Military Review

How Kievan Rus became Bandera Ukraine. Part of 1. Polish-Lithuanian influence

History the emergence of the state of Ukraine and Ukrainians raises many questions, especially in the light of attempts by individual representatives of Ukrainian elites to conduct Ukrainian historiography from Kievan Rus or consider themselves descendants of ancient Sumerians (attempts are quite anecdotal).

In this regard, it is interesting to understand why the originally Russian land, which since ancient times was called Rus, suddenly became known as Ukraine, and how it happened. As part of the ancient Rus princedom, Kievan Rus, flourishing in the 9th-12th centuries, it eventually transformed into Ukraine, from which Ukrainians came and who contributed to it. In the light of recent events in Ukraine and in connection with the increased relevance of this issue, I consider it expedient to return to its consideration.

Attempts to change the Russian national identity on the territory of today's Ukraine took place under the influence of external forces, while the national ideology alien to the people was imposed and the basic values ​​characteristic of the Russian national community were destroyed.

With the help of an idea introduced from outside in the interests of other nations, for many centuries they have been trying to reformat the national identity of a part of the Russian people. This was done with the aim of artificially creating a nation with an ideologically hostile ideology, provoking a confrontation between parts of the Russian people.

As an ideological basis for breaking the national self-consciousness of the southwestern branch of the Russian people, the ideology of Ukrainians, which was formed by external forces in various historical epochs, was promoted and introduced.

There were several stages in the promotion of Ukrainian identity. Each of them addressed specific tasks of the time, but all of them were aimed at the destruction of the Russian identity in these lands. As a result of the centuries-old evolution of Ukrainians in today's Ukraine, it has become a national-state ideology. Pseudoheroes such as Bandera and Shukhevych became its national symbols.

Lithuanian-Polish stage

The first Lithuanian-Polish stage of imposing a different national identity on the Russian people (XIV-XVI century) began after the Tatar-Mongols seized Kiev (1240), the pogrom of Kievan Rus and the division of the Russian lands between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Moscow Principality and Poland. It was caused by claims to the Russian spiritual legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which annexed most of the Russian lands, and the Moscow Principality, which became the administrative and spiritual center of the Russian people.

The confrontation that arose was particularly aggravated in the XIV century, when the Russian princes declared themselves to be collectors of the Russian lands, and “all Russia” appeared in the princely title. It continued during the time of the first tsar Ivan the Terrible and the Time of Troubles already with the united Polish-Lithuanian state, when at the intergovernmental level they argued more fiercely not on the question to whom and which lands belong, but who and how is named.

The unshakable position of the Russian great princes, and then of the kings on their succession in all Russian lands, caused a reciprocal Lithuanian-Polish concept of the Moscow state as a non-Russian land. In its rationale, a treatise on two Sarmatias by Matvey Mekhovsky (1517) appears, in which the Muscovite state emerges with the Muscovites living there without mentioning that they are Russian.

This concept is distributed in Polish-Lithuanian everyday life, but the increasing power and influence of the Russian state makes them look for forms of identity change now Russian, caught up after the Union of Lublin (1569) in a single Polish-Lithuanian state.

The solution of this task coincides with the growing offensive of Catholicism against Orthodoxy, and the main events unfold on the main ideological front of those times - the religious one. The authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Catholic hierarchs make a decision, in order to undermine Russian unity, to strike at the main spiritual value of Russia at that time - its Orthodox faith and try to force another faith in the form of the Brest Union (1596).

The Orthodox clergy and the common people fiercely oppose it. Having failed to change the faith of the Orthodox people, the Poles inclined Orthodox Christians and the aristocracy to the union, aspiring to join the Polish elite, thus depriving Orthodoxy of material support, and reduced it to the “Khlosh” level.

At the same time, the attack on the Russian language begins, it is expelled from clerical work, the Russian population is forced to use exclusively Polish in business places, which leads to the appearance of many Polish words in the Russian language, and by the middle of the XVII century it turns into an ugly Polish-Russian jargon - a prototype of the future Ukrainian language.

The next step of the Poles is to exclude the concepts of "Rus" and "Russian" from circulation. At that time, in the Polish and Russian societies at the household level, the outlying lands of the two states were called “Ukraine”, and the papal envoy Antonio Possevino proposed to name the South-Western Russian lands in 1581 by that name.

The Poles are introducing a new toponym into clerical work, and gradually “Ukraine” appears in the document flow instead of the concept “Russia”. So, from a purely geographical concept, this term acquires a political meaning, and the Polish authorities, through the Cossack sergeant, who received mainly Polish education and is striving to become a new gentry, are trying to introduce this concept into the masses.

The people do not perceive the identity being imposed on them, and oppression and persecution provoke a number of popular uprisings against the Polish enslavers, which modern ideologues of the Ukrainians try to present as the national liberation struggle of the “Ukrainian people” for their independence under the leadership of the Cossack officers.

Such a fraud has nothing to do with reality, as the Cossacks fought not for the national liberation of the people, but endeavored en masse to become the register part of the Cossacks, to receive pay and privileges for serving the Polish king, but to get popular support was forced to lead the uprisings.

With the entry of the Left Bank after Pereyaslav Rada into the Russian state, the process of imposing the “Ukrainian” identity on the people of south-western Russia practically stops at this territory, and gradually during the XVIII century the “Ukrainian” terminology fell out of use. On the Right Bank, which did not leave Poland's power, this process continued and the rooting of Poles in educational structures became dominant.

Polish stage

The second, Polish stage of imposing "Ukrainian" identity begins from the end of the 18th century and continues until the defeat of the Polish uprising in 1863. It is due to the desire of the Polish elite to revive the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which disappeared from the political map as a result of the second (1792) and third (1795) partitions of Poland and the inclusion of the Right Bank in the Russian Empire (Galicia became part of Austria-Hungary).

This stage is characterized by the phenomenon of Ukrainophilism, which has two directions. The first is the political Ukrainophilia, raised by the Poles in order to arouse among the population of the South-Western Territory a desire to secede from Russia and attract it to the revival of Poland.

The second is the ethnographic Ukrainophilism that emerged among the South Russian intelligentsia and substantiates the presence of the Little Russian nation as part of the all-Russian people. Among the Russian intelligentsia, representatives of the political Ukrainophilism associated with “going to the people” were called “clappers”, and those defending the “Ukrainian” roots of the Little Russian people were called “Mazepians”.

For such activities, the Poles had tremendous opportunities, since the Polish rule on the Right Bank did not undergo any changes, and the emperor Alexander I, who was not indifferent to them, not only surrounded his court with the Polish gentry, but also restored the Polish administration in all lands of the South-Western region and completely put in their hands the education system.

Taking advantage of this, the Poles create two of their ideological centers: Kharkov (1805) and Kiev universities (1833). In the first, the faculty of the university, Pole Severin Pototsky, selects the appropriate teaching staff. From here, the ideas of Ukrainians spread among a part of the South Russian intelligentsia, and such a prominent ethnographic Ukrainophile leader as historian Mykola Kostomarov was brought up here.

Kiev University was generally founded on the basis of closed after the Polish uprising 1830, the Vilna University and Kremenets Lyceum, and most of the teachers and students in it were Poles. He became the focus of the Polonophile intelligentsia and a hotbed of political Ukrainophileism, which in 1838 led to its temporary closure and the expulsion from the university of most of the teachers and students of Polish origin.

The political Ukrainophiles were based on the ideas of the Polish writer Jan Pototsky, who wrote for propaganda purposes the book Historical and Geographical Fragments about Scythia, Sarmatia and Slavs (1795), in which he outlined the fictitious concept of a separate Ukrainian people of completely independent origin.

He developed these marginal ideas of another Polish historian, Tadeusz Chatsky, who wrote the pseudoscientific work “On the name“ Ukraine ”and the origin of the Cossacks” (1801), in which Ukrainians deduced from the ukrov horde he had invented in the VII century because of the Volga.

On the basis of these opuses, a special “Ukrainian” school of Polish writers and scholars appeared who advanced the fictitious concept and laid the ideological foundation on which Ukrainians were created. Then they somehow forgot about the ukrah and remembered them only after more than two hundred years, already at the time of Yushchenko.

Fresh blood in this doctrine poured Pole Francishek Duchinsky. He tried to put his delusional ideas about the “chosenness” of the Polish and kindred “Ukrainian” people into the form of a scientific system, argued that the Russians (Muscovites) were not Slavs, but descended from the Tatars, and were the first to express the opinion that the name “Russia »Stolen by Muscovites from the Ukrainians, who are the only ones entitled to it. Thus was born the still-living legend of the bad Muscovites who kidnapped the name of Rus.

At about the end of the 18th century, an anonymous pseudo-scientific work of ideological orientation “The History of the Ruses” (published in 1846), concocted from conjectures, a cynical falsification of historical facts and permeated with zoological hatred of everything Russian, appears in handwritten form. The main lines of this opus were the initial isolation of the Little Russians from the Great Russians, the separateness of their states and the happy life of the Little Russians in the Commonwealth.

According to the author, the history of Little Russia was made by the grand dukes, and the Cossack chieftains. Little Russia is a Cossack country, the Cossacks are not gangsters from the main road, who are engaged mainly in robbery, robbery and the slave trade, but people of chivalrous dignity. And, finally, the great Cossack state was never conquered by anyone, but only voluntarily on equal footing with others.

Nevertheless, all this nonsense called the “History of the Rus” was well known in the circles of the Russian intelligentsia and made a strong impression on the future Ukrainophiles, Kostomarov and Kulish, and Shevchenko, amazed at the tales of the golden age of the free Cossacks and vile Muscovites, tirelessly drew from it material for their literary works.

This lie-based mixture of historical fiction about the great Cossack past and deep-seated feelings of inferiority became the basis for all subsequent Ukrainian historiography and national ideology of Ukrainians.

Marginal ideas of Ukrainians Pototsky and Chatsky in a somewhat modified form were also supported by some representatives of the South Russian intelligentsia, who founded ethnographic Ukrainophileism.

Ukrainophile Nikolai Kostomarov proposed his concept of the existence of two Russian nationalities - Great Russian and Little Russian, while he did not put into it the meaning of a separate, non-Russian "Ukrainian people". Later, the theorist of Ukrainianism Grushevsky already defended the concept of a separate from the Russian "Ukrainian" people.

Another Ukrainophile, Panteleimon Kulish, offered his simplified spelling system (Kulishovka) in 1856 in the year, which in Austrian Galicia, in addition to Kulish’s will, was used in 1893 to create a polonized Ukrainian language.

To promote the ideas of Ukrainophilism in Kiev, headed by Kostomarov, the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood (1845-1847) is created, which has set itself the task of fighting for the creation of a Slavic federation with democratic institutions. Such an undertaking clearly did not fit into the existing system of power, and soon it was crushed.

Ethnographic Ukrainophilism did not gain widespread acceptance in the mass consciousness, since the Ukrainian intelligentsia existed completely separately from the masses and was boiled in its own juice. What kind of influence on the masses could we talk about, if, for example, the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood included only 12 young intellectuals and former serf Taras Shevchenko who joined them, who worked at the university as an artist, who had lived by that time with the Poles in Vilna and had heard the legends about the "free Ukrainian people."

The “movement” of Ukrainophiles to the people and their attempts to “enlighten” the peasants with the aim of awakening their “Ukrainian identity” among them had no success. The word "Ukrainians", as an ethnonym, has not spread in the intelligentsia or in the peasant environment.

The Poles once again failed to organize the “Ukrainian” national movement for independence. The population of the South-Western region did not support the Polish uprising. After his failure in the 1863 year and the adoption by the Russian government of serious measures against the Polish separatists, Ukrainophilism in Russia almost disappeared, and its center moved to Galician Austria, where many Polish activists of this movement moved.

To be continued ...
Photos used:

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. baudolino
    baudolino 30 July 2018 06: 57
    What is there to analyze? The creation of the "Ukrainian people" is an exceptional merit of the Bolsheviks. Wild Ukrainization of the 20-30s can only be compared with the current situation in Dill.
    1. Jerk
      Jerk 1 August 2018 05: 39
      Grushevsky and Shevchenko didn’t work under the tsar?
      1. Shiva83483
        Shiva83483 4 August 2018 08: 08
        Quote: Jerk
        Grushevsky and Shevchenko didn’t work under the tsar?

        and what? Do you want to say tarasca and waving while the king lived poorly? it was from which cabbage soup they first bought from serfs, trained at the imperial academy of fine arts ... they shaved him into soldiers, oh-oh. and plump with the head of the garrison at the same table, and soldiers instead of themselves put on guard for money, is it normal? poor, persecuted poet, damn it. about miraculously in general a fairy tale-sculpted under the king, removed the king, became a ruler, then he was demolished, choked into exile. Otkel returns to the Union, where he was not only not repressed, but also a boarding house was appointed. oh what rulers were evil, forgave the flawed, and not sent to hard labor ... but it would have been
  2. avia12005
    avia12005 30 July 2018 07: 50
    So what? And conclusions? And the conclusion is the same: instead of a purposeful policy towards the so-called Kremlin. Ukriany, and not only, by the way, hers, there are only hopes like "Hell itself will resolve." To postpone solving this problem for the future is a crime against Russia and the Russians.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 30 July 2018 10: 59
      Quote: avia12005
      : the Kremlin instead of a focused policy on the so-called Ukrians, and not only, by the way, her, there are only hopes such as "Nehai will resolve itself." Putting off the solution to this problem for the future is a crime

      The Kremlin ... If only I!
      But tell me, dear, what to do, what to do ?! what
      What the Kremlin is doing is obviously:
      1. The banderlogy was "hit in the liver" - it was supported by the Donbass, this region no longer gives profit to Ukrainians, only losses, losses and other mischief.
      2. Crimea, despite the screech of the West, is included in the Russian Federation, which, again, significantly weakened the nenko's independent (and its owners) in the military-strategic plan and economically.
      3. Ukraine is buying in the Russian Federation much more than it is selling, the preferential treatment has been canceled and will still be tightened, again a useful zrada. High-tech enterprises have lost their sales market, Russian companies are taking their place, while Ukrainian factories are losing their technology. Good again!
      4. With respect to the simple, so-called “cross-sectional” Ukrainians, there are no draconian measures. Many of them work in Russia, abuse their power and tell counter-propaganda at home.
      5. About the Nord Stream The Turkish stream and their "great benefit" for the Banderstad is unnecessary to speak.
      So, the absence of a “targeted policy” is “not quite what it is,” as V.S. used to say Chernomyrdin.
      Or do you consider the best manifestation of a “targeted policy” to restore order by invading our army (with you personally in the ranks) with casualties in one day as in the year of the so-called ATO, plus the explosion of a neutron bomb over the Verkhovna Rada?
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 30 July 2018 13: 46
        But allow an alternative view of the situation?
        1. It is not Donbass that is supported, but about 1/8 of the Donbass. And 7/8 of Donbass continues to make a profit to the budget of Ukraine. But Russia, which supports 1/8 of the Donbass, suffers losses.
        2. Crimea, when it was included in Russia, significantly weakened the position of the anti-Bandera people in Ukraine itself. Personally, I think that Crimeans abandoned the rest of Russians in Ukraine, were embittered and fled to receive higher Russian social payments. With the departure of Crimea, the number of Russian population in Ukraine has declined sharply, worsening the balance of power at times. So pension reform is a burden for them.
        3. The trade turnover between Russian and Ukrainian business is growing, the abolition of the preferential regime has played the same role with Ukrainian production as the anti-Russian sanctions in Russia. Ukrainian manufactures still find markets, high-tech enterprises, especially those related to arms production, increase production volumes, well and those who, due to the abolition of benefits lost their jobs, are not at all blamed for this ...
        4. There are no questions and objections. Only the "heroes" of the ATO are not satisfied, who are now not allowed to work in Russia. But they are going to Poland.
        5. Well, about the flows, there is a good Ukrainian proverb: “Don’t give me a“ gop! ”Don’t jump yet.“ Until there are none. And end consumers will now always have a lever of pressure in the form of an alternative to gas transportation systems in Ukraine.
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 30 July 2018 15: 41
          Quote: revnagan
          allow an alternative view of the situation?

          Let you not let it! Yes
          Various kinds of fornication and debate can go on forever.
          For example, the specific gravity of Donetsk and Lugansk is how much is 1/8 or 1/2? what
          Or about the development of high-tech industries, for example, Antonov Design Bureau, or Nikolaev (a glorious city, a piece of my life) with its once largest shipyards.
          But ... the question was posed about the "policy of the Kremlin." So what to do, what to do, finally? what
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 2 August 2018 14: 59
            Quote: Alekseev
            Let you not let it!

            Let me try to let you not let me ... laughing
            Quote: Alekseev
            For example, the specific gravity of Donetsk and Lugansk is how much is 1/8 or 1/2?

            Well, it depends on what specific gravity of Donetsk and Lugansk you took for your calculationswink ...
            Quote: Alekseev
            But ... the question was posed about the "policy of the Kremlin." So what to do, what to do, finally?

            You just need to start seeing in Russian people ... people. Citizens. Appreciate them. First in Russia. People around will see it and reach out. As at the dawn of Soviet power, Russia saw people in national minorities. And they reached out to Russia, in which they did not consider them to be people under the tsar. people in their citizens. People. Then armies and invasions will not be needed. People in a neighboring country themselves will want to live like ... people. For now, people are just a resource for the authorities. And in Russia, Russians are also the most powerless, it seems to me ...
      2. avia12005
        avia12005 31 July 2018 06: 12
        All your theses are killed by one "but": what will you do when, through the 2-5 years, Bandera Ukraine will have under a million ideologically sharpened Bandera fighters? In your opinion, the “invasion of the“ Nenko ”of our army (with you personally in the ranks) with the victims in one day as the year of the so-called ATO, plus the explosion of the neutron bomb over the Verkhovna Rada” in 5 years is better than in 2014 or now?
        1. Jerk
          Jerk 1 August 2018 05: 42
          With a saber galloping to jump - the path is just a dead end - it was dill that jumped, which quickly destroyed their own country. And you suggest repeating their mistakes. Oh well.
  3. Curious
    Curious 30 July 2018 08: 14
    The author, paraphrasing a well-known saying, decided to kick out the nonsense. The usefulness of such an event is dubious.
    Evidently Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, born in the Penza province, is a Russian historian, an ordinary professor at Moscow University, an honored professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences on Russian History and Antiquities, chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, secret adviser, unlike the author, did not understand anything in history, because in his "Course on Russian History" he wrote about the initial stage of the formation of Kievan Rus: "The diverse tribe occupying all of this territory became part of the great principality of Kiev or the Russian state. But this Russian state was not yet a state of the Russian people, because this people did not exist yet: by half of the XNUMXth century "only ethnographic elements were ready, from which the Russian nationality would then be developed through a long and difficult process."
    Therefore, the article is from the same category as about the Sumerian roots of Ukrainians, moreover, it was written by a person who has nothing to do with history at all.
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 30 July 2018 11: 43
      Delirium is not the author, but you in a primitive Jesuit attempt to distort.
      In the initial period of the great principality of Kiev, indeed, there was no Russian people yet. Klyuchevsky knows his business. There were tribes: glade, radimichi, krivichi, etc. And there was a ruling tribe (?) Rus, who came to Kiev from Novgorod and conquered Kiev from the Khazars. So in the annals of Nestor. Awareness by all Russian tribes of themselves as a single people happened quite quickly. The West also quickly accepted the Russians as a single people. Austrian Ambassador to Vasily III Herberstein wrote that Russians inhabit state of russia (titles of Ivan III and Vasily III - sovereign of all Russia), the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian and емemaitė, part of the Kingdom of Poland. Herberstein has not heard of any Ukrainians.

      The author knows the topic well. Is that because the topic concerns Russian-Western relations, he did not write that until the time of Catherine II, most of the territory of modern Ukraine (one hundred and twenty years - all) was under the direct rule of the Golden Horde, then the Crimean Khanate, Turkish hordes and Turkey. With corresponding consequences.

      You certainly "have nothing to do with history at all", and you attach your "expert" assessments to a very competent author. Why suddenly such an aplomb? How in Ukraine people scrape the brain.
      1. Curious
        Curious 30 July 2018 13: 23
        I know perfectly well who Apukhtin is, as well as the fact that in history he is nobody and his name is in no way.
        Do you like his article? Yes, for God's sake, people don’t like that. There is a comrade on the site, I don’t remember the nickname, claimed that all the peoples from the Russians came from, even African ones.
        Therefore, I am not going to discuss with you. My comment is for those who have retained the ability to think independently.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 30 July 2018 14: 11
          Who doesn’t know Yuri Mikhailovich Apukhtin, coordinator of the social movement Southeast, an anti-fascist from Kharkov, a political prisoner in Bandera fascist Ukraine, whom the SBU included in exchange for Bandera killers and marauders in the Donbass (moreover, after an unfulfilled decision of the appeals court on release Apukhtina.)
          Naturally, Apukhtin himself and everything he writes actively dislikes the Bandera-fascists and the junta Jesuit propagandists. A characteristic Jesuit device is to attribute "the ability to think independently" only to those who blindly and thoughtlessly believe the Jesuit propagandists, even if these Infoviyskie fighters have been caught lying and juggling. I believe that just the junta prison and the exchange saved Apukhtin from the fate of Oles Buzina.
          1. Curious
            Curious 30 July 2018 14: 38
            You leave your pathos for the guys from Cesor. There is nothing to do except pathos, the main thing is to tear apart a shirt on your chest more strongly.
            For you, the author is an authority as a historian - but for God's sake, as I said, people do not believe in that. For me, he is like a historian - no one, even if instead of this article he wrote that the current Ukrainians are direct descendants of the Atlanteans. The availability of commenting suggests the possibility of free expression of opinions within the framework of the site’s rules.
            You can ask the administration to prohibit the expression of opinions other than the “correct” one and offer yourself as the main determinant of the “correct opinion”. So far, there is no such option - all the best.
          2. Antares
            Antares 30 July 2018 19: 58
            Quote: Nikolai S.
            junta jesuit propagandists

            I have never heard such a thing - the junta propagandist is Jesuit! Something new.
            Quote: Nikolai S.
            I believe that just the junta prison and the exchange saved Apukhtin from the fate of Oles Buzina.

            So it turns out the "junta" saved him from Elder’s fate? winked
            Opinions may be different, but let's not get personal.
            And then they got used to it - they hand over a Ukrainian passport, Navalny’s membership card and a US grant to everyone who has a slightly different opinion from the “right” one
            I do not agree with the article either. The author needed to write an article, he wrote it. He had goals — he tried to follow the goal, not truth / truth or history.
            The author of the Poles are to blame for the fact that the “Russians” became “Ukrainians”. And in that form as "Russian enemies"! What kind of Bandera .. But there are no other Ukrainians ... all Ukrainians that disagree with the policy of the Kremlin-Bandera?
            Russians have the most complaints about Ukrainians. And their name is not that, and territorial claims and in general they are nobody and they don’t have them ... But Mazepa and Bandera are Ukrainian .. And all the others if they are good, they are Russian.
            Well, with such an approach, only write force scenarios ... for such articles will only strengthen the hostility among Ukrainians.
            1. naidas
              naidas 30 July 2018 22: 20
              Quote: Antares
              I do not agree with the article either.

              Well-known facts are very softly described in the article, so read the book by Sergei Shchegolev (Kiev censor).
              "The Ukrainian movement as the modern stage of South Russian separatism" 1912 (reprinted 2004), the Bolsheviks shot the author, the book was banned (although 1937 was published for party members)
              By South Russian separatism, or detachment, we mean attempts to weaken or break the connection between the Little Russian tribe and the Great Russian. By the means by which the separatists strive to achieve their goal, we can distinguish between political separatism (high treason by the hetmans of Vygovsky and Mazepa) and cultural-ethnographic, or Ukrainianophilic (Kostomarov, Kulish)
      2. revnagan
        revnagan 2 August 2018 15: 04
        Quote: Nikolai S.
        was the ruling tribe (?) Rus, who came to Kiev from Novgorod and conquered Kiev from the Khazars.
        And you still laugh at the ukrams who believe that they dug up the Black Sea? Did the Novgorodians conquer Kiev from the Khazars? laughing
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 2 August 2018 16: 13
          This is a well-known place in the annals. But in Ukraine, Svidomo people are able to scrap the brain of people, they do not remember the basic knowledge.PSRL, vol. 2, ed. 2, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 12.
    2. Gopnik
      Gopnik 30 July 2018 13: 24
      And what, specifically, does Klyuchevsky’s phrase contradict the article?
    3. Looking for
      Looking for 1 September 2018 16: 45
      Listen. Wise guy, I’ll read without you. Who is Klyuchevsky and what is he known for.
  4. nivander
    nivander 30 July 2018 09: 52
    directly the history of the Congo of the 18th century. The native African-African elite also imagines herself god-like and equal to the European monarchs, put on lace, wigs, camisoles. She appropriated the titles of barons, counts, dukes, opened the adobe De Sianes academy and .... the golden age began
  5. Boris55
    Boris55 30 July 2018 09: 54
    The significance of Kiev in the life of Russia is greatly exaggerated. The very concept of "Kievan Rus" was introduced into the consciousness of the people during the reign of the Ukrainians - Khrushchev and Brezhnev. It’s time for anyone to dispel this myth ...
    1. Antares
      Antares 30 July 2018 20: 06
      Quote: Boris55
      consciousness of the people during the reign of Ukrainians - Khrushchev

      give the Kursk province lol
      Nikita was born in the territory of the future RSFSR
      1. naidas
        naidas 30 July 2018 22: 23
        why Kursk? Maybe it’s time for you to be more modest, since you’ve left, so take yours (with what you came there), and if you don’t return the gifts, then the Muscovites swore away for you.
  6. wooja
    wooja 30 July 2018 23: 32
    What is it about? Russia has never been united ..., Russia in general is not a country, not a state, but a military ruling elite, the self-name of feudal lords in eastern Europe. A kind of "wild west", They frolic there, the Kuevsky Kaganate, a Khazar trading post, subsequently squeezed from the Khazars, Lithuania (Western Russia is also White Russia), came under Polish influence complicated by militant Catholicism, the territory of modern Ukraine is a place of nomadic tribes of different tribes who later called themselves Cossacks, Poles decided that they could take the Dnieper under their control, but the trade route died, Great lands were unnecessary for the people, the people didn’t settle them, and the Volga is more convenient than the Dnieper than civilized Bulgars and Tatars, and not wild hordes of Catholics, By virtue of the need for Moscow, the whole rabble swore allegiance to the Poles, Poland of those times a conglomerate of Orthodoxy, Uniate and Catholicism. Over time, all this Kodla decided to become legal, Russia is now called the gentry, or, in other words, Field commanders, and as chronicles and genealogies write, read the evil Fomenka, and the flock needs the church ...., the paper will endure everything.
  7. 1970mk
    1970mk 31 July 2018 01: 20
    Immediately "in the forehead" ... There has never been any "Kievan Rus")))) This term was introduced relatively recently and is used by historians to date those years (which period is spoken of). What was "Kievan Rus" was not called)))
    Question .... what does Bandera have to do with it, and what is the hypothetical author talking about? Conclusion - Posted by Brad. I see no reason to read.
    Although))) "The next step of the Poles is the exclusion from the circulation of the concepts" Rus "and" Russian "" ... The author claims that it was then called "Rus"? Were the "Russians"? The people then called Russian? Well, what a crazy topic .... there is no arguing. The pseudo historians got fiction writers.
  8. Weyland
    Weyland 31 July 2018 09: 47
    The authorities of the Commonwealth and the Catholic hierarchs decide, in order to undermine Russian unity, to strike at the main spiritual value of Russia at that time - its Orthodox faith and try to force to impose another faith in the form of the Union of Brest (1596).
    The Orthodox clergy and the common people fiercely oppose it. Having failed to change the faith of the Orthodox people, the Poles inclined Orthodox Christians and the aristocracy to the union, aspiring to join the Polish elite, thus depriving Orthodoxy of material support, and reduced it to the “Khlosh” level.

    Not everything is so simple ... In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the nobility had the right to elect and be elected to the Sejm any religion - and the clergy are only Catholic. So the aristocrats were persuaded to Catholicism mainly by promises of career growth. Unia inspired православные hierarchs who actively wanted to become "people's deputies" (deputies of the Sejm) - Gideon Balaban, Kirill Terletsky and Ipatiy Potey. Interestingly, Balaban later broke up with the Uniates - but Kiev’s Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoz, who branded Gideon as a “traitor of Orthodoxy,” himself passed into the union!