Military Review

As the Poles pursued a policy of genocide of the Russian population who did not want to live in slavery

88
The Polish government pursued a policy of genocide against the Russian population, who did not want to live in slavery. The Polish documents said: "... you must punish their wives and children and destroy their homes for better for nettle to grow in those places than the traitors to his royal favor of the Commonwealth to multiply."


Cossack uprisings

In the 1628 year, hetman Mikhail Doroshenko died during a campaign on the Crimea. In its place, the Cossack foreman hastily selected the representative of the rich Cossacks Gritska Cherny. The Polish government approved it. Black immediately began to crush the resistance of dissatisfied with the established order. Outraged Cossacks and part of the registered Cossacks declared Black deposed and proclaimed hetman Levk Ivanovich. But he was soon deposed to indecision and pliability.

The new hetman was an energetic and talented Zaporizhia Cossack Taras Fedorovich (Shaking). He had great combat experience, was a member of the Thirty Years War, as the commander of the mercenaries from among the Cossacks on the side of the Hapsburg Empire. But Black did not want to give up. He promised the Cossacks to forgive everything if they came to him with artillery from Zaporozhye and promised to return many to the registry. The Cossacks promised to be obedient and return the guns and began their march. Black left to meet them. Sent by Taras the vanguard of the Cossacks in March 1630, attacked them. Hetman Black was executed for treason.

Fedorovich turned to the people with generalists, in which he called to stand up to fight against the nobility. The campaign of the Cossacks was the impetus for the beginning of a large-scale Cossack-peasant uprising. The army of Taras grew to several tens of thousands of soldiers. He took possession of Cherkasy. The rebels attacked the estates and possessions of the nobility, killed their masters, seized their property and destroyed the gentry documents. The April-May uprising covered a large territory of the Ukraine-Ukraine. Apparently, Bogdan Khmelnitsky was one of the leaders of this uprising. And as the most educated person, he composed the versatile persons of Taras Fedorovich to the people. They called to unite with the Cossacks to protect the faith, promising Cossack liberties to the peasants.

The Polish crown army, along with 3 thousand registered Cossacks, stood in Korsun. Taras turned to the crown hetman Stanislav Konetspolsky with the requirement that he should retire to Bila Tserkva and give him registered Cossacks. These requirements were not met and the Cossacks went to Korsun. Locals went over to the rebels. 4 April in Korsun battle the Poles were defeated and retreated to the city of Bar. The rebels made Pereyaslavl their stronghold. Soon the Poles gathered their forces and went on the offensive. In May, the Polish army forced the Dnieper and fighting began at Pereyaslav, which lasted about three weeks and ended in early June with the victory of the rebels. In the decisive battle of 25 in May - “Tarasov night”, when the Cossacks at night caught the Poles in their camp by surprise, the enemy was defeated. The whole wagon train and artillery of the Polish hetman Konetspolsky went to Zaporizhzhya Cossacks.

However, despite the success in the war, Fedorovich, fearing betrayal by the Cossack officers, returned to Zaporizhia with loyal Cossacks. After he left 8 on June 1630, the Pereyaslav Agreement was signed between Konetspolsky and the Cossack elite. The registry increased from 6 to 8 thousand people, it included a part of well-off Cossacks - "extractors". Cossacks got the right to choose their own hetman. Cossacks that were not included (“inscribed”) were to go home.

The new hetman Timofey Orendarenko did not last long in power. In the summer of 1631, dissatisfied with his inability or unwillingness to deal with the disgruntled, the Poles appointed Ivan Kulagu-Petrazhitsky to take his place. But this protege of the rich elite of the Cossacks did not last long. In the spring of 1632, he was registered Cossacks on the orders of the king moved to Zaporozhye. He managed to take Khortytsya, burn some of the Cossack gulls (boats). Leaving the garrison in Zaporozhye, Kulaga returned to Kanev, where the hetman's office was located. For his business, Kulaga earned the king’s praise and when the Cossacks began to prepare for the campaign against Turkey, he promised to destroy the Sich.

At the same time, the registered Cossacks detained the Russian embassy, ​​which was heading for Zaporozhye to Taras Fedorovich. Kulaga arrested ambassadors and read their letter to the Rada. But most of the Cossacks, burghers and peasants condemned the actions of the Kulagi. At that time, ordinary Russian people in Ukraine looked with hope at the Russian kingdom, hoping for Moscow’s help in fighting the Polish invaders, and expressed their readiness to serve the Russian sovereign. During frequent uprisings, the Cossacks and their leaders repeatedly turned to Moscow for help, asking for citizenship. However, Moscow then led a cautious policy, not daring to speak out for the reunification of the Russian land. Commonwealth was a strong enemy, the Poles were not so long ago sitting in Moscow itself. Russian ambassador was killed. This caused the anger of the common people. Soon Kulagu was dismissed and killed.

In 1632, King Sigismund II died. According to Polish custom, after the death of the king, two seimas were to pass - the convocation (constituent), which reviewed the past government, presented views on improvements under the new king, considered various proposals, and electoral - elective, where the king was elected. It was a very dangerous moment for Poland; powerful tycoons, relying on their aspirants, could lead the country to civil war. Bogdan Khmelnitsky had the honor of writing a letter to the deputies of the Seimas "from the Zaporizhzhya troops and the entire Russian people." Cossacks supported Vladislav. The second challenger was Casimir, known as a zealous Catholic and a persecutor of Orthodoxy. The Cossacks wrote that they hope to “return and multiply the violated rights and freedoms”. The letter said: "... in the reign of the late king, they suffered great injustices, unheard-of insults and were greatly distressed that the Uniates intervene on our rights and liberties, taking advantage of the patronage of some noble persons, cause a lot of oppression to us, the Cossacks, and the entire Russian people ... ".

That is, at this time the Russians, as they inhabited the Kiev region in the 9th-13th centuries, continued to live there, no “Ukrainians” existed. Ukraine is the outskirts of the Polish Empire. In Byzantium, South-Western Russia was called “Little Russia”, distinguishing it from the rest - “Great Russia”.

Also, the letter expressed a request to destroy all injustices before the coronation of the future king, which would calm the people, otherwise "... we will be forced to look for other measures of satisfaction ...". In addition, the Cossack Council offered to allow the Cossacks to choose a new king. That is, a path was proposed for the integration of the Russian Ukrainian borderlands as part of the Commonwealth. It is clear what caused the fury of the Polish gentry - their “slaves” dare to indicate the gentry whom to elect to the kings, they demand to stop the advancement of Catholicism to the east, and still admit the admission of the Cossacks to the election of the king. Cossack ambassadors did not achieve anything.

The Cossacks sent a new embassy, ​​but it did not achieve anything. The Cossacks wrote a letter to the future King Vladislav personally. Khmelnitsky went with him. The Cossacks asked for mercy and favor and promised support against those who would interfere with it. Vladislav, understanding the significance of the Cossack force, flirted with the Cossacks, expressed a good disposition. His position was complicated by the confrontation with the Polish magnates, who followed the path of further restraint of royal power, wanted even more power, lands and wealth. In addition, after Vladislav IV ascended to the throne, another war began with Russia for Smolensk, which after the Troubles remained for the Poles. The Polish army led by the new king moved to Russia to help the garrison besieged by Russian troops in Smolensk. The war ended with the defeat of Russia. Russian troops were trapped between the fortress and the Polish army, and in February 1634 surrendered. In June 1634, the Polyanovsky Peace was signed. Smolensk remained for Poland. This world could not solve the fundamental contradictions between Russia and Poland. A new war was inevitable.

The Russian people in Little Russia were still being enslaved. There was strong pressure on the Cossacks. Ordinary people fled to Zaporizhia. Then the Polish government decided to build a barrier to the fugitives. In 1630, a French fortifying engineer Guillaume Levasseur de Boplan was invited to the Polish service. Later, returning to his homeland, he published the "Description of Ukraine, or the regions of the Kingdom of Poland, located between the border of Muscovy and Transylvania." Boplan commissioned the construction of fortresses in the south of the kingdom. One of these fortresses was Kodak, which was built in 1635 on the right bank of the Dnieper against the Kodak threshold. The fortress was a barrier on the way of the fugitives and had to block access to the Black Sea. The garrison was 200 German dragoon mercenaries led by French officer Jean Marion.

As the Poles pursued a policy of genocide of the Russian population who did not want to live in slavery

Fortress. Fragment historical cards

The fortress strongly hindered the Cossacks. Already in August, the 1635 of the year, the Cossacks under the command of Ataman Ivan Sulima, returning from the march to the Black Sea with a surprise attack, took and destroyed Kodak, cutting out the entire garrison (only 15 of the Dragoons who were in reconnaissance were alive). Commandant J. Marion himself was executed. Boplan also wanted to be executed, but eventually spared. Thus began a new uprising of the Cossacks against Polish rule.

At that time, in Ukraine, instead of Konetspolsky, who was with the crown army of the Swedish border (Poland fought with the Swedes for the Baltic states), a Ukrainian tycoon, a Kiev kastelyan (ruler), and a Bratslav voivode, senator Adam Kissel, were raised. With bribery and promises, he managed to ensure that the registered Cossacks moved towards the rebels towards Kodak. Sulima sent for help to the former hetman Taras Fedorovich (he left the Don with the faithful Cossacks), and he tried to avoid a decisive battle until the uprising gained strength. However, Sulym with the five closest associates was captured by traitors among the Cossack officers and extradited to the Poles. Sulima was brought to Warsaw, where he was tortured and executed in December. The Cossacks, who destroyed Kodak, cut off their ears and sent them to serf works.

Only one of the leaders of the rebels escaped death - Pavlyuk. Bogdan Khmelnitsky, in order not to tempt fate, also moved to the Cossack lower reaches. Pavlyuk also arrived there. Here they met with the envoy of the Crimean Khan Islam-Giray, who fought with Khan Katntemir and wanted an alliance with the Cossacks. The Cossacks began to prepare for a new uprising. Khmelnitsky was elected to the responsible position of the clerk of the Zaporizhia Army. He kept records of the troops, led the entire office, prepared the documents, held talks, speaking as a representative of the Sich.

In May, the 1637 began a new uprising. Zaporozhye's non-spree Cossacks elected Pavlyuk as hetman. The new hetman appealed to the people with a generalist, in which he called everyone to go to him and join the Cossack army, and panam threatened with cruel reprisals. Raising the Cossacks, Pavlyuk moved to Pereyaslav, where the main apartment of the registered Cossacks was then, and the hetman of the registered Cossacks, Vasily Tomilenko. Pavlyuk demanded to give him the hetman. Tomilenko agreed at first, but a Cossack foreman opposed him. The indecisive Tomilenko was deposed, reproaching Pavlyuk with indulgence, and elected Colonel Savva Kononovich as hetman of Pereyaslavl.

In July, the rebels entered Borovitsa 1637, almost all the locals supported Pavlyuk. On August 2, Pavlyuk's troops attacked Pereyaslav, the main apartment of the registered Cossacks, and seized Hetman Kononovich, troop clerk Fyodor Onushkevich and other officers. They were taken to the Pavlyuk headquarters - Chigirin, the Cossack Rada sentenced the hetman and foremen, who were in favor of the Polish order, to death. The troop clerk Khmelnitsky supported Pavlyuk in everything: his desire to unite with the Don Cossacks and recognize the authority of Moscow Russia. Together with Pavlyuk, he composed generalists, calling to fight for his homeland, for faith, rights, for abused wives and children.

The uprising on Left-Bank Ukraine broke out even more. As a result, all the regiments of the regiment went to the side of the rebels. The rebels seized the city outside the city, ruined the gentry estates. Shlyakhta fled, preferring, according to the testimony of the Polish chronicler Okolsky, "lyk life of silk death". Crown hetman Konetspolsky sent against the rebels a major magnate and his deputy, Nikolai Pototsky. Konetspolsky in the wagon of August 24 demanded that the non-commissioned officers, headmen and other officials "those who had already joined the willful mass of the people and for two weeks did not repent and did not return from there, did not consider the Cossacks performing their duties, tried to arrest ... If your graces could not delay them, then you must punish their wives and children and destroy them at home for it is better that nettle grows in those places than the traitors to his royal favor of the Commonwealth multiply ”. Accordingly, Nikolai Pototsky was used savage terror to the rebels and the population that supported them. The Poles burned, destroyed and destroyed everything in their path. Thus, the Polish government pursued a policy of genocide against the Russian population, who did not want to live in slavery.

6 (16) December 1637 opponents came together in a battle with. Kumeyki (near Chigirin). The Cossacks were the first to attack the enemy, but near the enemy camp they came across a swamp. They got out with difficulty, and then the Polish cavalry struck at them. During the battle, Polish troops managed to encircle the rebels. The Cossacks fought back in the camp of the wagons set in several rows. All day they repelled the attacks of the Polish cavalry supported by infantry and artillery. Moreover, the Cossack groups twice managed to break through the encirclement. During the second breakthrough, the camp managed to leave the Cossack elder with Pavlyuk. Pavlyuk with small forces retreated to Chyhyryn, where they hoped to unite with other detachments and replenish their stocks of gunpowder. At this time, the main forces of the rebels, remaining on the battlefield under the command of Dmitry Guni, continued to fight until late at night, distracting the enemy. The Cossacks under cover of darkness on the night of December 7 (17) left the camp on several dozen carts, scattered around the area and retreated to the Moshnam.

Not stopping in Moshny, the Cossacks retreated to the town of Borovitsa near Cherkasy. Here the detachment of Pavlyuk again united with the Cossacks Guni. By December 9 (19), the forces of the rebels were again surrounded by the Poles, who had taken Borovits in the siege. 10 (20) December broke out a new battle. The Poles surrounded Borovitsa with trenches and cut it off from the water. Day and night Polish artillery bombarded the town. On fire, he was all on fire. But the besieged stubbornly fought back. Unable to quickly break the rebels, Pototsky proposed negotiations. In conditions of complete encirclement, the Cossack foreman persuaded Pavlyuk to negotiate with Potocki. Khmelnitsky and Gunya joined the negotiations, but they were in the minority.

Kissel arrived at the rebel camp and was sent by Potocki and the Polish commissars. The officers and Cossacks were ordered to appear in the Rada, and in the presence of all the Cossack officers put before the Polish commissars signs of Cossack power: horsetail, mace, seal of the Army. During the negotiations, Pavlyuk was deposed, Ilyash Karaimovich was appointed as the new senior of the registry, who, "not participating in riots, faithfully remained with the crown army." The rebels were ordered to swear allegiance to the king, the foreman set an example. "Repentance" was witnessed by a Cossack letter to the crown hetman Konetspolsky. He signed and Khmelnitsky.

Pavlyuk was treacherously seized by the Poles during negotiations, along with other leaders of the uprising, the former hetman Tomilenko and G. Likhim. Pavlyuk in February 1636 was brutally executed in Warsaw. Together with him, the former registered hetman Tomilenko, who had sided with Pavlyuk, and the foreman, Evil, were executed by sentence of the Sejm. The Poles staged a massacre. The roads were lined with stakes on which the rebellious Cossacks and peasants were planted. A new wave of refugees poured into the lower lands of Zaporozhye, on the Don and into the Dnieper-Don interfluve — the future Slobozhanshchyna.


Major Polish tycoon, statesman and military leader Nikolai Pototsky (1595 - 1651)

At the same time, the Sejm, wishing to destroy the rebellious Cossacks, approved a document that became one of the worst in the history of the Cossacks - "The Order of the Zaporizhzhya Register Troops, which is in the service of the Commonwealth." King Vladislav proclaimed in “Ordination”: “... Cossack self-will turned out to be so unbridled that in order to pacify it, the troops of the Commonwealth had to move and wage war with him. By the will of the gentlemen, the lords of all troops and militias, having defeated and defeating the Cossacks, having averted danger from the Commonwealth, we forever take away all their ancient jurisdictions, prerogatives, incomes and other benefits that they used as a reward for the services rendered to our ancestors, and which they are now losing as a result of their rebellion. "

All the surviving rebels turned into flakes (serfs). From the nobility it was decided to elect a hetman, colonels and even esaulov. Colonels with their regiments had to carry the border guard service in Zaporozhye against the Tatars and hinder the actions of spawning Cossacks on islands and small rivers, preventing them from organizing naval campaigns against the Crimea and Turkey. Not a single Cossack, under the threat of death, should have left for Zaporozhye without a passport issued by the commissioner. The petty-bourgeoisie should not have signed up for the Cossacks, neither themselves nor their sons should even marry daughters to Cossacks on pain of confiscating property. The Cossacks were restricted to the Cherkassy, ​​Chigirin, Korsun and other border towns.

To suppress possible new insurrections, it was decided to form a mercenary guard with a commissioner and colonels with a salary higher than that of the registered Cossacks, and also to restore the fortress on Kodak. The fortress was restored by the German engineer Friedrich Getkant, its size increased almost three times, the Catholic church and monastery were built, and the garrison was increased to 700 mercenaries. The firepower was reinforced with artillery, and a watchtower was built three kilometers from the fortress.

Thus, instead of a compromise with the Cossacks and the Russian population of south-western Russia, the Polish government intensified repression and terror. It became obvious that a new explosion could not be avoided.


Franz Rubo Zaporozhian attack in the steppe

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
National Liberation War of Bohdan Khmelnytsky

370 years ago, the national liberation war of the Russian people against the Polish invaders began
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. moskowit
    moskowit 26 January 2018 06: 31
    +6
    ... and promised to return many to the registry ....

    The Registered Cossacks served the Polish crown and what was naturally paid for by it ... It turns out that being Cossacks are all registered, there would be no indignation .... As ???
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 26 January 2018 08: 32
      +3
      You are right, Cossacks are typical mercenaries. When paying or promising to pay for services, we were ready for everything, including cutting tribesmen and others whom they would point out. Excursions into history confirm this. For them, their pocket and generous promises are more important than reason.
      But another thing surprises me. All Polish conquests from something are always legitimate and everyone is simply obliged to reckon with these occupations and everything that the Poles do. Even in this century, the Poles and their good intentions do not think differently. The most significant is the attitude of the Poles to the war which they themselves unleashed in 1918. All that they captured is Polish, but when they were smashed it was all unlawful action.
      And there are those who support this.
      1. Hlavaty
        Hlavaty 26 January 2018 19: 04
        +2
        Quote: Vasily50
        But another thing surprises me. All Polish conquests from something are always legitimate and everyone is simply obliged to reckon with these occupations and everything that the Poles do.

        No wonder. The Poles acted decisively and ruthlessly - that is, in an absolutely understandable way for Europeans. But the Russians were indecisive and therefore perceived as weaklings unworthy of sitting at the European table.
        The article has a good point, showing how Russian politics has not changed over the past centuries:
        At this time, ordinary Russian people in Ukraine looked with hope at the Russian kingdom, hoping for Moscow’s help in the struggle against the Polish invaders, and expressed their readiness to serve the Russian sovereign. During frequent uprisings, the Cossacks and their leaders more than once turned to Moscow for help, asking for citizenship. However, Moscow then pursued a cautious policy, not daring to advocate the reunification of Russian land

        Nothing changed...
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 27 January 2018 11: 45
          0
          Quote: Hlavaty
          Nothing changed...

          Reunification is a war with the Republic of Poland which was then a very strong state.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 26 January 2018 20: 19
        0
        Cossacks brazenly set up the king - arbitrarily began wars, campaigns against the Krymchaks
        this is treason.
        robbery is always)?) bad, without the permission of Warsaw.
  2. Curious
    Curious 26 January 2018 06: 53
    +2
    "That is, at that time, the Russians both inhabited the Kiev region in the XNUMXth – XNUMXth centuries, and continued to live there, no “Ukrainians” existed. "Ukraine" is the outskirts of the Polish empire. "
    Judging by the fact that the author has highlighted the paragraph in bold, he claims to be either opening or trying to convince someone that Russians lived in the Kiev region in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries.
    In both cases, the author is breaking through the open door, since the first and second have long been open and accepted as a proven fact.
    In support of this, I will cite a paragraph from the textbook Ethnic History of Ukraine, published in Kiev in 2008. The textbook is in Ukrainian, so I’ll translate it.
    "Therefore, the spread on the territory of Ukraine already at the beginning of the first millennium of the ethnonyms of Roksolana, Rosoman, Rus and others with the Iranian token rox (light), the relatively frequent occurrence with the same token of the hydronyms Ros, Rosava, Rostavitsa, Rosavka and others, also numerous toponyms with the applicative "Russian", "Russian", "Russian" like Rava-Russian, Russian Valley, Russian Field, Russian Gay, just Rusava, Rusaki, Rusanov, Rusilov, etc., other information allows us to conclude that that the spread of the ethnonym Rus in the Dnieper and far west of it preceded the formation of the Russian state with its center in Kiev; that the ethnonym Rus was of local origin and was not introduced into the space of the ancient Russian state by the Varangians.
    Particularly convincing evidence of the early spread of the ethnonym Rus over a wide area was its existence even in Transcarpathia, recorded by written sources from 1031.
    Having established itself throughout the space of Old Russian statehood in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, the ethnonym Rus in the territory of present-day Ukraine was used as its own until the XNUMXth century, although already from the second half of the XNUMXth century. the ethnonym Ukrainians began to spread. During the time of the Cossack state, all segments of the population and all conditions related themselves to the Russian people.
    The indigenous inhabitants of Ukraine called themselves Russians, Rusyns, Rusynsam in the future, and in Galicia - until the first half of the 1931th century. During the Polish census of 1200 in Galicia, including in Lemkovo counties, about XNUMX thousand people were recorded in their native language as Russian (jezyk ruski). "
    The book is available, used in scientific circulation. In any case, the library of the Kiev Institute of Philology is in the reading room for scientists. He is on the net.
    1. already a Muscovite
      already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 17: 01
      +1
      Quote: Curious
      and far west of it was preceded by the formation of the Russian state with a center in Kiev, that the ethnonym Rus is of local origin

      Well, of course ... And the "Tale of Bygone Years" German Catherine and Miller falsified that Galicians who were lying in Polish stools knew nothing about their great past ...
      "And a rickshaw:" Let us look for ourselves as a prince, we would also be hungry and row by row, by right. " I’d going overseas to the Varangians, to Russia. You’ll be called Varyags Rus, because all friends are called sveta, friends are Urmani, Anglyan, Inya and Gotha, taco and si. " Rusi's exploration from Novgorod to Kiev lasted more than 40 years ...
      1. Curious
        Curious 26 January 2018 17: 58
        0
        What did you want to say?
        1. already a Muscovite
          already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 18: 00
          +2
          What your
          Quote: Curious
          paragraph from the textbook Ethnic History of Ukraine, published in Kiev in 2008

          bald heresy ...
          1. Curious
            Curious 26 January 2018 20: 44
            +1
            How upset I am with your statement. Are you probably an academic historian?
            1. already a Muscovite
              already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 21: 53
              +1
              There is no need to be an academician.
              Quote: Curious
              "Therefore, the spread on the territory of Ukraine already at the beginning of the first millennium of the ethnonyms of Roksolana, Rosoman, Rus and others with the Iranian token rox (light), the relatively frequent occurrence with the same token of the hydronyms Ros, Rosava, Rostavitsa, Rosavka and others, also numerous toponyms with the applicative "Russian", "Russian", "Russian" like Rava-Russian, Russian Valley, Russian Field, Russian Gay, just Rusava, Rusaki, Rusanov, Rusilov, etc., other information allows us to conclude that that the spread of the ethnonym Rus in the Dnieper and far west of it preceded the formation of the Russian state with its center in Kiev; that the ethnonym Rus was of local origin and was not introduced into the space of the ancient Russian state by the Varangians.
              Particularly convincing evidence of the early spread of the ethnonym Rus over a wide area was its existence even in Transcarpathia, recorded by written sources from 1031.

              kapzdets ... Rava - Russian first mention of the 15th century, Russian field former name Umerzev or Barsky field, Russian Gay men - the original mother village of Great Gay men. and so on on the list ... So there are great doubts that the ethnonym Rus is of local origin. Russia came to these lands and toponyms appeared.
              In general, do not be discouraged ... this is not useful ...
              1. Curious
                Curious 26 January 2018 22: 20
                +1
                Yes, apparently I guessed right. Judging by the vocabulary and the train of thought - just like an academician of many academies. Go ahead.
                1. already a Muscovite
                  already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 23: 02
                  +1
                  Um ... Well, I am far from your Svidomo religiosity ... After all, the main thing is not knowledge, but faith ... Fortis imaginatio generat Genesis.
                  1. Curious
                    Curious 26 January 2018 23: 09
                    +1
                    You are far from what is far. Good luck.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 January 2018 07: 15
    +4
    The so-called Ukraine is Russia and was inhabited by Russians is a fact. confirmed by the Ukrainians themselves.
    In this connection, their explanations of the transformation of Russians into Ukrainians are funny
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 26 January 2018 07: 31
    +1
    In principle, not a bad article ... Without "discoveries"
    1. Curious
      Curious 26 January 2018 09: 10
      +1
      How is it - without discoveries. Why did Samsonov write an article? Just like that, out of sheer love of history?
  5. Square
    Square 26 January 2018 09: 39
    +2
    Russians and Ukrainians are almost the same thing. Like the Belarusians. For the nuances.
    Three Brothers - Acrobat
  6. Dimmih
    Dimmih 26 January 2018 12: 19
    0
    Quote: moskowit
    ... and promised to return many to the registry ....

    The Registered Cossacks served the Polish crown and what was naturally paid for by it ... It turns out that being Cossacks are all registered, there would be no indignation .... As ???

    Truly so! The Cossacks, on the other hand, were an association of armed people who lived at the expense of military production — they did not see much of a difference where to get it — in Crimea or Moscow. They were very battle-worthy infantry, which, in fact, was basically what ensured many victories of the Polish arms in wars with Turkey and the Moscow state. But speaking Ukrainian = Russian = Belarusian is the same as saying Mongol = Kalmyk = Buryat. They are related, but there are many differences. The author is trying to write everyone in Russian that there is great nonsense. Already at that time there was a difference, and now even more so. Proof of? But please, include on YouTube any video where you speak Ukrainian fluently, will you catch a lot? Maybe the general meaning, but nothing more. And then, if not the Hutsuls say.
    1. already a Muscovite
      already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 17: 08
      +3
      Quote: Dimmih
      will you catch a lot?

      This is generally ridiculous ... almost 90% of the words of the current Ukrainian language are either obsolete Russian words, or polonisms, or Germanism ... Even words like: mriya 'dream', maybutn 'future', bajudzha 'indifference', inveterate 'perseverance, zeal ', temrya' darkness ', sufferer' sufferer ', non-obsessive' non-healing ', acceptance of pleasure', charvlivy 'enchanting', sutin 'dusk', battlefield 'battlefield, massacre', weak 'flicker', joyful 'alluring' , stumanіliy “fogged out”, motley “affectionate”, pretentious “attractive”, needy “powerful” and a number of others never existed and were introduced into the language \ artificially and forcefully.
      1. Dimmih
        Dimmih 26 January 2018 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: "a number of others never existed and were introduced into the language \ mov artificially and forcefully." What will be your evidence? If they are not there, then you yourself know who. In different dialects of the Russian language, too, there are words peculiar only to this dialect. It is inside one language! And Germanisms, Turkisms and other isms in the Russian language are simply sporadic.
        1. already a Muscovite
          already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 17: 51
          +2
          Quote: Dimmih
          "What will be your evidence? If there is none, then you yourself know who.

          And if they are, then you yourself know who ?? Those words that I quoted were invented and introduced into the Ukrainian language by Mikhail Staritsky. He was a scribbler, and it was he who, so to speak, enriched ... Fashion in those days was to study peasant life. And then it was called not "Ukrainophilism", but "slamming" ...
          And do not exaggerate the number of Turkisms and other isms in Russian ... They are there, how not to be, but not "very much" ...
          1. Dimmih
            Dimmih 27 January 2018 15: 43
            0
            You, dear interlocutor, present evidence, historiography of the issue, and mention the evidence without providing them with symptoms, you yourself know what.
            1. already a Muscovite
              already a Muscovite 28 January 2018 03: 10
              0
              Yeah ... Actually, it was supposed that you google it or look there on the wiki, I indicated the surname to you ... But if so, here is a link to you.
              http://holos.fm/page/golos-istoriyi-27-kvitnja-to
              j-hto-pridumav-slovo-mrija
              But you can see from those who do not believe in anyone or what, and the Internet in particular ...
              1. Dimmih
                Dimmih 28 January 2018 18: 02
                0
                Dear interlocutor, FM Voice is not a source on the history of the Ukrainian language and indeed anything. This is in spite of you, a person who believes everything and the Internet in particular. I offer you a fairly accurate, with some reservations, source of information, namely TSB http://bse.uaio.ru/BSE/2603.htm Section XIV will help you look at how sources look different from Radio FM and other mystical resources. Pay attention to the given historiography and the list of the mentioned literature. I wanted to get such an objection from you, but I received a link to Radio FM, it’s a fiasco, bn!
                1. already a Muscovite
                  already a Muscovite 29 January 2018 02: 25
                  0
                  You sir decisively tire of these demagogic exercises.

                  “Mikhail Petrovich Staritsky ... By the time of our acquaintance, he had already acted as an outstanding translator: some of his translations of Andersen’s fairy tales, his beautiful Serbian songs came out,” the famous Ukrainian film artist S. Rusova recalled. - He dreamed of translating to enrich our poor literature at that time, but he did not have enough words, expressions, and he had to create, taking folk roots and adding these or other growths to them, and looking for appropriate expressions in the rich treasury of the folk language. He translated Lermontov, Pushkin, Gogol, Nekrasov. He was attacked for his sometimes artificial language, laughed at his “forging” of words, but without his work we would have been sitting in the same ethnographic language for a long time. Zhitetskiy, a master of our scientific philology, sometimes even grabbed his head from the “new” words of Staritsky. ” (More recently, on the first channel of Ukrainian radio, Staritsky was praised for the word "mriya" coined by him). “The poverty of the then Ukrainian literary language with abstract concepts had to be felt by everyone and always, to whom and when it was necessary to go beyond everyday life, outside the village. A typical example can be the lexical searches of M. Staritsky, ”noted Y. Shevelev (Sherekh).

                  The most interesting and funny thing is that Ukrainian philologists themselves, unlike you, sir, do not dispute his authorship ... So far .. But if you judge by your reaction, this will happen soon ...
                  1. Dimmih
                    Dimmih 29 January 2018 08: 47
                    0
                    Sir Dear, even in a double with Mikhail Petrovich Staritsky you cannot shake the reliability of the data of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Your quote "" The poverty of the then Ukrainian literary language with abstract concepts .... "So it was, the language, right? And if it was literary, then conversational, let alone more so? Your quote, refute!
                    1. co-creator
                      co-creator 29 January 2018 09: 50
                      +2
                      So literary language can be created from any dialect. For example, you can create a literary fen. Only on this literary hair dryer will 20% of prisoners and no one else work. It was exactly the same with the literary language that was and it was spoken by several tens of thousands of people maximum.
                      1. Dimmih
                        Dimmih 29 January 2018 10: 46
                        0
                        Yes, I don’t argue with you, actually. If you look at how the dispute began, you will understand what is at stake.
                    2. already a Muscovite
                      already a Muscovite 29 January 2018 11: 08
                      +1
                      Not true !! There was poverty, there was no Ukrainian language. Here is what the Ukrainian language looked like in the books of the 1880 edition. There is no need to refute anything if you have eyes.

                    3. already a Muscovite
                      already a Muscovite 29 January 2018 11: 34
                      0
                      Here are more examples of literary MOVA not yet muddied by cotton fans ...

                      1. Dimmih
                        Dimmih 29 January 2018 12: 44
                        0
                        Dear interlocutor, please read the verse dedicated to Franz Joseph, which you yourself have brought in to prove your innocence. He who has eyes, and see the language in which the verse is written, can hardly be called Russian because it is the Ukrainian language. This verse dates back to 1851. If you blame me that the modern Ukrainian is not completely the same, then I will answer you, so 100 years have passed, the Russian language has also changed. At least you yourself, for the sake of decency, see what evidence you bring yourself against yourself.
      2. lesnik1978
        lesnik1978 26 January 2018 20: 54
        +5
        There are a lot of fictitious words in Ukrainian, and more recently. The policeman was a policeman, but became a policeman. If only not in Russian. In pseudo-Belarusian, too, a lot of fiction. Russian words are replaced by Polish or similar to Polish. The Russian language is gradually squeezed out of official communication. For example, metro signs in pseudo-Belarusian and Polish, stops are announced in the metro in Belarusian and English, although there are many tourists from Russia. Also stops the trains. Linguists are the descendants of the Polish occupiers and their lackeys.
        1. Antares
          Antares 27 January 2018 18: 20
          0
          Quote: lesnik1978
          The policeman was a policeman, but became a policeman

          I exchanged a glance with Google winked .. well I never heard that, but Google, too.
          militsioner even the Ukrainian Wiki writes.
          1. Looking for
            Looking for 27 January 2018 21: 14
            0
            What are you saying !!!!! are you really from Ukraine or just like that. Well, next to you, on all Ukrainian-language media. radio, TV militiamen. bl..t
            1. sd68
              sd68 27 January 2018 22: 30
              0
              Where are you from?
              Once upon a time, the police already compose what else are the "police"
    2. co-creator
      co-creator 27 January 2018 11: 54
      +2
      Quote: Dimmih
      But speaking Ukrainian = Russian = Belarusian is the same as saying Mongol = Kalmyk = Buryat. They are related, but there are many differences. The author is trying to write everyone in Russian that there is great nonsense. Already at that time there was a difference, and now even more so.

      What difference can you explain? For example, I am different from my own brother and what do we mean not siblings? Speak about differences, then voice them.
      And of course, the Mongols, Buryats and Kalmyks were undoubtedly one people.
      1. Dimmih
        Dimmih 29 January 2018 12: 47
        0
        For both examples, the keyword was. Undoubtedly.
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 2 February 2018 16: 27
          +1
          Quote: Dimmih
          For both examples, the keyword was. Undoubtedly.

          You tell me how Muscovites differ from Ukrainians?

          Buryats are different from Kalmyks and Mongols, at least because they were one nation only at the plepian level.
  7. Luga
    Luga 26 January 2018 12: 44
    +1
    And the Poles belong to the "superethnos"? Are they the descendants of the "Scythian-Siberian Rus of the boreal world"? The question is ... But if they are, then ... and then they can do anything, because it turns out that a showdown with the Cossacks is a civil war, that is, an internal affair of a "superethnos". By and large, the civilized part of the “superethnos” forced the lumpen and criminals, the outcasts of the great Aryan civilization, who were also spoiled by the influence of the Turkic-Semitic society, to order and legality ...
    wassat wassat wassat
    Sorry, the author does not give explanations ... recourse
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 January 2018 12: 11
      0
      Of course, the Poles are "superethnos." They created their own civilization and included in it many tribes of the Western Slavs.
  8. sd68
    sd68 26 January 2018 16: 06
    +2
    The author mixed everything in a heap.
    To begin with, Taras Shook it was definitely not Russian, he was the Crimean Tatar Hassan, Taras became after baptism, a participant in the campaign against Moscow with the Poles, and it is at least ridiculous to portray him as a Russian patriot.
    Secondly, the author confuses the Russians, who then inhabited the Rus Voivodeship of the Commonwealth, with modern Russians, which is not at all the same thing.
    1. already a Muscovite
      already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 17: 40
      0
      Maybe he wasn’t a Russian patriot, but even more he didn’t like the Poles. But psheks are psheks ...
    2. Gopnik
      Gopnik 26 January 2018 17: 51
      +2
      Quote: sd68
      Secondly, the author confuses the Russians, who then inhabited the Rus Voivodship of the Commonwealth, with modern Russians


      In which particular phrase? And then I did not find anything about modern Russians.
      1. sd68
        sd68 27 January 2018 22: 17
        0
        In all.
        The Russians then lived on these lands, and the author calls them Russians
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 27 January 2018 23: 34
          0
          Brrr Understood nothing. The author does not write AT ALL about contemporary Russians. The Russians then lived, about where they are now living, but there were no Ukrainians
          1. sd68
            sd68 27 January 2018 23: 43
            0
            Nonsense. Those who are now called Russians were Great Russians a hundred years ago.
            Terminology changes over time
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 28 January 2018 00: 37
              0
              Those. A.V. Suvorov had in mind whom when he wrote, "God have mercy, we are Russians! What a delight!" and "Russian Prussians have always beaten, so what to adopt?
              The Great Russians, as part of the largest, single Russian ethnic group.
    3. avt
      avt 26 January 2018 18: 23
      +1
      Quote: sd68
      Secondly, the author confuses the Russians, who then inhabited the Rus Voivodeship of the Commonwealth, with modern Russians, which is not at all the same thing.

      bully Yes Yes. We already heard this from your experts, about the Story “Muscovite stolen by Muscovites.” Well, about the Horde. I’m directly turning on the TV, watching the faces like Zaporozhtsev and those and looking directly at their Aryan snouts, I understand that we stole them, Finno-Ugric Turkic-Tatar "all of Gishtoria ... together with shalvars, ,, as black as the Black Sea" bully
      Quote: sd68
      The author mixed everything in a heap.
      bully Do not worry ! As Andrei Vajra aptly noted in his Internet matches, you will be returned to a state of homeostasis, or rather to that dung heap from which it was taken from the time described by the author. Moreover, sometimes in the literal sense, as in Lviv with its garbage and now Cherkasy, it will not be Russia that will do it, but YOU, together with the Poles and other general people, with your Svidomites planting a “nightingale” movement now in Europe, created by the way, well, in in the form of a literary and written language with millions of print runs, hated commies. Actually, like the chimera-state of the Ukrainian SSR with such villains as Ulyanov / Lenin and Dzhugashvili / Koba / Stalin. Which you are turning into Ruin inexorably and irrevocably there.
      1. already a Muscovite
        already a Muscovite 26 January 2018 19: 13
        +2
        ... hehe .. Angry you ... The average Ukrainian believes that his farm has stood on its "myst" since the time of the pharaohs of the first dynasty. And then the filthy Muscovites also stibil history ...
      2. sd68
        sd68 27 January 2018 22: 19
        0
        I am Russian.
        And in your post some kind of nonsense, sorry.
        Essentially have something to write?
    4. co-creator
      co-creator 27 January 2018 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: sd68
      Secondly, the author confuses the Russians, who then inhabited the Rus Voivodeship of the Commonwealth, with modern Russians, which is not at all the same thing.

      What's the difference?
      1. sd68
        sd68 27 January 2018 22: 32
        0
        I wrote above.
        Terms change over time.
        Now, for example, Russians are called those who were called Great Russians a hundred years ago
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 27 January 2018 22: 36
          +2
          Quote: sd68
          Now, for example, Russians are called those who were called Great Russians a hundred years ago

          The Great Russians have always been Russian, and so they have remained. Little Russians were also Russian, but their Bolsheviks renamed Ukrainians.

          So then the difference only in terms is obtained, but the people themselves are the same right?
          1. sd68
            sd68 28 January 2018 00: 14
            0
            No, wrong.
            One hundred years ago, when the Russians spoke, they did not mean what they are now.
            And in the days of Khmelnitsky, the word Russians (exactly like that, with one c) did not mean what the Russians mean now.
            The author either consciously or unconsciously confuses the terminology.
            The term Russians of that time did not correspond to the modern term Russians, but he mixes them.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 28 January 2018 00: 44
              0
              Quote: sd68
              One hundred years ago, when the Russians spoke, they did not mean what they are now.


              let's just say, it implied NOT ONLY what it is now, but also Little Russians and Belarusians.
              And the idea of ​​a triune Russian people existed during the time of Khmelnitsky, including in Little Russia - see "Synopsis" by Gisel.

              Quote: sd68
              The term Russians of that time did not correspond to the modern term Russians, but he mixes them.


              Where does it mix? Once again, he does not write about modernity at all
              1. sd68
                sd68 28 January 2018 03: 56
                0
                He uses a modern term, which then simply did not exist, and which does not correspond to the concept of Russian in those days.
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 28 January 2018 04: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: sd68
                  He uses a modern term, which then simply did not exist, and which does not correspond to the concept of Russian in those days.

                  there was no term RUSSIAN? Are you not drunk?
            2. co-creator
              co-creator 28 January 2018 04: 23
              +1
              Quote: sd68
              One hundred years ago, when the Russians spoke, they did not mean what they are now.
              And in the days of Khmelnitsky, the word Russians (exactly like that, with one c) did not mean what the Russians mean now.

              So write your version of what was then understood as Russian.
              Quote: sd68
              The author either consciously or unconsciously confuses the terminology.

              The author uses the terminology of that time no more.
              Quote: sd68
              The term Russians of that time did not correspond to the modern term Russians, but he mixes them.

              And what did he correspond to. You write your version, do not be shy.
        2. Gopnik
          Gopnik 27 January 2018 23: 37
          +1
          The Great Russians, both 100 and 200 and 300 and 400 years ago, were called Russians. They were called Great Russians by highbrow comrades to distinguish them from other parts of the Russian people - Little Russians and Belarusians.
  9. captain
    captain 26 January 2018 18: 11
    +2
    Dear Alexander, it was necessary to write about this earlier, when they formed the Ukrainian SSR. And now it's just the cry of a drowning man. What Leninists have done with Russia, we can never fix.
  10. Weyland
    Weyland 27 January 2018 16: 40
    0
    Large Polish tycoon, statesman and military leader Nikolai Pototsky ...

    That's just it, that the Orthodox genocide was carried out mainly Polonized Lithuanian-Russian apostate magnates - Pototsky, Oginsky, Sapieha ... It is especially funny that the founder of the Zaporizhzhya Sich is mentioned in the Ukrainian history textbook, Ukrainian Prince Dmitro Vishnevetsky hi (he’s Baid’s Cossack) - and his great-grandson, Enemy Lyakh Yarema Vishnevetsky, who drove Khmelnitsky like a puppy - if he hadn’t died in 1651m, it is not known how the fate of Ukraine would have developed. How many people know that Yarem Vishnevetsky is a cousin of the Kiev Metropolitan Pyotr Mogily, the founder of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy?
    1. Antares
      Antares 27 January 2018 18: 30
      0
      Quote: Weyland
      which Khmelnitsky drove like a puppy - if he hadn’t died in 1651m, it’s not known how the fate of Ukraine would have developed

      Well, the Poles won one battle with his participation against Hops. In addition, he brought good luck and was very for Polish. I am sure that the Poles consider the Liberation War as a civil war with the separatists (although Poland itself inherited from Lithuania, but it was "picked up recently")
      It was not the first century in the Commonwealth! Accordingly, the threads of the elite were precisely bound.
      Vishnevetsky iconic figure in that war.
      A "genocide" is always carried out by the local elite. What then, what now ... no matter what kind of country it is. Although Ukraine, at least the Russian Federation.
      I don’t understand Russian authors a bit, some argue that the Ukrainians are Russian, some that are non-Russians and some kind of slander, some that have always been enemies ..
      With such a variety of policies can not be built. There is no consensus ...
    2. sd68
      sd68 27 January 2018 22: 49
      0
      You are distorting.
      The cousin of Peter the Grave was the mother of the Rus Voivode Jerome Vishnevetsky-Rais Mogilyanka.
      Jerimia himself was baptized into Orthodoxy, then converted to Catholicism, but he never persecuted the Orthodox, supported the Kiev-Mohyla Academy.
      And his son Michael, the future king of the Commonwealth, was raised by a Protestant.
      By the way, Vishnevetsky studied at the same Jesuit collegium as Khmelnitsky
      No need to primitize complex processes.
  11. already a Muscovite
    already a Muscovite 29 January 2018 13: 09
    0
    Dimmih,
    NOT ... Did not change, but changed ... The verse is written in Russian, not Ukrainian, and this is a fact. And this is in Austria, not in Russia ... It is clear that this language is close to us even now understandable, unlike modern language. Here are some more fragments

    1. Dimmih
      Dimmih 30 January 2018 11: 16
      0
      Quote: "NOT ... I have not changed, but changed ... The verse is written in Russian, and not in Ukrainian, and this is a fact." Great is the Lord, believe it if you want. It is only written that these are "Russian villagers" about Ferdinand, Russians, not Ruthenians !!!!! And then, the break of the template, the last paragraph of the left column in your last example speaks about the verse in mov-here it is what the Russian language should be !!!! So we, it turns out, they perverted him, for he looks more like a mov than a Russian. Conclusion: if you read the verse, then the paragraph that I indicated to you turns out that it was the Russian language that was perverted in Russia. Dear Interlocutor, truly I tell you, stop presenting such evidence, no enemies with such friends!
      1. already a Muscovite
        already a Muscovite 30 January 2018 17: 47
        +1
        Well, it’s good to breed demagogy ... In the Austro-Hungarian empire, these Russian villagers called themselves Rusyns, and the Austrians called them Ruthenians ... It was not in Russia that the language was perverted, it was perverted to Ukraine. In Russia, language reforms simply passed. The letters Ѣ (Ѣ), Ѳ (fit), І (“and decimal”) were excluded from the alphabet; instead, they should be used, respectively, E, F, I;
        the solid sign (b) (ep) at the end of words and parts of compound words was excluded, but it was preserved as a dividing sign (rise, adjutant). But this is in Russia. With what fright did this happen in Austria, and after the 18th year in Poland ?? Well, they would write with poisons and oers ... So, after all, no ...
        Ukrainian entirely artificial language. It is a fact. Even today, any text (well, almost any) in Ukrainian is written first in Russian, and then translated into Ukrainian. This can be seen if you translate secluded texts into Yandex or Google translators ... All participial and participial phrases, sentence structure, subject, predicate, adjectives are preserved ... Only the spelling of new language words is ukromov ... If the Ukrainian language is independent, then it would did not obey the morphology of the Russian language .... Ukrainian \ peasant mov is the same independent language, like the language of loaders in the Odessa port ...
        1. Dimmih
          Dimmih 31 January 2018 12: 47
          0
          Quote: “Ukrainian is entirely an artificial language. This is a fact.” This is not a fact, this is nonsense and wild game. But I, as a rational person, acknowledge your right to indulge in any heresies that do not violate Russian law — even believe in Lord Epimachus.
          1. already a Muscovite
            already a Muscovite 31 January 2018 16: 03
            0
            Blind faith and sectarianism is exactly your difference from an ordinary reasonable person.
            1. Dimmih
              Dimmih 2 February 2018 07: 49
              0
              If you ask for evidence of my belonging to a sect, I’ll wang you, that it’s difficult, because you yourself know who. But, I repeat, I recognize your right to be yourself you know who, if your actions, as well as inaction do not violate the growth. legislation. As for me, in the old fashion, I will rely on TSB and sources equivalent to it, and not on your elusive authority, which either exists like bitcoin or not.
  12. co-creator
    co-creator 2 February 2018 16: 29
    +1
    Quote: Dimmih
    Dear interlocutor, please read the verse dedicated to Franz Joseph, which you yourself have brought in to prove your innocence. He who has eyes, and see the language in which the verse is written, can hardly be called Russian because it is the Ukrainian language. This verse dates back to 1851. If you blame me that the modern Ukrainian is not completely the same, then I will answer you, so 100 years have passed, the Russian language has also changed. At least you yourself, for the sake of decency, see what evidence you bring yourself against yourself.

    So, a verse to Franz is written in Russian in a Galician dialect, where you saw MOV there unclear.
    1. Dimmih
      Dimmih 3 February 2018 17: 12
      0
      Today I’m somewhat on the poker, dear Interlocutor, and I don’t immediately understand what kind of Galician dialect of the Russian language is. I feel that I don’t understand it in the same way .... It’s also possible to declare the Russian language the eastern dialect of the Ukrainian language. Keep yourself from drugs expanding consciousness, use substances prescribed by the ancestors and you will be happy! Or at least a light hangover.
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 4 February 2018 01: 57
        0
        Quote: Dimmih
        Today I’m somewhat on the poker, dear Interlocutor, and I don’t immediately understand what kind of Galician dialect of the Russian language is.

        How sober up immediately go to Wiki in the dialect section. adverbs, dialects. You will find many interesting things for yourself.
        Quote: Dimmih
        It is also possible to declare the Russian language the eastern dialect of the Ukrainian language.

        In a drunken case, the Ukrainians dug up the Black Sea, and this is not a question at all.
        Quote: Dimmih
        Keep yourself from drugs expanding consciousness, use substances prescribed by the ancestors and you will be happy! Or at least a light hangover.

        Looking at your condition, I will probably refrain.
        1. Dimmih
          Dimmih 4 February 2018 14: 44
          0
          Abstinence is the path of the righteous; alas, I am not one of them. Is there a Galician dialect of the Ukrainian language I was too lazy to watch, but the Russian language does not have such a dialect. Wiki to help you: https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialects_rus
          skogo_language
          Well, if you, while walking the Veles path of the Russoarii, deny the existence of the Ukrainian language, then Vicki will not convince you.
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 4 February 2018 17: 26
            0
            Quote: Dimmih
            Wiki to help you: https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialects_rus
            skogo_language

            What am I supposed to read here?
            Have you mastered what dialect and dialect are?
            Quote: Dimmih
            Well, if you, while walking the Veles path of the Russoarii, deny the existence of the Ukrainian language, then Vicki will not convince you.

            Why will I deny what exists. He would have lived in the 19th century, of course, he denied, as did the entire world scientific community, including the linguistic one.
            1. Dimmih
              Dimmih 5 February 2018 04: 40
              0
              You are sir, do not pour water in the comment, trying to give meaning to meaningless phrases. I ask you to provide a link to any academic source (such as TSB), where there will be an indication of the existence of the Galician dialect of the Russian language. No links to YouTube, FM radio, as one clown gave here, no links to Puchkov’s aka Goblin’s blog. Let's-a serious academic source. If you can’t, sit quietly and sniff with indignation. And it’s better to increase your educational level, less folk history, more school books and preferably the period of the USSR, there is a lot of useful things starting from the 5th grade.
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 5 February 2018 05: 16
                0
                Sir, have you read what dialects, dialects, dialects are, or not?

                Is the essence or the exact name of the dialect important to you? If you do not understand what it is about, then I’ll explain for those who are not particularly smart. The book is written in Galicia in the local Russian language.
                If you need a dialect map, then catch it
                https://cdn.fishki.net/upload/post/201502/09/1421
                624/589297c496bd92115a5ae6ded096bed8.png
                http://likbez.org.ua/chubynsky_mykhalchuk_1871.ht
                ml
                https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=карта%20диал
                eket% 20Malorussian% 20adverb & noreask = 1 & a
                mp; img_url = https% 3A% 2F% 2Fupload.wikimedia.org% 2Fw
                ikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F14%2FMap_of_Ukrainian_di
                alects.png & pos = 26 & rpt = simage & lr = 47

                Honestly, you begin to annoy me by talking about my educational level and at the same time not knowing basic things. You behave more modestly and you don’t have to blush.
                1. Dimmih
                  Dimmih 5 February 2018 11: 49
                  0
                  If you and I have a scientific-historical dispute, let us rely in our evidence base on the scientific sources, which Fishka.net and the set of Yandex pictures are by no means. Sources are encyclopedias, monographs, articles in scientific journals, that's what I urge you and you like. Do you have a justification from such sources? That's the same. As for your winged expression "On, catch ..." is that you say so to your wife, you got something sickly.
                  1. co-creator
                    co-creator 5 February 2018 14: 06
                    0
                    I gave you a few linguistic maps from RI to modern Ukraine. What is not clear to you? There are links where they are taken from, who composed them. What is wrong?
                    For you, what scientific works in the Republic of Ingushetia are reliable? What magazines, what authors and scientists. Which linguist is authoritative for you?

                    Quote: Dimmih
                    Regarding your catchphrase "
                    "What about us?" Haaaaa ...
                    1. Dimmih
                      Dimmih 6 February 2018 05: 03
                      0
                      Well, we’ve already switched to “You,” so it’s not so bad. And so we got to the stage of a dispute when I already (with regret to note this) forgot where to start. So, I affirm that the Ukrainian language is not a fictitious language, but it has been developed from the Old Russian language (or the language of ancient Russia) in the process of dividing into Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. And to prove my point, I give a link to TSB http://bse.uaio.ru/BSE/2603.htm, namely section XIV. Literary Ukrainian developed, unlike spoken, with a delay because haves preferred to speak Polish or Russian, and Ukrainian was mainly the language of the common people. Nevertheless, development was proceeding, as stated in the same section. Accordingly, I consider those who claim that the Ukrainian language is fictitious to be mildly wrong. Here, in short, this is my view of the question and its rationale. Do you have direct links to scientific resources where this point of view is refuted? Links to a set of pictures in Yandex are not such as they are secondary. You should provide the source links where there is something that you consider the evidence in its original form. Suppose a dialect map as part of a monograph. You must do this, not me, since you have begun to prove it. In spite of it, I can provide you with Yandex maps of Tartaria with dams and other fabulous rubbish, as well as no less fantastic maps showing Slavic settlement of territories from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This is impossible nonsense, but you give me pictures from Yandex .... Kindergarten, the right word.
                      1. co-creator
                        co-creator 6 February 2018 10: 57
                        0
                        I am always at the "you", you just need to read carefully)
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        And so we got to the stage of a dispute when I already (with regret to note this) forgot where to start.

                        Drink pills, they say help.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        So, I affirm that the Ukrainian language is not a fictitious language, but it has been developed from the Old Russian language (or the language of ancient Russia) in the process of dividing into Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. And to prove my point, I give a link to TSB http://bse.uaio.ru/BSE/2603.htm, namely section XIV.

                        Here finally. Let's act logically and most importantly scientifically. If you claim that MOV is the result of the division of the Old Russian language, then you should not refer to TSB to me. You must provide the "encyclopedia" of the Russian Empire where the same is stated. God be with him, I agree to any official document of European universities until 1900 that said the same thing. If these documents do not exist, then you must acknowledge the appearance of the mov during the appearance of TSB. I'm waiting.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        Literary Ukrainian developed, unlike spoken, with a delay because haves preferred to speak Polish or Russian, and Ukrainian was mainly the language of the common people. Nevertheless, development proceeded, as stated in the same section.

                        You just wrote that the literary language was created separately, and the people and their language separately. Which actually was.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        Accordingly, I consider those who claim that the Ukrainian language is fictitious to be mildly wrong.

                        I don’t understand what you mean when speaking of fiction? An explanation is needed here.

                        Quote: Dimmih
                        Do you have direct links to scientific resources where this point of view is refuted?

                        Any official document of the Republic of Ingushetia, from the census to linguistic, ethnic maps. Exactly the same European cards can be easily google. If encyclopedias are authority for you, then you can read the BRITISH encyclopedia before WWI for example.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        Suppose a dialect map as part of a monograph.

                        In fact, the cards were signed, who made them and when. You can easily google who these people are and where these cards come from. I gave you several cards ranging from RI to the official modern Ukrainian dialect of the Ukrainian language. They are identical and there only the name of the language is changed from Russian to Ukrainian.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        In spite of it, I can provide you with Yandex maps of Tartaria with dams and other fabulous rubbish, as well as no less fantastic maps showing Slavic settlement of territories from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

                        Are we talking on this subject? If you want, I can express my thoughts here.
                        Quote: Dimmih
                        This is impossible nonsense, but you give me pictures from Yandex .... Kindergarten, the right word.

                        Dadsad, this is when you do not want to read the tex to these cards and independently deploy the "information".
  13. Dimmih
    Dimmih 6 February 2018 11: 21
    0
    co-creator,
    Quote "If you claim that Mova is the result of the division of the Old Russian language, then you should not refer to TSB to me. You must provide the" encyclopedia "of the Russian Empire where it says the same." Why would it suddenly? I provided you with a reference to TSB as an argument and provided you with the opportunity and time to refute TSB. You can’t do this, there’s nothing to pour water. TSB is an authoritative (for many) set of generalizations for various branches of knowledge, and I, without special education in linguistics, rely on it in my statements.
    I will ask a direct question, once again, direct links to scientific sources will be or only Fishki.net and Yandex pictures mastered? Monographs, articles in the journal Slavic studies ... At least there is an article with a little finger nail? Chips.net, Yandex .... Kindergarten.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 6 February 2018 13: 47
      0
      Quote: Dimmih
      Why would it all be? I provided you with a reference to TSB as an argument and provided you with the opportunity and time to refute TSB.

      This is not an argument from the word at all. TSB is not a scientific source. Be so kind as to confirm scientifically how Old Russian became my language when. Give the source of the 19th century.
      Quote: Dimmih
      TSB is an authoritative (for many) set of generalizations for various branches of knowledge.

      So TSB is very politicized, you didn’t know.

      Quote: Dimmih
      I, having no special education in linguistics, rely on it in my statements

      Well lean on. There are all sorts of Soviet trash there.
      Quote: Dimmih
      I will ask a direct question, once again, direct links to scientific sources will be or only Fishki.net and Yandex pictures mastered? Monographs, articles in the journal Slavic studies ... At least there is an article with a little finger nail? Chips.net, Yandex .... Kindergarten.

      Can you read or don't you care? Written in Russian, the map was compiled by an ethnographer such and such. Google his name and read.
      I give the link for the last time https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1482193#ci
      te_note-1
      1. Dimmih
        Dimmih 7 February 2018 04: 49
        0
        I quote: “Google his name and read.” I’ll tell you again, maybe you understand, the burden of proof lies with the prover and the source is used as evidence, ie a monograph where this card is, etc. This is a general rule from legal proceedings I ask you to clarify this. You may not agree with this, but nevertheless it is. Therefore, google yourself what kind of author it is and under what inspiration he drew this map and provide the already processed source code. There are plenty of all kinds of maps, I already wrote about it I note one thing, although I consider your beliefs similar to you a game, but, being a sane person, I acknowledge your right to indulge in any misconceptions (from my point of view) that do not violate Russian law. The original is the Word about Igor’s regiment and I can say that it is more like mov than Russian language.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. co-creator
          co-creator 7 February 2018 13: 33
          0
          Are you from Ukraine?
          Quote: Dimmih
          As for the proof of the origin of Mova from the Old Russian language, but I read in the original the Word about Igor's regiment and I can say that it looks more like MOV than Russian. Something like that, such an everyday evidence that does not pretend to be anything.

          Your opinion is very interesting and authoritative. Keep observing and informing the public.
          1. Dimmih
            Dimmih 8 February 2018 04: 51
            0
            I am from Altai, and it doesn’t matter. Stick to your beliefs and please the public with your existence, otherwise it will be boring.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 8 February 2018 07: 32
              0
              How boring and boring you are.
              1. Dimmih
                Dimmih 8 February 2018 12: 11
                0
                In this I agree that there is something there.