write in Latin, and then in 1930-40's gently translated into Cyrillic. It is clear that their historical legacy has become, as it were, not theirs... because it is written differently.

For a long time now, in Russia, someone whose native (first) language is Russian is considered "Russian". I.e. "Russian" and "Russian-speaking" are equivalent concepts. "Russians" today are very many Tatars, Udmurts, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Kalmyks, Yakuts, Buryats, etc. who have been forcibly baptised since the times of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and before Stolypin. The whole system of education and socio-political order also worked for the emergence of "Russians" among those peoples who are not even Slavs.

Today it is difficult to say how many "Russians" in Russia itself are of Slavic origin. Obviously a minority, less than 50%. Official statistics do not reflect this reality. The statements by politicians and even the Russian president about protecting the rights of "Russian-speakers" in neighbouring countries are very interesting in this regard. Isn't it? And in fact, this is a new version of the old myth about "gathering of the Russian lands". Only today it is about gathering people and lands of "Russian-speakers". Behind this is the usual attempt to cover up neo-imperial aggressive intentions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Very interesting are statements by politicians and even the president of Russia about protecting the rights of "Russian-speakers" in neighbouring countries. It is essentially a new version of the old myth about "gathering of the Russian lands".

Census of 1926 - there are more than 2 million Ukrainians in Russia on the territory of Bryansk, Kursk, Smolensk and Ryazan regions. But already in 1939, there are less than 400 thousand of them. On census of 1989, 4.6 million Ukrainians lived in Russia, in 2001 already 2.4 million. What happened to 2 million? In the period since 1900 till 1990th at the territory of European and southern parts of the modern Russia and also in Siberia about 10-15 million Ukrainians were assimilated - and it only by official data of the censuses of Russia. And how many assimilated Belarusians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Kalmyks and children of mixed marriages, who became Russians by the "established rule"? Tens and tens of millions. These are the modern Russian people, the so-called Russians.

The phenomenon of "serfdom" is a truly Moscow phenomenon and explains a lot. All over the world, people of other peoples and races were slaves. And only in Russia were slaves of their own population. It is not surprising, though; the princes of the Moscow Tsardom treated the people as foreigners, and the name "Chern'" was the name of their own people, which perfectly demonstrates the attitude to this very people. But the people themselves were forced to treat the princes as slaves to their master. Slavish worship before the nobility and officials is characteristic of the East. These are all elements of the Asian culture, which became an integral part of Muscovy.

All over the world, people of other peoples and races were slaves. Only in Russia, slaves were their own people.

Before the union of Ukraine with Russia in 1654, Ukrainian peasants were free - they didn't live easy, but they weren't anyone's property and worked for themselves. And in cities, there was the Magdeburg Law. The cities of Muscovy were not aware of it. That is why gradually the people who lived in the territory of true Russia (mostly modern Ukraine and Belarus), and who called their historic faith, their language and themselves - Ruskiy, later during the closer contacts with the Moscow government in the 17th century, understood that they can be anything, but not Muscovite, Muscovite "Russian", ie not in the sense of "Russian", which was put into this word in Muscovy.

It was during this period that a clear self-identification of the inhabitants of Ukraine as the people of Russia, who are not "Muscovite Russians", was formed. That is why the old name "moya krajina, vkrajina" - Ukraine comes out. This contrasts the name "vkrajina", as my country, with the "common" name of Russians and Ukrainians - Velikorossiya. Muscovy, on the contrary, began to assimilate the peoples. Forcibly baptizing the Tatars and pagans of the north. By the decree of Peter, the Tatars who converted to Christianity were even exempted from taxes for 3 years. And Stolypin even gave land for free, though in Siberia...

The Ukrainian idea of opposing Russia probably has its roots in the 17th century. Well, the people of Rus-Ukraine did not want to be called in the Moscow way "Russian". It was not. They have always been Ruskiy, but they are different things, which Russia is trying to confuse. Rus' Minor and Rus' Big is how the name Russia Minoris is translated, but not Little Russia. Tsar Peter also knew it and that's why the word "Velikorossia" and "Little Russia" were born again, which have almost lost their meaning for hundreds of years.

Well, the people of Russia-Ukraine did not want to be called in the Moscow way "Russian". It was not. They have always been Ruskiy, but they are different things, which Russia is trying to confuse.

The Russian peasants themselves, as the Austrian ambassador wrote in the late 16th century, when asked who they were by nationality, answered: peasants or Christians. That is, they did not identify themselves as Russians at all. And about the name of their country "Russia", they said that their land was called "Rassieya" because "our people were scattered over this land a lot".

MYTH 13: "The Russian soul".

Mysterious, as they still like to say in Russia. In fact this "mystique" is quite conditional and is no secret. The answer is simple. It is the fruit of interaction between Asian and European cultures. After all, it was at the junction of these two cultures that the so-called Russian nation and state emerged and was created. Russians are Asians in Europe and Europeans in Asia. Is Moscow the capital of "Asirope"?



dreamtime said:


> I sent this article to a friend from Ukraine. She told me that Vinnichenko was related to her friend's family. Her friend's great grandparents were Vinnichenkos friends, they were put to jail and murdered for their political stance.



Wow! You have very interesting friends  There are a lot of people that was killed for their political stance in jails in USSR. Between the first and second world wars there were famines on the territory of Ukraine (the population decreased very much compared to the post-war years, when tsarist Russia still continued to exist). In fact, it was the destruction or deportation under the auspices of the fight against tsarism of those who defended independence (it is quite realistic to compare the numbers). After the Second World War, when the Ukrainian rebels did not achieve actual success, there was a cultural anti-Soviet explosion - then also many writers and historians were tortured and killed.

As for the alternatives to history. The methods of creating an alternative perception can be seen even now. For example, in Russian wikipedia and scientific literature since the 2000s there is no concept of Kievan Rus. In the case of the destruction of the population and the application of severe censorship to those who will remember another version of history, the actual history of these events will be rewritten. And in 200 years this substitution will become an actual historical reality. This is one of the answers to the questions of where and why the population that populated the territories teeming with buildings and monuments of incomprehensible purpose went. 

I have some interesting insights into the historical spoofing of events that took place in the Kiev region between the 13th and 15th centuries. This white spot is still giving me a hard time


----------



## Daniel (Jun 21, 2022)

Could I just put a link to this article from 2016 here.. 
How Malorossia Was Turned into the Patch-quilt of Discord that is “Ukraine” | Nemo's Realms


----------



## Kayola (Jun 21, 2022)

*The end of starter topic:*

MYTH 14: "The Russian language".

The great and mighty. That's how we were taught at school. He is the "first" and all the other Slavs around him. Russian was formed in the 16th-17th centuries, and its grammar and structure were created even later by Lomonosov, who, taking the textbooks and books of the Russian principalities as a basis, created, step by step, the grammar and structure of the Russian language. And Pushkin brought a lot of interesting and new to this language.

At the same time, the idea that Ukrainian is an "opolyanized" Russian - as if it has a lot of Polish words - is present intensively. But for Russians themselves they simply try to explain its difference from Russian - not to overthink it. Actually, it conceals an attempt to cover up a huge number of borrowings in the Russian language from the Turkic languages, especially Tatar, Finno-Ugric, Meri, Vesya and Chud - i.e. the Russified peoples of the Ural and northern part of the modern Russia. In fact, the words in Ukrainian are not Polish, but common Slavic. That is why Belarusians and Ukrainians understand Polish and Czech, Serbo-Croatian and, even better, Slovak better than Russians. And Slovak occupation of Ukraine certainly did not happen. Vocabulary with the Belarusian language coincides by 60%. And this clearly shows which nation has real, not fictitious, historical and cultural roots, and on what territory - the territory of true Russia, rather than fictitious "Muscovy. Because these two peoples are the heirs and successors of Russia.

Belorussians and Ukrainians understand Polish and Czech, Serbo-Croatian and, even better, Slovak better than Russians.

The famous Russian linguist Dahl wrote that he could not fully communicate with the peasants near Moscow. They did not understand the language he spoke and studied. And this was only 100-150 versts away from Moscow. What can we say about the Russian hinterland! Dahl has repeatedly stated that the language of Russia is called Ruskiy, and it is written with just one "s", but no one listened to Dahl, they listened to the decrees of Peter I. And it was Ruskiy who used to be called Rus language by the elderly people of Ukraine even in the 20th century, clearly opposing it to the language of Moscow, which is a newly invented "Russian" with 2 "s".

Today there is no doubt about the origin and "Russianness" of many "native Russian" words, even among teachers of Russian in Russia itself. However, if we analyze the lexical composition of the Russian language, it turns out that not much is left of the Slavic languages. But enough is left of the artificial and used only for writing and service Church Slavonic. And it is not surprising, for it was Church Slavonic that Lomonosov took as his basis and, using the textbooks of Russian scholars of the Middle Ages - at that time part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - he created and systematized the Moscow Russian language. That is why modern Russian borrows heavily from Church Slavonic, which was the written language of Rus until the end of the 17th century. A huge number of words have come into Russian from the languages of the Uralic peoples and from the Finno-Ugric languages of northern and European Russia - Veps, Meri, Komi, Vesi, Muroms, Finns, Ugrics. As they conquered and populated these territories, the people of the Moscow principality came across phenomena, names of objects from local peoples, and adopted them to denote them in their own language.

So, for example, "Russian" okolitsa comes from Karelian. okollisa, volost from Karel. volost, fin. volosti, okruuka from Karelia, oukruga from Komi, village from Veps. deruun, deron, derevn, pogost from Veps. pagast and Karelians. pogostu, settlement from Karelia. posolku, ridge from Karelia. kriadu(a), cabbage from Karelian-Finnish. kapustahuuhta, a plough from Karelian-Finnish. niiva, vegetable garden from Karel. ogrodu and Komi akgarod, wasteland, wasteland from Karel. puustos and Veps., puust, homestead from Karel. and Komi usat'bu, plot from Karel. ucuasku, glade from Karel. pluanu, grove from Karel. roshsu and Komi rossha, roshta, tundra from Balkt-Finn. tunturi, tuntur, ditch from Karel. kanoava, konuava, pond from Karelian and Middle Finnish. pruttu, pruudu, ford from Karel. brodu and Komi brwdu, verst from Komi vers and Karelia virsta, way from Karel. puwtti and Komi "PUTINA" (origin of the name Putin), cart, cartwright from Karel. telegu and Komi telezhnei, trail from Karel. troppu and Komi trioppu, hook from Karelian-Finnish. kruwga, kruwkka, fibre from Komi vwlek, vwlwk, place from Karelian and Komi mesta, ridge (steep bank) from Veps. krlz, krez, pond from Komi. omutta, ridge from Karelian plesatti, spring from Finnish-Karelian rodniekku, rodňikka, hill from Karelian buguriccu etc. etc.

Someone may argue that these words on the contrary came from Russian to Karelian, Veps. etc., but, alas, this is not the case. There are almost no words similar to them in other Slavic languages. Such words sound especially "Russian" to a Russian person. They have been living with them for centuries. Thus Byelorussian and Ukrainian words seem alien (from here comes the version about Polonization) - but these peoples always lived and live in true Russia and are the bearers of its culture. Later some words of the northern peoples have got into Ukrainian and Belarusian languages through Russification. But the reverse process also took place. For example, such words as ticket, station, grave, village, khutor, etc. were borrowed into Komi, Karelian and other languages from Russian.

Many Turkic, Iranian and European loanwords in Russian are also known only to linguists: COMMODITY, HORSE, SHED, CARAVAN, WATERMELON, DOG, BREAD, MUG, UMBRELLA, CAT, MONKEY, NOTEBOOK, TIE, COMPOTE, MUSIC, TRACTOR, TANK, HARBOUR, SAIL, ICON, CHURCH, SPORT, MARKET, STATION, CAR, GOAL, HUT, GLASS, Kettle, Soup, Stool, Table, Cucumber, Cottage, Potato, CABRERA, TARELKA, SAHAR, CHOR, IDYLL, POESIA, HOSPITAL, YARMAR, CHANCE, AZART, TENT, MAJONEZ, HOME, CHAMBER, PROBLEM, SYSTEM, TEMA [ТОВАР, ЛОШАДЬ, САРАЙ, КАРАВАН, АРБУЗ, СОБАКА, ХЛЕБ, КРУЖКА, ЗОНТИК, КОТ, ОБЕЗЬЯНА, БЛОКНОТ, ГАЛСТУК, КОМПОТ, МУЗЫКА, ТРАКТОР, ТАНК, ГАВАНЬ, ПАРУС, ИКОНА, ЦЕРКОВЬ, СПОРТ, РЫНОК, ВОКЗАЛ, МАШИНА, ГОЛ, ИЗБА, СТЕКЛО, СЕЛЕДКА, СУП, СТУЛ, СТОЛ, ОГУРЕЦ, КОТЛЕТА, КАРТОШКА, КАСТРЮЛЯ, ТАРЕЛКА, САХАР, ХОР, ИДИЛЛИЯ, ПОЭЗИЯ, ГОСПИТАЛЬ, ЯРМАРКА, ШАНС, АЗАРТ, ТЕНТ, МАЙОНЕЗ, ДОМ, ШАМПУНЬ, ПРОБЛЕМА, СИСТЕМА, ТЕМА] and many thousands more. And that's without taking into account Latinisms and early borrowings from the Greek language.

The scientific and technical lexicon of Russian consists of nearly 100 % of Dutch, German and English loanwords. The socio-political vocabulary consists almost 100% of Greek, French and English borrowings. So where, in fact, is the "great and mighty" Russian itself? And what "Old Russianness" can we talk about at all?

There have never been any mythical "Old Russian" people and there has never been such a language.

Russian, as a branch of East Slavonic, is an extremely hot mixture of written Church Slavonic (an artificial non-verbal language) with dozens of different languages of conquered, enslaved and assimilated peoples. It is a natural process - with close contact, not only does the conqueror impose his own, but he also borrows from others. Imperial and Soviet historians replaced the term "East Slavic" with the mythical "Old Russian" wherever they could. But there was no such people, there has never been such a language. Kiev had its own accent, while Novgorod had a completely different one. They wrote it in Church Slavonic, but no one ever spoke that language! So why lie and create a myth of "Old Russianness"? The Moscow tsars really wanted antiquity.

MYTH 15: "The Riches of Russia".

What possesses Russian people, except for the grounds and riches of other seized peoples? Nothing! What do the indigenous peoples of Russia have from such a possession? Nothing! But the Kremlin does. And it has not a few...

In the "evil", "capitalist" and "Western" Canada, not only Indians, but all inhabitants of the "mining provinces" receive an annual rent for the use of the resources and subsoil of the land on which they live. The state shares the profits with those to whom these profits belong by right! For example, in 2005 all the residents of Alberta province in Canada got an additional payment of 400-500 dollars each, including infants. That's what they do in really civilized democracies.

What did they do in Russia after the super profits? Increased spending on armaments. And for oil and gas dollars they started to threaten their neighbours even more and started gas and trade wars. "Why, we have money. We can play political economy". And they don't give a damn about the people, just like they always do. What do the small peoples of Russia really have from the exploitation of their subsoil? A northern wage increment and a surcharge on category II and III! As in tsarist times, as in Soviet times, and today they have nothing. All they have is imperial bullshit. And this is an indicator of the real goals of the state and where it is going.

The author and primary source for the reference is, unfortunately, unknown to me. But this research into myths does not make it any less correct.


Daniel said:


> How Malorossia Was Turned into the Patch-quilt of Discord that is “Ukraine” | Nemo's Realms



please, not use propagand in this thred. in this article author tell how russia wants to take the ukrainian territoties. There is another name in this thred

As a small addition - here ara few maps:

1580
1648
1649
1659

I please stay in the scope of topic theme - the differences between Ukrainians and russians. Ukraine protects itself 8 hundred years from expansion, so please: if the article from the link use politic propahand that does not stand up to scrutiny, why the reference of it is here? As i understand the rules of stolenhistory, you can start new thred in which y can do this. And i can go on it and comment every point. Can you comment and say your own opinion about one or few points from topic article of this thred?


----------



## Daniel (Jun 21, 2022)

Sorry, but why was that particular article "propaganda"? Are you saying that "ukrainian" is not an old word for a border guard?
And your maps are all from Wikipedia, which is not renowned for its truth about history or the present.
Furthermore, the person who wrote that article also had maps, quotations, and dictionary entries.
For all your obvious passion and effort, I don't really see anything concrete to convince me.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 21, 2022)

Kayola said:


> please, not use propagand in this thred. in this article author tell how russia wants to take the ukrainian territoties. There is another name in this thred



You can't start a thread on a politically loaded topic and expect everyone to follow your own beliefs. This thread should be open to all perspectives, as long as data and information is shared and the perspectives of others are treated respectfully.


----------



## Kayola (Jun 21, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> You can't start a thread on a politically loaded topic and expect everyone to follow your own beliefs. This thread should be open to all perspectives, as long as data and information is shared and the perspectives of others are treated respectfully.


Ok


Daniel said:


> Sorry, but why was that particular article "propaganda"?


Because its postulates use rhetoric to justify a military invasion, and every postulate is false. Propaganda is not allowed on the forum.


Daniel said:


> Are you saying that "ukrainian" is not an old word for a border guard?
> And your maps are all from Wikipedia, which is not renowned for its truth about history or the present.
> Furthermore, the person who wrote that article also had maps, quotations, and dictionary entries.
> For all your obvious passion and effort, I don't really see anything concrete to convince me.


The first postulate (that the name Ukraine appeared in the 20th century and before that was used only in everyday life) contradicts the real maps of the 16th century, and it doesn’t matter what resource these maps are uploaded to - Wikipedia or somewhere else. I can do the same for every point, but. I will not continue to comment on the article or convince you of something until you express your personal ideas or opinions regarding the issues set out at the beginning of the topic. Because in this tred i discuss something with you (and another users), not with the author of the article.
P.S. There are many interesting information in this tred General outline of historical events, my reconstructionTruth is always a trump card.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 21, 2022)

Daniel said:


> Sorry, but why was that particular article "propaganda"? Are you saying that "ukrainian" is not an old word for a border guard?
> And your maps are all from Wikipedia, which is not renowned for its truth about history or the present.
> Furthermore, the person who wrote that article also had maps, quotations, and dictionary entries.



The article you linked to doesn't contain any historical maps.

The maps in the OP look credible to me. It seems modern Ukraine evolved from "Rus Minor".

On this old map, Ukraine is a territory in Rus Minor: 

Little Russia - Wikipedia


----------



## Kayola (Jun 22, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> The article you linked to doesn't contain any historical maps.





Kayola said:


> As a small addition - here ara few maps:
> 
> 1580
> 1648
> ...


What are you speaking about? I post the links with maps. The article that linked Daniel (and i replied) contains the information about Ukraine as a territory that named only in 20 century: old maps says that it is no truth


> This map shows how the size of Ukraine changed through history. NOTE! What is shown here in yellow as ‘Ukraine in 1654’ was in fact the territory of the Zaporozhie Cossacks (Zaporozhskie Kazaki). There was no country or territory called Ukraine before Lenin and Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the USSR.





dreamtime said:


> The maps in the OP look credible to me. It seems modern Ukraine evolved from "Rus Minor".


I dont know English well: what OP means?


dreamtime said:


> On this old map, Ukraine is a territory in Rus Minor:
> 
> Little Russia - Wikipedia


This is 18-century map (the maps that i linked is 16-17th centuries). In 18th century Ukrainian territory where occupied by russian empire. About this map - it is very interesting that between the word "Ukrain" and "Europe" placed the word "Land" It would be interesting for me to see the full version of thisc map. I know, that historical science says that in 18th century Ukraine was a part of empire, but what this map says about?..


----------



## iseidon (Jun 22, 2022)

Just in case, let me remind you.

Ukraine (Oukraina or Vkraina; old slavic letter Uk) was the name given to any border territories (unfortunately, the article is only in Russian, as it is not invested in the current pro-Western mainstream; there are many such territories in the Urals and Siberia; apparently, wherever the Cossacks lived - the defenders of the borders, according to this logic). These are everyday names (mostly common in popular speech; this is not a derogation of anyone; rather the opposite, as the language should reflect the culture of the people).

Over time, Russian and Ukrainian have split (as have other languages of the world; at least European ones). But in general, the Ukrainian word "cardon-kardon" still lives on in Russian with the same meaning (although it is used less often than the words "border-granitsa", "burgor-bugor"; in Russian there is a word "bordyur," which means the elevated stone boundary of a highway).

Here is an article on wikipedia (Russian, because the other languages do not represent small Russian villages), where toponyms with the word "Kordon" are presented. Note where most of the toponyms are located. Here is the Ukrainian article.

We (rus) generally believe that the word "cardon-kardon" comes from the French word meaning "cord, rope". There is also a connection with the Greek word "chorde," which means "string". There is also the geometric chord. There is also the word "gardina" meaning "curtain, curtain" (German "Gardine" and Dutch "Gordijn-veil").

Thanks to this fragmentation, everyone sees himself as king of the world (in his own eyes). Some Russians (in the alternative milieu) consider Russian as the ancestor (at least of the conditional Old Russian language); Ukrainians (and without alternative history) believe that the Ukrainian language is the basis for the conditional Old Russian language. As you can see, no one is right. It's just that some have a larger fragment, (so more reason to consider themselves a major culture; at least in their eyes). But under current politics, and this fragment will be successfully fragmented (sooner or later).

If anyone wants to talk about changing languages, then....

Yesterday, I was looking through old photos of my family, and I saw a photo with my mom from Uzhgorod ("Ужгород", that's westernmost Ukraine; you can't get more west than that).





Look at how the word "Ukraine" is spelled (the "i" with one dot; now it's spelled with two "ï"). Soviet illiteracy (if so, why wasn't it corrected? This is easily done (given the relatively self-styled sentiments of that region, even in Soviet times).



__
				Hidden content
			
		


				
					You need -1 more posts to view this content
				
			


If anyone is interested in the actual etymology (perhaps there are idiots who are interested in such a "useless" thing as etymology) of place names, then here. See.

España (esp), Deutsch (deu), English (eng). Not the most recent countries and peoples, in my opinion. Sorry, other nations, but I think those nations are enough.

The main problem is that our common past (or just past; if you're a proponent of national history) is being systematically crushed and changed. And then more and more (and to this is added objective reasons; for example, for some countries and/or peoples, each nation can have its own name, which is different from the self-name).

And it is unlikely that throwing beads at each other will help correct the situation. Just as referring to maps prior to the notional year 1861 (and relying on them as reliable sources; at least in an alternative milieu). This can only be seen as circumstantial evidence.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 22, 2022)

Kayola said:


> What are you speaking about? I post the links with maps. The article that linked Daniel (and i replied) contains the information about Ukraine as a territory that named only in 20 century: old maps says that it is no truth


He was talking about Daniel's comment, not yours.



iseidon said:


> Just in case, let me remind you.
> 
> Ukraine (Oukraina or Vkraina; old slavic letter Uk) was the name given to any border territories (unfortunately, the article is only in Russian, as it is not invested in the current pro-Western mainstream; there are many such territories in the Urals and Siberia; apparently, wherever the Cossacks lived - the defenders of the borders, according to this logic). These are everyday names (mostly common in popular speech; this is not a derogation of anyone; rather the opposite, as the language should reflect the culture of the people).
> 
> ...


All I see in this very expected reply is the usual attempt by people from Muscovy to impose once again their devious identity upon other people. You should at least try to answer the points talked by Kayola instead of wrting kilometers of senseless Muscovite propaganda like:
"_As you can see, no one is right. It's just that some have a larger fragment, (so more reason to consider themselves a major culture; at least in their eyes). But under current politics, and this fragment will be successfully fragmented (sooner or later)."_
or
_"The main problem is that our common past (or just past; if you're a proponent of national history) is being systematically crushed and changed. And then more and more (and to this is added objective reasons; for example, for some countries and/or peoples, each nation can have its own name, which is different from the self-name)."_
About this last sentence a laugh escaped from my mouth, since the bastard  (meaning crossbred, mongrel, illegitimate) nation of Muscovy is changing history for the last 400 years or more.

I repeat once again, try to answer the various points instead of spreding Muscovite boring propaganda with kilometers of ink and consequently trying to close the thread. Thank you.

edit for @iseidon: please don't take it personal and don't answer to my reply. Try to stay focused on the thread.
@Kayola, OP means 'opening thread'


----------



## Kayola (Jun 22, 2022)

iseidon said:


> Ukraine (Oukraina or Vkraina; old slavic letter Uk) was the name given to any border territories (unfortunately, the article is only in Russian, as it is not invested in the current pro-Western mainstream; there are many such territories in the Urals and Siberia; apparently, wherever the Cossacks lived - the defenders of the borders, according to this logic). These are everyday names (mostly common in popular speech; this is not a derogation of anyone; rather the opposite, as the language should reflect the culture of the people).


It is noteworthy that the oldest source referred to in the article refers to 1868, when such an interpretation of the word was politically justified for the empire in order to hold the territory. It is also indicative that the fact of the forced eviction of Ukrainians to the borders of the empire is missed, justifying this by the need to protect the borders (if you dig into the genealogies of Siberian families, every second one has immigrants from the territory of Ukraine in their ancestors).
Also indicative (and manipulative) is the highlighting of only one hypothesis (oh yes, this is just a hypothesis) of the origin of the word. For example, in all Slavic languages (except Russian) the word "krai" is translated as "land". In Russian, this word is often used for those territories where Ukrainians originally lived, or to which they were resettled under one pretext or another. More details (in Ukrainian) can be found here «Україна» —  це не «окраїна». Григорій Півторак. Походження українців, росіян, білорусів та їхніх мов., and it is this hypothesis that is dominant.


iseidon said:


> Over time, Russian and Ukrainian have split (as have other languages of the world; at least European ones). But in general, the Ukrainian word "cardon-kardon" still lives on in Russian with the same meaning (although it is used less often than the words "border-granitsa", "burgor-bugor"; in Russian there is a word "bordyur," which means the elevated stone boundary of a highway).



The Russian language was created on the basis of the Ukrainian language with Finno-Ugric and Turkic-Mongolian admixtures. A common language is a legend that does not stand up to criticism, there is a lot of information about this, starting with how and by whom the Russian language was created, its grammar and dictionaries, and ending with written evidence documents in the Ukrainian language (only in historical - Russian - literature he wasn't called that). Here 250 years ago there was no Russian language yet quite interesting discussions on this issue. And the cordon has nothing to do with it.


Silveryou said:


> He was talking about Daniel's comment, not yours.


Thanks, I'm kind of inattentive today


Silveryou said:


> @Kayola, OP means 'opening thread'


Thnx


iseidon said:


> I deliberately covered it up to avoid political noise as much as possible. I wrote this only for experienced users.





iseidon said:


> Please do not reply in this thread so as not to politicize the topic.


It was hidden by the author or by the moderator?


iseidon said:


> And it is unlikely that throwing beads at each other will help correct the situation. Just as referring to maps prior to the notional year 1861 (and relying on them as reliable sources; at least in an alternative milieu). This can only be seen as circumstantial evidence.


The alternative environment is not something unshakable. Not for all alternatives History does not exist before the 18th century. So it does not look like an argument, but something else.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 22, 2022)

I had to delete the 4 recent posts derailing the thread.

Iseidon, it seems to me that you can't accept the thought that there was a cultural entity called Ukraine even before modern Russia?

When I look at the maps shared by Kayola, then it becomes clear that Ukraine is not a modern invention, as some nationalist Russians often say. Resorting to defining the meaning of the word to lower it's relevance is problematic in my view. The name did exist before the Russian Empire, that's sufficient to suggest a cultural identity independent from Rusisa.

Look at the old world maps before the big Empires started their imperialist conquests, and you see that the entire world was split into many small areas, and all had their own unique culture and names. And there is no question that the Russian Empire was one of those imperialist forces that destroyed the history and heritage of other cultures and nations, including the other slavic nations.

Why shouldn't Ukrainian identity be rooted in their own national heritage, just like all nations on earth claim? The rise of nationalism happened everywhere in the 19-20th centuries for a reason. Even though all modern borders are arbitrary, the attempt to remember the past and the old national roots doesn't seem to be arbitrary to me - be it for Ukraine, Russians or Germans. The problem arises when this brings up old wounds, and two modern nations claim sovereignty over the same area by twisting the past - Ukrainans hate Russians due to their involvement in the past, and it's impossible to solve border issues by finding "the true history". And it's clear that politically, Russia dominated and suppressed Ukraine, within the structure of the Russian Empire, and the Soviet Union.

Even if once all slavic nations were one, this argument can quickly be used on a political level to suppress a nation.

When a german sees evidence that once there was a unified german culture that also included other modern countries like Austria, seldom he will question any of those modern borders and national identities. We wouldn't say_ "Old maps show that Austria was part of Ancient Germany, so they stole everything from us and don't have their own past and culture as a nation. They should just accept they are german and come home to the motherland."_

But many Russians seem to think they can use their supposed history to claim that Ukraine does not have a right to exist as a soverign nation, and is just an extension of Russia due to the similarity in culture. This arrogance is very dangerous, and I can understand why the Russian language is banned in many official places in Ukraine today. It's a desperate attempt to become independent from the political force that is still very much imperialist in nature, even though this attempt is of course used to further divide and conquer.

***​I suggest this thread should from now on focus exclusively on *specific arguments brought forward by the OP* (Original Poster). If anyone wants to create a counter-argument or add suppurtive material, *quote specific and selected arguments of the OP* so that we know what you are replying to and add sources to your posts. Everything else will be removed without comment.

And please focus on history only, and keep modern politics out of this thread, if possible.

Everytime someone is triggered on their national pride, please take a moment and relax, and try to see that the other person is likely exactly in the same position as you - we are all affected by the culture we grow up in and tend to overestimate our own cultures importance, and easily overlook the blind spots created by the collective wounds of our own nations history.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 22, 2022)

I will leave this interesting quote here, which I just came across, on the relations between two nations - the germans and the Czech.

While not related to Ukraine specifically, it shows the complexity of nations and their history:

"With no other Slavic people has the German entered into such a close symbiosis as with the Czech. For 30 generations, Czechs and Germans have been in intensive exchange in all historically relevant areas. At times, Prague was not only the capital of Bohemia, but also the center of that empire, which was not, as was later erroneously interpreted, the national state of the Germans, but rather the political form in which the German people realized itself through eight hundred years. When in the last century the decision about the future state organization of Germany was made between the two main German powers, Austria and Prussia, it happened (in 1866) on a Bohemian battlefield. In the Czech lands themselves, Czechs and Germans were members of one political family, the Bohemian nation, from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the middle of the 19th century, although this concept of nation is not identical with that of the modern linguistic and state people. This fact of a long-lasting historical community, which of course also had its crises, was suppressed from the consciousness of both peoples only after 1848. The process of fundamental politicization through democracy and nationalism, which progressed from Western Europe through the center to the East, had a dissolving effect. From then on, the peoples of Bohemia wanted their common history to be regarded only as a 'thousand-year struggle' between Germans and Slavs."​
From: _Rudolf Hilf, "Germans and Czechs: Significance and Changes of a Neighborhood in Central Europe With an Excursus on the German Question," 1986._

For what it's worth, there are also old maps that do not show Ukraine:

These two are from the 16th Century:

_EUROPE  MUNSTERS FIRST MODERN MAP || Michael Jennings Antique Maps and Prints

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Europe_as_a_queen_map.JPG

  _


----------



## Kayola (Jun 23, 2022)

In addition to the question of the origin of the word Ukraine, today a few ideas came to mind that I would like to share:

1. I noticed that some maps spell Ucrania, some spell Vkraina. Moreover - in the Ukrainian language there is a word Krajina meaning "country" and many words written in the Latin alphabet with a W have a transliteration that varies depending on time (for example, the name of Shakespeare could be either Villiam or Uilliam, depending on when it was used). These names do not fit well with the word "Outskirts" and its meaning.

2. There is a suspicion that this is another substitution. That is how it happens nowadays, for example. In 2005, the Russian language rules were amended. Ukraine became an exception, and if the other countries when denoting the territorial affiliation use the prefix "IN" (in England, in Germany, in Switzerland, in Lithuania, in Estonia, in Poland, and so on), in case of Ukraine they used the prefix "ON", as well as for other regions, which now belong to Russia (on Sakhalin, on the Caucasus, on the Urals). This prefix is used only for geographical names of territories (mountains, rivers, and so on), but not for state formations. What has happened is the following: by means of the language, by substituting one prefix, people born in 1998 and later have planted in their heads the basic perception of a neighbouring country as a territory under russian control. 

3. My guess as to what happened to the name of Ukraine. It originally meant "Native Land" or "My Land" and this is consistent with what Ukrainians themselves call their land and the interpretation they put into it. Further, in the mid-17th century, most of the territory of Ukraine (Hetmanshchina) came under the rule of the Russian Empire. This was a vassal relationship, and the Ukrainian Cossack Elite had many liberties - as, in fact, any autonomous territory within the empire had special rights. This needed to be corrected.

The process of Russification of the lands took place in three stages.

The first stage was administrative reform. The regimental subordination of the territories to the kurens of the Cossacks was replaced by another division - viceroys, whose heads were appointed directly by the Tsar.
The second stage was a linguistic reform, in which the word 'Ukraine' began to refer to the 'outskirts' in Russian and was therefore perceived as inseparable from the empire.
The third stage - military reform and the elimination of the Cossacks, which essentially cut off the right of the Ukrainian military elite to the nobility, making them ordinary soldiers and mercenaries. 
Ordinary soldiers and mercenaries can be sent anywhere - including to defend the borders of the Russian empire (point 3). The Ukrainians were deported to the north and east of the border. On the one hand, this was another confirmation of the "vkraniya=okraina" link (point 2), on the other hand, it freed up territory that was settled by the so-called Russians (the results of which still carry their influence, and a very strong one at that) and on the third hand, it completely eliminated the idea of local government, replacing it with pro-Russian administrators (point 1).

As a result, the original partnership relationship was turned into a subservient one over 150-200 years. So, that's it. The distortion of history and the meaning of creating an alternative history is not only manifested in the high global ideas and aspirations, but also in more local, as seen in the example I've analyzed.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 24, 2022)

An interesting quote by Mr. Communism, His Highness Karl 'Jew' Marx (Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1865):



> I see from it that Lapinski’s dogma that the Great Russians are _not Slavs _has been advocated on linguistic, historical and ethnographical grounds in all seriousness by Monsieur _Duchinski_ (from Kiev, Professor in Paris); he maintains that the real Muscovites, i.e., inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Moscow, were for the most part Mongols or Finns, etc., as was the case in the parts of Russia situated further east and in its south-eastern parts. I see from it at all events that the affair has seriously worried the St Petersburg cabinet (since it would put an end to _Panslavism _in no uncertain manner). All Russian scholars were called on to give responses and refutations, and these in the event turned out to be terribly weak. The purity of the Great Russian dialect and its connection with Church Slavonic appear to lend more support to the Polish than to the Muscovite view in this debate. During the last Polish insurrection Duchinski was awarded a prize by the National Government for his ‘discoveries’. It has ditto been shown geologically and hydrographically that a great ‘Asiatic’ difference occurs east of the Dnieper, compared with what lies to the west of it, and that (as Murchison has already maintained) the _Urals_ by no means constitute a dividing line. Result as obtained by Duchinski: *Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites*. They are not Slavs; they do not belong to the *Indo-Germanic* *race* at all, they are _des intrus_ [intruders], who must be chased back across the Dnieper, etc. Panslavism in the Russian sense is a cabinet invention, etc.
> 
> I wish that Duchinski were right and *at all events* that this view would prevail among the Slavs. On the other hand, he states that some of the peoples in Turkey, such as Bulgars, e.g., who had previously been regarded as Slavs, are non-Slav.



Another one (Letter to Friedrich Engels, August 7, 1866 - Marxists-en)



> In its historical and political applications far more significant and pregnant than Darwin. For certain questions, such as nationality, etc., only here has a basis in nature been found. E.g., he corrects the Pole Duchinski, whose version of the geological differences between Russia and the Western Slav lands he does incidentally confirm, by saying not that the Russians are Tartars rather than Slavs, etc., as the latter believes, but that on the surface-formation predominant *in Russia the Slav has been tartarised and mongolised*; likewise (he spent a long time in Africa) he shows that the common *negro *type is only a degeneration of a far higher one.



edit: sorry, I meant to say Karl '_Jerman_' Marx.


----------



## Kayola (Jun 30, 2022)

In the historical community, the position concerning the commonality of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians is actively promoted. Regarding the falsity of this position and the historical substitution, which is essentially legitimized in the world community, regarding Ukraine, described in the initial post. Recently I came across another article concerning the Belarusians and Belarusia. I will leave the link and deepl translation below.

Колониальная политика Российской Империи на беларуских землях.

Colonial policy of the Russian Empire in the Belarusian lands.
Prerequisites, very briefly
At the time of the sixteenth century, there were two main states claiming to unite the eastern Slavic lands in eastern Europe: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Moscow.

In 1558, local conflicts over separate border principalities between these states escalated into a full-fledged war when Ivan the Terrible declared some of the lands of the GDL his inheritance. These territories included such cities as Polotsk, Vitebsk, Orsha, Mogilev, and Insh.

The war begins with Russian commanders Shah-Ali Khan and Sain-Bulat Khan entering Livonia.

Taking advantage of the fact that the majority of the GDL troops are concentrated in the Inflantry, the Muscovites enter the GDL territory (Dubrovna, Kopys, Orsha, Vitsyebsk) without declaration of war. The small local army unsuccessfully attempts to withstand the Moscow army, nearly four times larger than it.

All this time officially Muscovy did not declare war on the GDL. But already in 1562 Ivan the Terrible proclaimed "all Lithuania" (i.e. the lands of modern Belarus) as his fiefdom and headed a huge army personally moved forward to besiege Polotsk.

Inflationary war became one of the reasons of economic and political decline in the GDL, the authorities of which were forced to conclude a union with the Kingdom of Poland, to be able to resist the aggressor.

The newly-created federative state, which we know as the "Rech Paspalitaya Abodvukh Narodov" managed to fight off the enemy with joint forces, win the war and stop the expansion of the Moscow kingdom to the West. Not for long, however.

In 1613, a representative of the Romanov dynasty was elected to the throne of Moscow, who had no family connections with the rulers of Russia-Rurikovich, and therefore had no legal grounds to claim the land of the GDL as their inheritance.

Moscow authorities needed a new casus belli for the seizure of the GDL lands, and it was not difficult to find. The reason for the military invasion becomes "protection р̶у̶с̶с̶к̶о̶я̶з̶ы̶ч̶н̶о̶г̶о̶ ̶ of the Orthodox population."

Moscow troops enter the lands of the GDL and begin to devastate and massacre towns and villages. One famous example is the Trubetsk Massacre, during which Moscow invaders slaughtered all the inhabitants of Mstislavl.

Telling about attack of Mstislavl to Bogdan Khmelnitsky, tsar Alexey Mikhailovich in his letter wrote, that the city "... was taken by capture, nobles, Poles, Lithuanians and other servants and ksens and Jesuits and their other ranks were killed more than ten thousand people".

The memory about the "Trubetskoy massacre" in Mstislavl was preserved in the folk legends of Belarusians even in the middle of the XIX century.

Most often, however, the main goal of Moscow troops was to capture local citizens and take them to Muscovy. Alexei Mikhailovich planned to resettle 300,000 Belarusians in Muscovy.
Any Moscow landowner could come and buy any number of captives.

All these events greatly accelerated the processes of polonization in the higher ranks of the GDL, who thus tried to separate themselves from the potential aggressor and eliminate the grounds for possible territorial claims.
The Belarusian language began to be replaced by Polish or Latin, as "less similar to Russian".

In the 18th century, a mass flight of people from the Smolensk region that fell under Moscow rule into the GDL began. Thus, in 1754, the Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna demanded that the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth return one million (!) fugitives to Russia.

It is amusing that in its notes, the Russian government called these mass escapes "unreasonable emigration" and estimated the total number of migrants at 300 thousand people.

In 1764, Empress Catherine II gave the following instruction regarding Smolensk province and other lands already seized by the Russian Empire:

These provinces, also the Smolensk province, must be brought in the easiest way to make them russified and stop looking like wolves to the forest.

Administrative Russification
Of course, immediately a decree was signed, according to which all the governors of the annexed lands were obliged to conduct all business exclusively in Russian.

Appointed head of the newly created Minsk diocese Viktor Sadkovsky began by threatening the local Orthodox priests for using the Belarusian language instead of Russian, during his speech in Slutsk:

I will hunt you down and destroy you, so that your damn Lithuanian language and you yourselves would not exist. I will send you into exile or send you as soldiers, and I will bring my own over the border!

(If you're not familiar with the history of Belarus, you'll probably have a dissonance as to why the territory of Belarus is called Lithuania and the Belarusian language is called Lithuanian, that's a topic for a separate thread. For now, just keep this in mind, and don't try to find Polotsk, Minsk or Oshmyany on the map of modern Lithuania)

On September 16, 1831 a special "Western Committee" was formed in order to "equalize the Western Region in all respects with the internal Great Russian provinces".
The Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire Petr Valuyev prepared for the Committee a special "Sketch of the means to equalize the Western region.

A mass dismissal of local officials and their replacement by natives of Russia began.

In official documentation, the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania was renamed to "North-Western Region" and the Statute of Lithuania was completely abolished.

Further, Nicholas I approved the decision to resettle in Belarus "natives of the interior provinces, who would bring with them to this land our language, customs, and commitment to the Russian throne, alien to Russia.

The Magdeburg Law was cancelled, as a result of which the townspeople lost their right to self-government, and the former free townspeople were often forced to become serfs.

Of course, in the land of Belarus from time to time broke out a huge number of revolts against the Moscow government, and there isn't enough of a separate thread for all of them. Therefore, in the context of the track you only need to know that all of them were suppressed in the most possible brutal ways.

After the bloody suppression of the uprising of 1863-1864, the Russification process was headed by the notorious Governor-General M. Muravyov, nicknamed by his contemporaries the Hangman.

The head of Northwestern Krai paid special attention to the Russification of education; his motto is widely known:

What the Russian bayonet didn't do, the Russian official, the Russian school, and the Russian church will do.

To be fair, it is worth noting that this phrase was probably not said by Muravyov himself, but by one of his henchmen.

But addressing the nobility of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Muravyov said:

Forget the naive dreams that have occupied you hitherto, gentlemen, and remember that if you do not become Russians by your thoughts and feelings here, you will be foreigners here and must then leave this land

The Moscow authorities responded to the uprisings in the most brutal and harsh manner. During the uprising of April 15, 1831, the Russians under the command of Colonel Vershilin burned Oshmiany and massacred about 500 people (half of the population), including women and children who had taken refuge in the local Dominican church.

The Oshmyany massacre was approved by the Moscow ruler Nicholas I: "The insurgents were given a good lesson. Things are getting better in Lithuania."

Many Belarussian villages began to be settled by villagers from Russia, for example from Ryazan province. All intellectuals, writers, students, priests, etc. were either killed or deported.

The inequality of rights between the inhabitants of the colony and the inhabitants of the metropolis was also evident in the course of the state reforms. The zemstvo reform of 1864 was extended to the territory of the former GDL only in 1911, which actually deprived the Belarusians of the right to self-government.

Locals were deprived of the right to hold public office altogether. Most officials were appointed from the metropolis.

As a result, at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the Belarusan ethnic lands turned into the most backward region of the European part of the Russian Empire.

Expansion of the Moscow Church
Despite the fact that the authorities of Muscovy seized the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under the guise of protecting the Orthodox, they did not trust the local Orthodox clergy: Belarussian priests were sent to serve deep in the Russian Empire and were replaced by Russians, who did not know the language and traditions of the parishioners. They did not recognize the Belarusan saints, fought against carols, kupal and other ancient customs.

The governors reported to St. Petersburg that the priests sent here could not maintain good relations with the people of the region, and that they became "hated by the people."

A dangerous obstacle to the Russification of the Belarusians was the Uniate Church, which set them apart from the Poles and Russians. Greek-Catholics made up about 80 % of all Byelorussian Christians. That is why in the reign of Catherine II about half a million of Belarusians were forcibly converted to Russian Orthodoxy.

The bishop of the Ukrainian origin Joseph Semashko especially distinguished himself in the struggle against Uniatism. He introduced the Russian language in the seminaries. According to officials sent from Moscow, priests were commanded to conduct services according to the Liturgical books sent from Moscow. Dissenters were tried as church and state criminals.

Local believers responded to religious violence with resistance. Thus, for their attempt to convert them to Moscow Orthodoxy, the peasants of Azeryshch decided to drown Bishop Smaragda and Governor-General Schroeder, who were barely able to escape.

By 1839, the Russian authorities had finally neutralized all active forces that could have prevented the liquidation of the Uniate Church. However, official St. Petersburg still expected an explosion of discontent when it was announced that "there is no longer a union," so it sent additional troops to Belarus.

Even some Russian cultural figures, such as Leo Tolstoy and Alexander Herzen, wrote about the persecution of the Belarusan Uniates:

On the part of the civil authorities, the torture was supervised by the district Novitsky. This police apostle sexed people as long as the tortured agreed to receive communion from an Orthodox priest. One fourteen-year-old boy, after being flogged two hundred times, refused this communion with Christ. He was flogged again, and only then, yielding to terrible pain, did he consent. The Orthodox Church triumphed!

One has to understand that at that time religious consciousness played a crucial role in uniting people. The destruction of Uniatism divided the Belarusan people into Orthodox and Roman Catholic, which became one of the main reasons for the weakness of the national unity of the Belarusans.

However, it was still not enough to keep the "land of eternal rebellions" in submission.

In 1865, Muravyov reminded the Moscovite ruler of the need to strengthen the role of the Moscow Church in the former GDL:

"I explained to His Majesty that this region is held by us exclusively by force of arms and it would now be necessary to reunite it by the moral-political-religious element

Russification of education
Thanks to the efforts of secular society the Jesuit Collegium in Polotsk was transformed into the Academy of Polotsk where the historian and archaeologist Konstantin Tyshkevich, astronomer and philosopher Jozef Naktsianovich, writers Jozef Masalski and Jan Barshchewski, painter Valentin Vankovich and others started their work.

Soon, however, the authorities of the Russian Empire began to regard the educational institutions in the lands under their control as dangerous centers of resistance against colonization. That is why already in 1820 the academy was liquidated and several thousands of academic volumes were taken away to Russia.

A bit later the University of Vilna was also closed, and with it a huge number of secondary educational institutions. Also, mass liquidation of the Unitarian and Basilian schools, which were favorable to the Belarusian language and culture, was carried out.
All this later had a very negative impact on the general educational level of the Belarusian population as a whole.

In 1864, the Russian authorities already officially forbade not only teaching, but also simply speaking the Belarusian language in schools.

Soon there were no higher educational establishments in Belarus at all.

But the Holy Synod started to open parochial schools, which educated their children according to the strictly religious Russification principles.

Belarusian children were brought up on the basis of ideas in the spirit of Christian obedience to the Russian authorities.

At the beginning of the twentieth century. The Ministry of Education of the Russian Empire set the task for schools in Belarus that "children should receive a purely Russian orientation and be prepared to merge completely with the Russian people.

In no other part of the Russian Empire did elementary education have such a religiously Russification orientation as in Belarus.

Thus, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Russian imperialist rule in Belarus led to a low level of education, few schools, and widespread illiteracy.

Cultural Policy
In 1832 an action began to withdraw old Belarussian-language liturgical and other books and replace them with Moscow ones. Publications of Belarusian printing houses, including original scientific theological, artistic and poetic works of Belarusian literature, were taken from churches and monasteries to the Polotsk Ecclesiastical Consistory to be burnt.

Priests tried to save them: on April 2, 1834 in Novogrudok 56 priests protested against bishop Joseph Semashko, but by order of the Russian governor they were all sentenced to monastic prison.

After the liquidation of the Uniate Church in 1839, books from the church and monastery libraries were transported to Zhirovichi and burned in the monastery furnaces by order of Semashko in 1841-1844.

In 1852 Semashko personally observed the burning of 1,295 books found in former Uniate churches. In his "Notes," he proudly reported that over the next three years he ordered two thousand more volumes to be burned.

It was then that one of the oldest monuments of Slavic writing, the Turov Gospel of the 11th century, was burnt.
Miraculously, 10 sheets of the manuscript survived, which were later found in a coal box by two members of the archaeographic expedition.

And of course, what colonial policy without exporting cultural treasures from the colony to the metropolis!
The main archives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, with hundreds of volumes of Lithuanian metrics, were taken to Moscow and St. Petersburg.
All archives and libraries of the universities and academies closed by the Moscow authorities were taken there as well. At the beginning of the 20th century, not even the original books by Frantsysk Skaryna remained in Belarus!

Count Nikolai Rumyantsev, to whom the authorities of the Russian Empire during the division of the Rzeczpospolita gave the Magdeburg Gomel to complete his own collection, created an agency network which, in the lands of the former GDL, organized a search for valuable books in private and monastic book collections. These books ended up in Rumyantsev's collection. It is known that during his lifetime his book collection included 140 editions of Francysk Skaryna. By 1917 this collection became the basis for the Russian State Library.

Historical and cultural valuables were exported en masse. For example, in 1812 the authorities of the Russian Empire confiscated valuables from the Nesvizh castle: collections of medals and coins were sent to Kharkov University, shrines - to Moscow, other antiquities - to various Russian museums and collections.

In 1830, Russian Emperor Nicholas I personally decided to burn some of the treasures looted in Dzerechin, the remaining treasures were taken to St. Petersburg (including paintings and jewelry - 303 poods and 25 poods). First of all the paintings with historical themes were burnt, which, according to the monarch, could cause "undesirable thoughts" in spectators.

During the liquidation of the Uniate Church thousands of ancient Belarusian icons were burnt, including those painted before the Uniate Church was formed.

Imposition of Russian architecture
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the construction of the church, begun by the governor-general Muravyov, took on unprecedented proportions.

Brick churches were built by "exemplary" projects and were supposed to embody the Orthodox-Russian and church-traditional features of the architecture of the Moscow Church.

Hundreds of identical churches built at that time were called "murauyoukas".

Such buildings, as a material expression of colonial policy, were supposed to represent the unquestionable domination of tsarist Russia in Belarus.

The ancient Orthodox churches of the GDL, Roman Catholic and Uniate shrines were either destroyed or rebuilt in the style of Moscow state architecture (onions, bow-ties, etc.), or given over to barracks.

The most ancient city of Belarus - Polotsk. A clear example of the destruction of historical and architectural values of the place by the joint efforts of the Russian Empire and the USSR:
1865 - Russian authorities destroyed the Franciscan church,
1912 - the Basilian Monastery,
1940 - the Soviet authorities destroyed the Dominican church and monastery and partially destroyed the Bernardine church,
1964 - the Jesuit church was blown up.


----------



## _bAd_ (Jul 6, 2022)

Kayola said:


> I recently came across an interesting article which led me to some thoughts on the topic of how the alternativeists, globalists and conspiracy theory worshippers are not perceived adequately by the global community and most people. And that the reason may lie in a much smaller scale of actual historical substitution, but with much simpler and more pragmatic goals. The following is a translation of the article via DeepL Translate: The world's most accurate translator - it would be interesting to know what the stolenhistory community thinks about the following and how familiar they are with the information given in the article.
> 
> Original link: 15 міфів російської історії
> 
> ...



In regards to the subject matter of this thread, what conclusions / theories do you personally consider most prominent or relevant?


----------



## Kayola (Jul 8, 2022)

_bAd_ said:


> In regards to the subject matter of this thread, what conclusions / theories do you personally consider most prominent or relevant?


I believe that among the 15 points outlined above, you should not single out some and omit others. Only perceiving them as a whole, you can understand the whole essence of historical substitution, which has acquired the status of the official historical science on a vast territory among the vast masses of people. I hope I understood the question correctly: it concerns which of the points are the most relevant and important for me personally?

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator


----------



## Kayola (Jul 18, 2022)

P.S. Few minutes ago i search stolenhistory in google and see one interesting text in English, that says about Ukrainian history that was stolen by russian in the past and nowadays Ukraine's Stolen History, Stolen Culture . But i want to write here not to share this link. My first wich was to share one interesting video in english, that tell about soviet propahanda and how it works to create alternative history in that believe russians 
_View: https://youtu.be/RtLAijoJ6Lk_
 . Its not a lot videos about it in English, so i decide that this channel can be interesto to stolenhistory community


----------



## Safranek (Jul 18, 2022)

Kayola said:


> But i want to write here not to share this link. My first wich was to share one interesting video in english, that tell about soviet propahanda and how it works to create alternative history in that believe russians


Well, I've already shared this video (also in English) done by a Canadian investigative reporter who goes by the name of Amazing Polly. She does a superior job of hunting down pertinent information regarding many subjects, this one happens to be about the lead-up to the current state of affairs in this so-called war and some of the people behind it.

_
View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/3sgengf5mdXU/_


The video you posted is biased, as its by a Ukrainian presenting it without doing ANY real research into the background of the 'leaders' of his country, and choosing to only take note of the 'brainwashing' hoisted upon the Russian people for the last couple of hundred years. What he fails to notice is not only that the same has been done to Americans with regards to Russians (Cold War), but to the rest of the nations also, including Ukrainians.

When you look at the BIG picture and NOT from a nationalistic view, you notice that all nations have been had, including the Germans, British, Irish, Italians, Americans, Chinese, Indians, etc., its called divide and conquer. All have had their histories modified and partially erased and have been 'inspired' to nationalistic views.

As long as people fail to look outside their box and localize their observations (while omitting to indiscriminately look at themselves), we will continue to have the same, people blaming other people instead of those truly responsible. More reporters doing actual research like Polly would be a big plus to counter the MSM and Altmedia BS.

On a side note, that video post compromises the historical integrity of the OP as it regurgitates the MSM narrative.


----------



## Froglich (Jul 20, 2022)

Kayola said:


> I recently came across an interesting article which led me to some thoughts on the topic of how the alternativeists, globalists and conspiracy theory worshippers are not perceived adequately by the global community and most people.


When all non-"pirate" establishment and "alternative" media are firmly under the thumb of Cabal, they are the gatekeepers of awareness. If a particular theory isn't "perceived adequately" by "most people", it's because the algorithms are downrating it if not outright blacklisting it.

"Most people" only know what is blared in their face from the TV, checkout-stand newspaper headlines, and Google "sponsored" returns hogging the page-tops of search inquiries.



> This post is primarily intended to show that Ukraine has always been a separate independent state with its own history and culture, and that Russia's "brotherly" attitude is just a myth to justify constant aggression against Ukraine.



Russia, Ukraine, and every NATO nation (and most others elsewhere) are Cabal pseudopod facades, and their leaders are giggling clown actors.

The Ukraine war is as real as a WWE cage match.


----------



## Kayola (Jul 25, 2022)

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


Froglich said:


> When all non-"pirate" establishment and "alternative" media are firmly under the thumb of Cabal, they are the gatekeepers of awareness. If a particular theory isn't "perceived adequately" by "most people", it's because the algorithms are downrating it if not outright blacklisting it.
> 
> "Most people" only know what is blared in their face from the TV, checkout-stand newspaper headlines, and Google "sponsored" returns hogging the page-tops of search inquiries.
> 
> ...


When shells fall in your city, destroying your neighbors and comrades, the war does not look like a fictitious cage match. One can theorize about anything, but theory becomes attached to reality only when the object of theorizing becomes part of one's life. Otherwise it may just as well be the truth as it is a figment of a sick fantasy. And we are not talking here about any countries, because even if we assume that once there was a single government on planet Earth, its hierarchy still implied a division into regions. The difference in the mentality of the inhabitants of these regions, their reactions to the same things, traditions, genetics and so on, allows us to talk about ethnicities or nationalities as something quite objective. In fact, we are talking about the processes of the formation of history, its substitution, creating a difference in the perception of the same events of literally 150 years ago. Events, about which I personally told my great-grandfathers based on their personal childhood memories. Now we have the opportunity to observe the attempts to change the historical paradigm and substitution of concepts in real time, moreover - to observe the impact that is also on you.



Safranek said:


> The video you posted is biased, as its by a Ukrainian presenting it without doing ANY real research into the background of the 'leaders' of his country, and choosing to only take note of the 'brainwashing' hoisted upon the Russian people for the last couple of hundred years.


I think the question of bias is irrelevant to where one comes from. Bias is more about personal beliefs that people from any country can have about anything. The question of bias is a question of being able to be objective in spite of these personal beliefs. The author did not choose Zelensky's or putin's biography as the main topic of the video. He did not choose the topic of how much Americans distort and deform history to please themselves (despite the fact that this happens, this topic is simply not on the agenda). He tried to explain to the English-speaking audience what the history of the last 200 years looks like from the point of view of Ukrainians. It is not, of course, about alternative views of history, but about the official one. But alternative history is based on the inconsistencies of official history, isn't it? Personally, I decided to share this video, because I believe that the automatic translation of the article at the beginning of this thread is much less comprehensible to the English-speaking seeker than the video, which is done more intelligently from a language point of view.



Safranek said:


> When you look at the BIG picture and NOT from a nationalistic view, you notice that all nations have been had, including the Germans, British, Irish, Italians, Americans, Chinese, Indians, etc., its called divide and conquer. All have had their histories modified and partially erased and have been 'inspired' to nationalistic views.


If you base it on an alternate history, yes. However, we should not forget that this is only one of the hypotheses about one great nation that was divided. There are other hypotheses as well. For example, I personally can trace the history to the end of the 19th century based only on the words of eyewitnesses whom I personally knew. And these are my relatives. We can only speculate what it was 200 or 300 years ago based on facts which we give varying degrees of credibility. The official historical paradigm says that the state represented the ruler and vice versa. An insult to the ruler was an insult to the whole state. In the early 20th century, the concept of national identity emerged, and it was formed to realize the redistribution of the world, the transition from the era of empires to the next era. Prior to that, the singling out of this identity was not necessary, since the life of a serf or a slave does not change much when the master changes. On the other hand, we should not forget that in the 18th and 19th centuries the same thing was happening, only on a larger scale, the spheres of influence were more global. Instead of the concept of national identity was the concept of religious identity. No one was interested in whether you were Ukrainian or Polish, for example. They were interested in something else: whether you were an Orthodox Christian or a Catholic. Or maybe you were a Muslim? Or a Jew? Religious identity was used to justify the war for control of territories. This was explained by the need to spread religions and punish heretics. Now the justification for the war over territory is to protect one's ethnicity abroad. Except that the mode of life has changed, and if 200 years ago people were a resource that produces food and extracts resources, and in the wars participated mostly by the nobility, which earned status and influence, now instead of people works technology. The result is quite clear and obvious. Besides, 250 years ago the religious justification was enough to try to take possession of the barbaric lands of non-believers. Regarding the states with their faith it was necessary to get the blessing of the Pope, the true ruler of the Catholic world, but that is not the point. This is about the grounds that could be presented as a reason to occupy uncontrolled territory. And for this they use the national identity, and if it does not exist, they create a fiction. They substitute history, create fake documents. It is in such processes that I see the reason for many inconsistencies in the historical documents of previous centuries.



Safranek said:


> people blaming other people instead of those truly responsible


This is a philosophical question. Who is to blame for a contract killing - the direct killer, or the person who ordered it? I think it's both.



Safranek said:


> On a side note, that video post compromises the historical integrity of the OP as it regurgitates the MSM narrative.


What is it MSM?


----------



## Kayola (Sep 21, 2022)

iseidon said:


> Well, let's delight the public with a Russian-Ukrainian dialogue.


No. I say all that i want and i dont want to discuss anything about nowadays (not about history) with you or other russians that says that russia doing good when it killed ukrainians on Ukrainian territory and who distributes narratives about preventive attacks and so on. This thred is not about this. This thred is about how russia corrects the history to take what it want in the past. How russia create alternative history in which it is greate. There are another thred about politic (i not read it, because i see all of this on my own eyes here, where i live) - you may exude your poison there. I dont understand why this person (iseidon) came here and answer not about OP but about another things. Russian warship go out. Any dialog with terrorist state and it members from me. I must speak with you, when my relatives and friends are killed by russian forces that occupied the therritory of my land?!! NO!


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2022)

It remains the fact that there's no intention to discuss the points brought up in the OP. It is evident how Ukraine has always suffered the invasions of the multi-ethnic and multi-coloured Muscovites/Mongols since the very beginning.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 21, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> It is evident how Ukraine has always suffered the invasions of the multi-ethnic and multi-coloured Muscovites/Mongols since the very beginning.


Yes, but is this not also true for most other nations? The question is who was/is responsible. The nations? Or the financiers who stood to gain every step of the way? This is the issue not being addressed.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2022)

Safranek said:


> Yes, but is this not also true for most other nations? The question is who was/is responsible. The nations? Or the financiers who stood to gain every step of the way? This is the issue not being addressed.


I agree with you even though I'm not sure if there's a continuity of the story preceeding the last couple hundred years. I know how Russia was conquered by the Jews through their new communst invention, but I have a hard time thinking about the Romanovs as the same faction or in any case a faction related to that world.
But these are just themes for another thread I suppose!



iseidon said:


> When I started to answer the OP's topic my posts were deleted.


It was deleted because you were not addressing the points made in the OP and following posts and you still aren't. And I remember what you posted and I know that you know it.
Would you please at least try to address one of the points? The entire forum is full of your opinions on phylosphy, psychology, politics etc.

@Kayola please don't fall for it. You already did twice and you are going for the third time, I see it.
@Kayola you should in any case report the posts made to change the subject of the OP, like this one fror example (Historical Substitution in the Context of Ukrainian-russian Relations).


----------



## Kayola (Sep 21, 2022)

I just share one documental video here about independence of Ukraine in 1991. It was created by Ukrainians and show the Ukrainian history of 1990-th. There are a lot of russian historical narratives in official history and alternative history of European and American community. Its because russia do special work to share its narrative in west community. Maybe, it would be interesting for someone here, because it have english (and other european languages) subtitles. There are many unique videos there (for examle, when american president came to Ukraine in 1990th, and so on).


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X-jou18qKU_

P.S. Details about how russian narratives shares in other country you can see for example in this video (also has English subtitles)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4irVPoUti48_


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 21, 2022)

iseidon said:


> When I started to answer the OP's topic my posts were deleted.



There's only one of your posts in this thread that actually addresses history and not politics, and that post is still up.

The others aren't. You are writing endless walls of text, obfuscating your real motivation, and derailing the entire discussion away from actual history.

As silveryou mentioned, saying "As you can see, no one is right." is just a convenient escape to abstract philosophy in order to look down on Ukrainians for you as a Russian.

You can look at the arguments provided in the OP, and quote specific sentences, and add concise data and material that supports or refutes the points. But walls of texts that don't get to the point won't be accepted.

As a reminder, this thread is about the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia, independent of your opinion on what Ukraine was all about philosophically.


----------



## iseidon (Sep 22, 2022)

Response to this post.



> *Original* link: 15 міфів російської історії



You should give the original link
Do you know what the other reason for not providing a link to the original is? There are words like that in there:



> *Once again, I will emphasize that I am not the author of this statement of myths, but I believe this text is worthy of attention. The author of this statement to indicate the reference is, unfortunately, unknown to me*, but it is based on the *novel research of Vladimir Belinsky "**The Land of Moxel**"* and has the right to exist. The listed myths help to show that despite great-power chauvinism and other slogans in support of the unification of the lands, as well as Russia's "great" goal, Russia's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine are nothing more than barbaric unjustified aggression, which has happened more than once and is confirmed by history.
> 
> Original (rus).



A splendid argument? You don't see any politics here?

And this is what this Vladimir Belinsky (ukr), the author of this novel-study book (cool classification?) looks like:





Sorry, but I couldn't find any other (in my youth) pictures (I didn't look deep).

Can you feel the true Slavic and Aryan spirit?

Just in case, this man is saying something to someone about being non-Slavic. His books are used for the foundation of most Ukrainian Russophobic propaganda. @Silveryou, how do you like such a fighter for a pure nation?



> SilverYou: ... Ukrainians are not Russians and are certainly a more well defined and healthy nation, since you Russians are just a confused people united by a dispotic government. ... Original.



By the way, the great patriot of Ukraine lived for 40 years (and achieved great heights in the transport and construction industries) in Soviet Kazakhstan. He returned to Ukraine in 1999. Information from the book mentioned in the original article:



> Vladimir Bronislavovich Belinsky was born May 18, 1936 in Podolia. In 1959 graduated from Dnepropetrovsk Institute of Railway Transport Engineers, department "Bridges and tunnels". By assignment sent to work in Kazakhstan. From 1959 till 1986 he lived and worked in Karaganda. Directed the construction of bridges on Kazakhstan Magnitogorsk, the canal Irtysh-Karaganda, in the mines of the Karaganda coal basin, on all roads and railroads of Central Kazakhstan. He built bridges in major cities such as Karaganda, Pavlodar, Temir-Tau, Ekibastuz, Balkhash, Jezkazgan, Shakhtinsk, etc. Since 1982, he worked in the system of the Ministry of Heavy Construction of Kazakhstan as a land assistant of the head of the Glavka and the head of the Glavka. He was a member of the Board of the State Construction Committee of Kazakhstan. In 1999 he returned home to Ukraine. He lives in Kiev.



And the president of the publishing house (part-time, a major Ukrainian politician) that published this book... Guess where the great patriot of Ukraine died? Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, British Commonwealth of Nations. Am I surprised? No.

Perhaps I will read this "masterpiece" (if that makes sense) of the 2006 publisher, but the general intellectual level of those who liked the Kayola user's posts, I understand. I hope you now understand why the West is in crisis? It turns out, you can throw any information throw-in and pass it off as the truth. No one will check the information anyway. Rhetorical question. When you write your research, do you rely on this level of information? No politics here?

Tell me, for whom do I write "in my opinion", "in my opinion", etc. in my posts (where it comes to assumptions, hypotheses, my opinion and experience). Why search for references and sources? Why parsing foreign dictionaries to better penetrate cultures? Why the need for etymological dictionaries? If you can make up anything you want and pass it off as truth under the right agenda...



> *This post is primarily intended to show that Ukraine has always been a separate independent state* with its own history and culture...



Where is this information about «Ukraine has always been a separate independent state» in the cited "myths"?


Two paragraphs (without an introduction) at the beginning. Two lies. And direct ones at that. You knew for a fact that you didn't give the original link. And you knew for sure that there was not a word about Ukrainian statehood in this article (or you didn't read the text you published). Do I need to prove anything further? Or does anyone even think it will get better from here?


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 22, 2022)

Reported. I don't care about your feelings to be fair. I couldn't read all your long post because I'm not going to lose time about how you feel about anything, especially because the entire forum is full of your feelings. I don't even know if you addressed some points in this post. It's just unreadable!

edit: btw, it's now clear that you do it on purpose. The strategy is to derail every thread you deem uncomfortable with walls of text full of feelings and victimism in order to attract the simpaties of the poor prople like you and then cry when the eeeeevil westerners decide to ban you, expecially when the admin is an eeeevil german...
We've seen this script multiple times.


----------



## Kayola (Sep 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> I don't care about your feelings to be fair. I couldn't read all your long post because I'm not going to lose time about how you feel about anything, especially because the entire forum is full of your feelings.


+
I read only the first part of it. As usually - nothing about points in OP (just about its author). 
Offtop: There were many points in the past when russian empire tries to transform ukrainian language to make it more similar with russian language. Today the ukrainian language rules are partly returned in rules of 1930-th (speaking language that were before holodomor and before henocide of ukrainians that speaks on it). But Ukraine is democratic country, and we can speak here in language that we want. By the other side, those, who speaks russian before (speaking russian is a result of it cultural attack that starts few hundred years ago) now start speak ukrainian in its today life. Because russian language for more of us became the language of terror. Now we see how in occupied territories childs starts their study year bu russian school program. Because now its a criminal there to study online in ukrainian schools that are outside occupied territories. Ten years after this childs would speak russian. This history builds now. This history repeats the past. Thats why many ukrainians speak russian (but after 2014 this situation changes).
P.S. Sorry for my bad english: sometimes i try to write without translater (when i speak about something not hard).


----------



## Safranek (Sep 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> I don't care about your feelings to be fair. I couldn't read all your long post because I'm not going to lose time about how you feel about anything, especially because the entire forum is full of your feelings. I don't even know if you addressed some points in this post. It's just unreadable!


To be fair,  for a guy with your talent for research, I'm surprised why this line in the first quote of the article didn't get your attention;
​_"*Once again, I will emphasize that I am not the author of this statement of myths, but I believe this text is worthy of attention."*_​
The key word there is 'myths'. If the poster quoted in the OP considers the article to be myths, that's grounds for questioning, which was looked into and elaborated by iseodon. Feelings would not be the issue here but the facts concerning the given subject of the OP, it's a shame you focused on the first and omitted addressing the second, certainly not your style considering your well-founded replies in other threads.

The reply you responded to certainly isn't unreadable, while I do admit he sometimes over-elaborates certain ponts it does give clarity to his point of view, the reply does address the OP by questioning the integrity and purpose of the writer, demonstrating not only the possibility, but probability of political motivation. This should ring alarm bells for a researcher of your caliber.



Silveryou said:


> it's now clear that you do it on purpose. The strategy is to derail every thread you deem uncomfortable with walls of text full of feelings and victimism in order to attract the simpaties of the poor prople like you and then cry when the eeeeevil westerners decide to ban you, expecially when the admin is an eeeevil german...


So, you didn't read his post, but without doing so you have presented a strategy of 'derailing every thread'.

If you don't have the time or make the effort to consider the implications in a proper rebuttal, writing such a paragraph as quoted above becomes the replacement of such.

A proper definition of the above paragraph written by you would be an 'accusation'. One made on the basis of not having read the post you replied to, and instead of a proper rebuttal, you replaced it with an accusation of iseodon purposely derailing threads. I don't need to ask your about your opinion regarding such behavior.

Additionally, since you mentioned one of the MODs (dreamtime), his effort to keep the thread on topic was based on the available info at that time, and indeed iseodon wrote long posts barely touching the OP, which were deleted for the given reason.

However, in this case, since the post (which you failed to address even partially) directly addresses the questionable foundation of the OP and classifies it as a myth, had you read it, you may have addressed its implications.

On a side-note, we do have an ignore function, so if you don't wish to read someone's posts due their type of style, longevity, or 'feelings', you'd be better off to use it instead of making an accusation such as the purposeful derailing of threads while admitting you don't even read the post.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 23, 2022)

Safranek said:


> Feelings would not be the issue here but the facts concerning the given subject of the OP, it's a shame you focused on the first and omitted addressing the second, certainly not your style considering your well-founded replies in other threads.


I think it's a shame that some mods blocked this thread even before a whatsoever answer was given to the various points addressed in the OP. Was it you @Safranek? I obviously have proof for what I'm saying and kayola knows it well.
It seems some mod was not ok with this thread being discussed on this forum and I felt the need to stop eventual Russian trolls to come here and do their usual victimist cries while bullying the author of the thread, which is exactly what iseidon does in a great number of posts involving his precious Holy Mother *Muscovy*.

As for the article saying 'myths', I think you should wash your face when you wake up in the morning, because it is absolutely clear that the myths referred to are the ones spread by Russian propaganda. And if you try to 'accuse' a guy who uses the translator for these posts then I have to conclude that your modding is really poor or mayvbe even worse.

Was it you, @Safranek, who blocked the thread immediately after it came out?

I would like to have the opinion of @dreamtime too, since he knows about the 'preventive' blocking of this thread.

edit: so I'm reporting the previous post again, because it's 90% cries cries and 10% answer to the OP.
edit2: and btw, all is going in the direction of having this thread blocked. Nice job, Russian trolls!


----------



## Kayola (Sep 23, 2022)

Safranek said:


> The key word there is 'myths'. If the poster quoted in the OP considers the article to be myths


If you read the article, you may understand, that it describes the lies of russian historical narratives. This lies were named "myths" because there is no truth in there. Below each of the points there is a description why every of this onformation is false. 


Safranek said:


> However, in this case, since the post (which you failed to address even partially) directly addresses the questionable foundation of the OP and classifies it as a myth


Maybe there is incorrect of translation. Noone classified information in OP as a myth. In the article russian correction of historical facts named "myths" to show that there are incorrect. If you also use translator from english to germany and double translation loose the sence - i gave original link..
P.S. It is sad for me to see that three person like the post where as an argument author shows a photo of Ukrainian writer who see the myths in russian narratives. The post without comments or oppinion about this narratives called "myths", but which contains telling about "in what language speaks ukrainians at home" and so on.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Was it you, @Safranek, who blocked the thread immediately after it came out?


It was not I who blocked it but I understand the reasoning behind it. Unfortunately, it can be easily foreseen to devolve into the kind of rhetoric as witnessed above. There is nothing wrong with discussing any subject or having different points of view based on ethnic, racial, or religious lines as the point of view becomes evident to all readers for its lack of objectivity. However, the manner in which is discussed should be respectful even when one presents an opposing view and should not devolve into accusations and such.



Silveryou said:


> As for the article saying 'myths', I think you should wash your face when you wake up in the morning, because it is absolutely clear that the myths referred to are the ones spread by Russian propaganda.


Yes the myths represent the author's view regarding the quoted Russian version of history, my mistake.



Silveryou said:


> I felt the need to stop eventual Russian trolls to come here and do their usual victimist cries while bullying the author of the thread, which is exactly what iseidon does in a great number of posts involving his precious Holy Mother *Muscovy*.


So here we have feelings again, this time yours. You have labeled a post with no condescending attitude as 'bullying' and made mocking statements ' _precious Holy Mother _*Muscovy*' and '_and then cry when the eeeeevil westerners decide to ban you, expecially when the admin is an eeeevil german..._'. This is anything buy constructive.

I agree with you that intelligent discussion should happen regardless of the point of view but it should be done respectfully and when this is not the case, the future of a thread comes into question. Do YOUR bit to keep the discussion civil and respectful and you'll be in a more credible position to affect the future integrity of threads of interest to you in general.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 23, 2022)

Safranek said:


> I agree with you that intelligent discussion should happen regardless of the point of view but it should be done respectfully and when this is not the case, the future of a thread comes into question. Do YOUR bit to keep the discussion civil and respectful and you'll be in a more credible position to affect the future integrity of threads of interest to you in general.


I'm doing my bit by reporting these walls of text where few points are addressed and much Muscovite lore is spread without you caring about it.
And I obviously report the last text-wall by your friend iseison, who has a free pass to fill threads with his feelings. It is absurd that you say to me about Muscovy and nothing about iseidon with thousands of words in the same line.

I ask @dreamtime to say something, also about the dubious behavior of @Safranek, who is not doing is job to protect the author of the thread from iseidon's accusations and couldn't even, by his own admission, understand the meaning of the OP, and still he had the nerve to reply.


----------



## Kayola (Sep 23, 2022)

Safranek said:


> On a side-note, we do have an ignore function, so if you don't wish to read someone's posts due their type of style, longevity, or 'feelings', you'd be better off to use it


Thanks for information, iseidon go out


----------



## Gladius (Sep 23, 2022)

@iseidon 

So from your words, you perfectly understand why Ukrainian singers use Russian for coverage, but when Ukrainian youtubers or bloggers use Russian it proves that they're not nationalistic? Contradicting much.

Why would they publish their opinions in Ukrainian? To preach to the choir? It's Russian speaking peoples they need to reach to. That arguement is weak in itself. In Georgia the old generation commonly speak Russian as much as Georgian,  and in family circles Russian is used despite the strong Georgian nationalism that took place. So Georgian nationalism is also a fraud?
The same process is taking place in many former Soviet countries such as Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Estonia and more.


----------



## Void Trancer (Oct 7, 2022)

Kayola said:


> Was there nothing and no one there before that? If there were no Russians, it means there was no one? Yes, because there is no place in the history of Russia for anything "non-Russian", no place in the real history of the peoples who are this very Russia today. There was no place for the real Ukrainian and Belorussian history, culture and language of the Central Asians in tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union.


Although, I’ll be just a little off topic, your posts and especially the above quote, Makes me think about all of the history of the Native Americans that was wiped away. The Clovis and Mississippi Cultures, the mound builders, hell, you could even say the white skinned ancients that taught the natives agriculture and irrigation; where is all that American history? NOPE, 1607. What about the Chinese getting to California? The Vikings coming to Canada and The east coast going so far as Minnesota? NOPE, 1607. Well, what about all the big cities on ancient maps like Quivara and Chilaga, there was a civilization here in the states before the colonies, why don’t we learn about that in US history? NOPE. 1607 Jamestown. You get a little hint with Roanoke in the late 1500’s (blonde haired, blue eyed natives) but nope, gotta wait till 1607 for it to be real history. And this isn’t even getting into the unprovable whispered myths like Egyptians in the Grand Canyon or Phoenicians and Romans birthing Mayan and Aztec Kings.

I often think “Tartaria” is the hidden, wiped away history of the Eastern side of Russia. Is that a confederation of radically different cultures, states, religions and kingdoms that occupied that physical land? There’s something to that whole Peter/Napoleon relationship, Friends? Enemies? Frienemies? From your statement it seems that the western half or “little Russia” (Muscovy) somehow expanded from Europe eastward towards Asia. Did they reclaim lands from the Mongol Hordes? Were they simple people living off the land like native Americans? Or were they an advanced civilization? The GOLDEN, global horde during a golden age? Where are all the artifacts of this horse-lord culture? And what the hell is up with the Great Wall of China? It’s not meant for defending China, it’s meant for defending Russia. And why all the usage of Khan after the mongol era? The commonalities of Tsar, Czar, and Caesar. Makes me think of the Tower of Babel, and the languages being split, even more so when my research shows that the sons of Noah populated these northern areas after the flood. 



Safranek said:


> When you look at the BIG picture and NOT from a nationalistic view, you notice that all nations have been had, including the Germans, British, Irish, Italians, Americans, Chinese, Indians, etc., its called divide and conquer. All have had their histories modified and partially erased and have been 'inspired' to nationalistic views.


COULD NOT AGREE MORE, that’s what brings us all here to this website, all of us from different cultures and nations, all of us have…STOLEN HISTORY.


Safranek said:


> Yes, but is this not also true for most other nations? The question is who was/is responsible. The nations? Or the financiers who stood to gain every step of the way? This is the issue not being addressed.


I’ve done a lot of research on Babylon banking systems, usury, debt profiteering, secret slavery rings and even now, media control. There does seem to be one group of people who tends to control all of the financing and banking, and their sacred texts do elevate them above all other peoples…


----------



## Oracle (Oct 7, 2022)

I can understand the original poster's desire to clarify current issues regarding Russian claims due to his ongoing present experiences, but in all honesty, on this site most of us are aware of the game played out time and time again against civilizations all the world over in the name of imperialism,power,resources and control.

In answer to your question what are members thoughts on the article, I am with Safranek.

It's high time the common view moved beyond nationalism, raised it's eyes above regional disputes, and focused on the fact that it is one singular entity that sets these games ( and regions against each other) in play.
This is what truly matters in the world today.

I'm currently reading about "the conquest" of Peru by Spain.
Entire advanced, and distinct to each other, civilizations in the Amazon vanished in the 1600's in the same way as in Europe, North America and all over.

The exact same process used every time.
Military,Church and then in sweeps a Crown or government with their governors and political systems and destruction of language and culture.
The so called British isles is similar to the mother Russia scenario.
Nothing could be more opposite than the long running cultural differences between the Anglo Saxons and the  Welsh,Scots and Irish.

Nothing could be clearer, to me at least, that following each catastrophic cosmic cycle the survivors in the past became tribes in small regions.
This time around they will try to maintain complete control via their transhumanist agenda.

These big picture actors are who we should be looking to display to the people of the world.
They are the ones pulling the strings on the puppet governments worldwide.
These puppets are rivals within the same club, they are not enemies in the usual sense.
In Peru, the conquistadors often worked together at first to support each other to overcome the natives,all in the name of Church and Crown by which they could absolve themselves of their personal atrocities.
 Once that was achieved, only then did the in fighting between them start as each sought to increase his own personal gain and wealth.

We need to think globally now, just not their type of global.
As long as we keep shooting words and arrows across borders, we are doomed to repeat our serfdom.

All the various history related threads over the years here, point to that conclusion,and we are running out of time very quickly.

Edited for typo,and expansion of conquistador  similar methodology to european regional powers.


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 7, 2022)

We all are part of the human race. There's no difference between us and no reason to fight. Surrender your weapons and embrace love. The PTBPTBPPTTBPT are our true enemies and we must fight the Parasites and Nazeeees and finally win against the forces of darkness. To the author of this historical thread I say: "Repent!!!! You shall not be Ukrainian no more. Follow the Americans who with their knowledge have come to a definitive conclusion... We were tricked by the eeeeeevil Catholic Romans with their _*divide & conquer™ *_strategy".

Let's forget this thread, let's not be divided no more. No conflict between us brothers and sisters, no more wars, no more need to fight. Let our saviours free us from the Nazeeeees.

Peace

p.s.: 15 points were addressed as to why Ukrainians are not Russians and Ukraine is not Muscovian land.
p.p.s.: I would suggets people to look into the *conquer & unite* strategy all over the place.
p.p.p.s: it seems there are people who don't give a f. about being united with others. It seems the ones spreading this 'stand united' crap always live in the West in full comfort and without wars, the very same place from where wars are started. It seems very convenient to somebody to spread this 'stand united' slogans since it's the best way to claim there's an enemy in foreign lands and then move war for 'regime change'. But maybe I'm crazy and everybody else is sane.
p.p.p.s.; By the way, if 'being global' (in whatever interpretation) is the official doctrine of stolen history, then I cannot see the difference from the mainstream.

Peace


----------



## PantaOz (Oct 14, 2022)

It's interesting to me how old-Slavonic language that was the same everywhere, and Slavs are not mentioned much... and the Slavic colours of red, blue (sometimes replaced with green) and white are disregarded (the real history is much deeper thn the lies we were served about these colours... even Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch point out that the predominant colors for the Tabernacle were blends of red, blue, and white)... but,  it's all about division... divide and conquer one of the mightiest groups in the world (in total, there are more than 360 million Slavs around the world, according to the World Population Review which does not include the Slavic population outside the Slavic countries, like USA, Australia, Canada, UK, China... the real number is much bigger)! 

The process of dividing continues under the VATICAN  colours of blue and yellow ! Look at the new "independent" creations by division... all their flags are forgetting the Slavic background (for most of them) and switching to the EUROPEAN (Vatican) colours of blue and yellow (Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia...)... I will not bother discussing this further. By their deeds you will know them... it seems that we are all blinded by the puppet masters and continue to enslave ourselves with these arguments destroying what once was a big family!


----------

