How Little Rus' became Ukraine

180
How Little Rus' became Ukraine


Birth of Little Rus'


There was no “Ukraine” in Ancient Rus'. Historical sources know “Rus”, “Russian land”. After the collapse of the Old Russian state - the stage of feudal fragmentation, Western Russian lands came under the influence and power of Lithuanian, Hungarian and Polish feudal lords. These were the lands of Galicia-Volyn, Turovo-Pinsk, Kyiv, Chernigov-Seversk, Pereyaslavl Rus'.



In the Byzantine Empire, in the church-administrative practice of the 1347th century, two terms were introduced into circulation: “Little and Great Russia (Rus).” The list of dioceses of Great and Little Rus', dated 12, refers to Great Rus' (from Greek Μεγάλη Ῥωσία - Megálē Rhōsía) 6 dioceses that were under the authority of the Kiev Metropolitan, and to Little Rus' (Greek Μικρά Ῥωσ ία – Mikrá Rhōsía) – 1303 dioceses , which since 1 were under the authority of the Galician metropolitan (Galician-Volyn principality), and XNUMX diocese, which was within the sphere of influence of Lithuania.

Prince of Galicia and Volyn Yuri II Boleslav in a letter to the Grand Master of the German Order Dietrich dated October 20, 1335 called himself “dux totius Russiæ Minoris” (“Prince of all Little Rus'”), and he and his predecessors also called themselves “Rex Russiæ” (“King of Rus'”), “Dux totius terræ Russiæ” (“Prince of all Russian land”), “Dux et Dominus Russiæ” (“Prince and Lord of Rus'”).

Ultimately, the names “Great Rus'” and “Little Rus'” reached the official level - the Patriarch of Constantinople established two metropolitanates in 1361: one in “Little Rus'” (“Mikra Russia”), with a center in Novgorod and Galich, the other in “Great Rus'” (“Megale Russia”), with its center in Kiev (formally) and Moscow (actually). The dioceses of the Middle Dnieper region (Kiev region), connected at that time by the unity of church power with North-Eastern Russia, then continued to be considered Great Russia.

The Polish king Casimir the Great (1310−1370) was called “the king of Lyakhia and Little Rus'”, as he extended his power to a significant part of the Galician-Volyn land.

Thus, artificial terms introduced by the Byzantine Greeks gradually passed into the documents of Lithuania, Poland and Rus'.

From Polish and Lithuanian Rus' to the Little Russian province


After the entry of the southern, Western Russian lands with a Russian population (no one had ever heard of the “ancient” Ukrainian-Ukrainians) into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia and Poland, and the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569, the term “Little Russia” began to be used to refer wider area.

Little Russia is beginning to be used to designate the Russian lands of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia (Polish and Lithuanian Rus'). In 1551, the Polish writer Marcin Bielski published the book “Chronicle of the Whole World” in Krakow. In it, he, describing the geographical location of the Russian lands, in particular, distinguishes Little Rus' (Mała Ruś), which is part of Polish Sarmatia, and Great Rus' (Wielka Ruś), which, according to Belsky, is also known as Muscovy. These names also often began to appear in the texts of Orthodox Western Russian publicists.

This division was adopted from Byzantium and Western Europe and began to be officially used in Moscow. Starting from the middle of the 17th century, the name Little Rus' was used in church correspondence between Kyiv and Moscow. At the same time, the previous concepts were also used in Europe: in chronicles and on geographical maps almost until the end of the 17th century, the Galician, Volyn and Dnieper lands were called Rus', Russian Land (Ziemia Ruska) or Red Rus' (Russia Rubra).


"Re-conquest of Rus'." Painting by Jan Matejko (1888). Depicts the foundation stone of the Catholic Cathedral in Lviv by Casimir III

After the Treaty of Pereyaslavl in 1654 (Reunification of Rus': “so that everyone may be one forever”) the Russian Tsar changed his title to “All Great and Little Russia”, to which the addition “White” was added over time. Since that time, the term Little Russia (Little Rus') actively began to spread in government correspondence, chronicles and literature. In particular, it is used by Bohdan Khmelnytsky to designate the territory of the Hetmanate: “...The very capital of Kyiv, as well as these parts of our Little Rus.”

The Kiev, Poltava and Chernigov voivodeships were reunited with the Russian kingdom. Little Russia received broad autonomy under the rule of the Moscow sovereign. To manage the new territories, the Little Russian Order was formed in 1662. In 1667, according to the Truce of Andrusovo, the Hetmanate was divided between Russia and Poland along the actual border of the confrontation - the Dnieper, which emerged during the war. The territory of the Left Bank of the Dnieper was now called Little Russia.

In 1686, according to the “Eternal Peace” between Russia and Poland, Kyiv, Zaporozhye and Little Russia remained under Russian rule. In 1722, instead of the Little Russian Order, the Little Russian Collegium was created. From this period, the name Little Russia was used in conjunction with the concept of Little Russian Ukraine. The very word “Ukraine-Ukraine” meant the outskirts. In the history of Rus'-Russia there were dozens of such “outskirts of Ukraine”. This word had no ethnographic meaning. Just as the Russian people (Rus) lived there during the time of Prince Svyatoslav and Yaroslav the Wise, so they continued to live under Hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky or Mazepa.

After the liquidation of the Hetmanate in 1764, the Little Russian Governorate was created from part of the Left Bank Ukraine with its administrative center in the city of Glukhov. In 1775, the Little Russian and Kiev provinces were united, and the provincial center was moved to Kyiv. In 1781, the Little Russian province was divided into three governorates (provinces) - Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversk and Kiev. In 1796, the Little Russian province was recreated, and Chernigov became the provincial center. After which in 1802 it was divided again into two provinces: Poltava and Chernigov. In 1802, the Little Russian Government General was established as part of these provinces. In 1835, the Kharkov province was annexed to it. The residence of the Governor General was Poltava until 1837, from 1837 it was Kharkov, and was abolished in 1856.

The names Little Russia, Little Russian, Little Russians were used in relation to the entire southwestern region throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. At the same time, part of the intelligentsia came up with a theory about the “Little Russian branch” of a single Russian people. The people were still united - Russian. It’s just that Little Russians, Russians, like Pomors, Russians, Donets, Russians, and earlier Novgorodians, Ryazans, Muscovites, etc. had their own cultural and everyday characteristics. Even their own dialects of the unified Russian language. Moreover, there were several such dialects (languages) in Little Russia.


Nikolay Sergeev. “Apple trees are in bloom. In Little Russia"

Until 1917, the name Little Russia was semi-officially used to collectively designate the Volyn, Kyiv, Podolsk, Kharkov, Poltava and Chernigov provinces. The rest of present-day Ukraine was part of the historical region of Novorossiya, or was part of Austria-Hungary (Galicia, Carpathian Rus').

Thus, until 1917, Little Russia was a historical region of a united Russia-Rus. Russians living on the territory of Little Russia (Little Russians) were part of a single Russian superethnos. “Little Russian or Ukrainian identity”, “ancient history of Ukraine and Ukrainians” were a kind of subculture played by a narrow, marginal group of intelligentsia, supported from abroad.

The “Ukrainians” themselves were invented by the Polish gentlemen (How did Ukraine originate?; Part 2). Then this idea was adopted by the Germans (Austrians and Germans from the Second Reich) and successively all the enemies of the Russian World - the Third Reich, England, the USA and the European Union.


Alexander Kerensky in 1917, with a map with the approximate borders of Little Russia-Ukraine visible in the background. 1917

The phenomenon of Ukraine


Victory in the Civil War (Russian Troubles) Ukrainian nationalists - Petliurists (Who are the Petliurists), Little Russia-Ukraine would remain within the borders of several provinces. Kyiv, Podolsk, Volyn, Poltava and Chernigov. It was these lands that the Central Rada claimed in 1917. The Provisional Government recognized these claims, in essence, over the former possessions of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Without Galicia, which remained under the Poles. Without Crimea, Donbass and the rest of New Russia, which does not want to be under the nationalists.

It was the Bolsheviks who created the large, Soviet Ukraine - the Ukrainian SSR (How the Bolsheviks created Ukraine). They constantly increased it. In truth, the owners of Kyiv since 1991 should not have carried out decommunization; on the contrary, they should have erected monuments to the creators of today’s Ukraine - Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.

Also, the Bolsheviks created “Ukrainians” by directive means, including millions of Little Russians among them. The policy of indigenization led to the “Ukrainization” of management personnel, office work, education, culture, media, etc.

Having won the Civil War, the Bolsheviks decided what the future Soviet Russia would be like. Lenin did not take part in the discussions of 1922; he was ill. The leading role in this dispute was played by “Comrade Koba” (Stalin’s party pseudonym), the People’s Commissar for Nationalities. He was a convinced statist and, as a model of the USSR, promoted the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), into which the rest were to join on the rights of autonomy.

Many ordinary Bolsheviks supported the young and energetic Joseph Vissarionovich. But the local nationalists, Georgian and Ukrainian, spoiled things. They wanted a full-fledged republic, with the right to secede from their Union. The Georgian Central Committee accused Stalin of “Great Russian chauvinism” and resigned in protest. Nikolai Skrypnik, a prominent figure in the Ukrainian Communist Party and Lenin’s personal friend, snitched on Stalin to Ilyich. Through Krupskaya, he gave Lenin a letter about Stalin’s “great power” plans.

As a result, Stalin's plan was buried. And they planted a mine under the USSR from the Ukrainian national republics. It is clear that later Stalin neutralized this bomb as best he could for a while. Moscow began to manage the main affairs - foreign policy, defense, transport, communications, etc.

The Ukrainian SSR was created not on the basis of Little Russia, but by uniting two historical Russian regions, Little Russia and Novorossiya. Kharkov (the capital until 1934) was given Novorossiya - the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic and the Odessa Soviet Republic. Soviet Ukraine received the Kharkov and Yekaterinoslav provinces, the Donetsk industrial and coal region, the industrial areas of the former Don Army and the leading port of the region - Odessa.


Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, 1918

Stalin donated the Ukrainian SSR in 1939–1940. Galicia, Northern Bukovina and part of Bessarabia, in 1945 - Transcarpathian Rus'. In 1954, Khrushchev, to celebrate the big anniversary (the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Little Russia and Russia was being celebrated), handed over Crimea to his Kyiv party comrades. At this time, it had the status of a region within the RSFSR and was populated predominantly by Russians.

In 2022–2024 a certain sobering set in in Moscow. What was previously voiced only by Russian patriots and statesmen began to be said by senior dignitaries. Thus, recently Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said:

“The Russian Empire was created by the labor of dozens of generations of our ancestors, over centuries it was created together with its integral parts - Great Russia, Little Russia and New Russia. And these parts, of course, should return home.”


Ukrainian SSR in 1947
180 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    13 March 2024 05: 08
    The fact that internationalists are to blame for nationalism, and the NKVD and KGB are to blame for the plunder of the country is not surprising. Who else? It’s not for thieves to be responsible for theft..... With us it never happens otherwise.
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 10: 27
      Russia gave lands not only to Ukraine, but also to Armenians, for example. But how they manage these lands, it becomes clear that this was done in vain
      1. +5
        13 March 2024 10: 35
        Russia is an inanimate concept. Which people gave which lands specifically to whom?
        1. +2
          13 March 2024 13: 27
          Quote: tatra
          Russia is an inanimate concept. Which people gave which lands specifically to whom?

          Don’t try to understand Russia at the level of the rules of the Russian language)) Russia is my Motherland, and this concept includes my place of birth, parents, friends, etc. So for me it’s very animated. The Armenians were accepted and resettled by order of Emperor Nicholas II. For Ukraine, everything is indicated in the article.
          1. +3
            13 March 2024 13: 30
            Then what does the Russian Federation have to do with Nicholas II? And in the Russian Federation there is very little left of what is Russian and Russian from what was in the Russian Empire and the USSR. Mainly Russian language and Orthodoxy.
            And there is neither the history nor the culture of centuries-old Russia and the USSR.
            1. 0
              13 March 2024 14: 28
              Quote: tatra
              Then what does the Russian Federation have to do with Nicholas II? And in the Russian Federation there is very little left of what is Russian and Russian from what was in the Russian Empire and the USSR. Mainly Russian language and Orthodoxy.
              And there is neither the history nor the culture of centuries-old Russia and the USSR.

              Are you joking or are you serious about this nonsense?
              1. 0
                13 March 2024 15: 22
                So if this is “nonsense”, then refute it, but there is no need to be rude with great intelligence.
            2. +1
              16 March 2024 22: 50
              "Mainly Russian language and Orthodoxy."
              I studied the history of the Russian language about 10 years ago (to increase my IQ, as they say), not a linguist. I read articles on Wikipedia that were voluminous but interesting. In short, the Bolsheviks even changed the language of the Republic of Ingushetia, removing about 8-10 Greek letters, sounds, used in church books and rare words. We added ours. So we have an alphabet of 33 letters.
              The same thing is with Orthodoxy - books were replaced en masse and the sounds, prayers and pronunciation of old Greek words were corrected in a new way.
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B8_1918_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0
              I read another article with examples of phonetics, what the Before and After sounded like, but I only found this general one.
              Check it out if interested.
        2. +2
          13 March 2024 22: 29
          Quote: tatra
          Russia is an inanimate concept.
          It seems so to you from the outside. This is not just a territory, but a land conquered, cultivated and inherited by our ancestors, who are buried in it, and with which we connect our future. The soul of Russia is in this heritage.
          1. 0
            14 March 2024 07: 23
            Why do I need this stupidity? I asked who gave the lands to the Armenians.
      2. +2
        13 March 2024 16: 14
        They not only distributed land, but also rewrote nationalities in passports! Let's take an option abstracted from Ukraine - Samarkand. The city was inhabited by ethnic Tajiks, who were made Uzbeks almost overnight. Until now, Uzbeks don’t like Samarkand residents!
        1. 0
          16 March 2024 22: 53
          and the ethnic conflict is Kazakh-Kyrgyz.
          the same as Russian-Ukrainians. The Kirghiz were called Kazakhs in the 30s, and now they are strongly at enmity with each other, although in fact they are one people, consisting of 3-5 zhuzes (clans). But they were stupidly separated by a ruler on the map and sowed enmity.
      3. 0
        13 March 2024 22: 15
        Quote: Wend
        it was done in vain
        We bought land with the Chukhonians, but there wasn’t enough.
  2. +5
    13 March 2024 05: 33
    Someone, someone, told about this not long ago in an interview.
  3. +12
    13 March 2024 05: 53
    Again the story that “Ukraine was created by the Bolsheviks.” Kerensky - a Bolshevik? Provisional government - Bolsheviks? But it was they who recognized the existence of Ukraine as an autonomy, and then as a separate national state. During the Civil War and after it, the Bolsheviks already had to deal with the population and its active part, who already considered themselves a separate nation. Thus, the Bolsheviks had only two options left - to destroy Ukraine or to remake the ideological basis of Ukraine. An attempt to destroy the newborn nation would lead to an intensification of hostilities and the acceleration of the formation of an aggressive anti-Russian entity on the border with Russia. Therefore, the course was adopted to transform the bourgeois nation into a proletarian and socialist one.
    1. -2
      13 March 2024 06: 21
      Yuras_Belarus
      Your nickname gives reason to think that you are looking at everything that is happening with the interpretation of history in our neighboring country.
      That’s why you remember Kerensky and the Provisional... And many here, even those who studied in the USSR, believe that the Bolsheviks brought down the Tsar. And period.
      And according to the article: in order to make gifts there must be subjects of donation. This is what the map at the beginning confirms. One blurts out and away we go..."artificially created."
      Thank you for your balanced view.
      1. -1
        13 March 2024 10: 38
        Quote: Plufik
        One blurts out and away we go..."artificially created."

        Within the borders that was the Ukrainian SSR and now Ukraine is, of course, artificially created. This is what is written at the very beginning of the section “The Phenomenon of Ukraine”. AND IT’S ALSO WRITTEN ABOUT THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.
        If Ukrainian nationalists – Petliurists had won the Civil War (Russian Troubles) (Who are the Petliurists), Little Russia-Ukraine would have remained within the borders of several provinces. Kyiv, Podolsk, Volyn, Poltava and Chernigov. It was these lands that the Central Rada claimed in 1917. The provisional government recognized these claims, in essence, over the former possessions of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Without Galicia, which remained under the Poles. Without Crimea, Donbass and the rest of New Russia, which does not want to be under the nationalists.

        Have you completely mastered the article? His outward look...
    2. -1
      13 March 2024 16: 58
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Again the story that “Ukraine was created by the Bolsheviks.” Kerensky - a Bolshevik? Provisional government - Bolsheviks?

      Learn the story.
      Kerensky did not create Ukraine.
      Ukraine was created by those who did not recognize the Provisional Government. And only in Kyiv. Nowhere else and no one else.
    3. 0
      13 March 2024 22: 34
      It’s good to spread bander spoon nonsense here. What is the population with an active part with a separate nation? At that time, a certain part of the intelligentsia was fussing over “Ukrainianism,” while the rest considered themselves Little Russians and Novorussians or had little interest in this issue at all. The Bolsheviks simply had to reckon with the local Bolsheviks, who were also infected with Ukrainianism. In connection with this, the central government had to begin the Ukrainization of the Russian population, which before that did not even know that there was any kind of “Ukrainianism.”
    4. 0
      18 March 2024 11: 46
      I'm surprised at you. I can only advise, as Klyuchevsky used to say, study history.
      Ukraine within the borders of 1991 It was the Bolsheviks who created it.
    5. 0
      April 9 2024 15: 55
      Ukraine was not created by the Bolsheviks. they created the Ukrainian SSR. Without destroying all those sprouts and seeds of Nazism, but only by cultivating them in greenhouse, well-fed conditions
  4. -5
    13 March 2024 05: 55
    Also, the Bolsheviks created “Ukrainians” by directive means
    But what about the ancient Ukrainians, whose history goes back millions of years? In the Skaklyak textbooks they write that when on the territory of modern Moscow there were swamps and frogs croaked, the great Ukrainians lived in whitewashed houses and knew mathematics! wink wink
  5. +3
    13 March 2024 06: 18
    Another attempt to teach Bandera’s followers how they should treat Lenin.....this is already some kind of pathological obstinacy.....
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 06: 28
      Quote: ivan2022
      Another attempt to teach Bandera’s followers how they should treat Lenin...

      Bandera’s followers have a “good” law on decommunization. According to which they remade history textbooks and demolished all the monuments. It would be logical to return the gifts from the communists. But unfortunately, neo-Nazis, after being psychologically zombified by the CIA, lack not only logic, but also an elementary sense of self-preservation.
      1. +4
        13 March 2024 06: 45
        This happens to eccentrics... And Bandera’s people are “not correct” and the whole world needs to be corrected... Otherwise it is “illogical”....

        Or maybe it’s easier to correct your own brains, and not the Banderaites and not the entire world around you? Otherwise, there is also too much in it that is difficult to explain....

        About the “sense of self-preservation” in the patriotic community, which first divides “so as not to feed these and those,” and then “returns the lands” - it’s better not to... It’s better to remain silent, otherwise it looks too much like Chekhov’s “ward number 6”.
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 07: 14
          “Ward No. 6” Judging by the comment, you didn’t even read it. Otherwise, they would have understood that maniac doctors kept normal people in that ward.
          1. -2
            13 March 2024 07: 36
            Quote: Dedrusav
            “Ward No. 6” Judging by the comment, you didn’t even read it. Otherwise, they would have understood that maniac doctors kept normal people in that ward.

            Isn't it the same with us? In your opinion, what kind of people are there in Russia? Chekhov talked about this...

            And if you don’t rush to change the topic, then we must admit the main thing: if something in the world seems contradictory, then you must first find contradictions in your ideas about it, and not childishly point out, like the author of the article, that “this and these are not correct.” This is where maniacs come from.......
            For example, the main thing for you, and first of all, is to point your finger at your opponent that he “didn’t read”, and this... heh.. heh... doesn’t mean anything?
            1. +1
              13 March 2024 08: 10
              “And if you are not in a hurry to change the topic, then you must admit the main thing: if something in the world seems contradictory, then you must first find contradictions in your ideas about it, and not childishly point out, like the author of the article, that “this and these are not correct "This is where maniacs come from."

              You said this very correctly, even wisely, but, alas, to no avail.

              Wise people already understand this, they think like this, but those who are simpler will not understand, and it will not affect them.
              1. 0
                13 March 2024 08: 58
                Quote: S.Z.
                ... simpler, they won’t understand, and it won’t affect them.

                And God be with them.... But the author is a writer!! And not one of those simpler ones. And he needs the “right Banderaites.” Such that they would love Bandera and Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev at the same time.... And you see, they are “not correct”.... and that’s okay, he writes and will continue to write.
                1. +1
                  13 March 2024 10: 29
                  He looks like he's joking.
          2. +1
            13 March 2024 08: 15
            BUT it still became an analogue of crazy people. It turns out that “ward No. 6” declared all honest, sensible people to be “fifth column”.
      2. +3
        13 March 2024 06: 45
        In some countries, they carried out decommunization even without the law - they demolished monuments, renamed cities and streets, and rewrote textbooks...
        1. +6
          13 March 2024 07: 54
          In some countries, decommunization was carried out without a law
          We won’t point fingers.. Uncivilized smile
          1. +1
            19 March 2024 12: 38
            Exactly, let's just nod culturally.
      3. +12
        13 March 2024 08: 10
        Well then, let the enemies of the USSR, who captured the RSFSR, set an example - give other countries “gifts from the communists” - Kaliningrad - to the Germans, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands - to the Japanese.
        1. 0
          April 9 2024 15: 57
          they’ve already given it away anyway... can you give me an example? China Norway...and so on. even South Ossetia and that one... they slaughtered))) they pushed the Japanese with all their might... but they needed everything
  6. +14
    13 March 2024 07: 20
    That's interesting. Someone has ruled the country for more than twenty years. In 2014, his rating went beyond one hundred percent. But obviously Lenin prevented him from removing the national republics in Russia. Or Ukraine is bad, but Tatarstan is different.
    When discussing Ukraine, don’t forget how tokikovs are transported to Russia.
    1. +1
      April 9 2024 16: 01
      how to remove it?) there are new republics and autonomies on the way... Uzbek Tajik... to the existing ones..)) there is no talk of creation here... but rather, for some reason, in spite of we still exist))
  7. +16
    13 March 2024 08: 16
    Putting together an empire from leftovers is like putting together a live pig from minced meat.

    It was and is gone, now in fact there are three peoples speaking three languages ​​and it doesn’t matter what enemies or historical events led to this result.

    If we collect a certain Rus', then what to do with the non-Slavic population of Russia? Why do they need this? They live in the Federation.

    By the way, why do we, Russians, need this? Neither I nor my friends need this.

    The slogan of unification is used by some political forces in order to control the population, it is just a slogan, you should not believe in it.
    1. -8
      13 March 2024 11: 03
      Quote: S.Z.
      It was and is gone, now in fact there are three peoples speaking three languages ​​and it doesn’t matter what enemies or historical events led to this result.

      Thirty years ago, most Ukrainians spoke and thought in Russian, so technically it is not a problem to reformat them “back” using exactly the same methods. The question is not that something has gone somewhere, and the past supposedly cannot be returned in any way, but whether there are/will objective economic factors and subjective expectations of the masses working for unification.
      Quote: S.Z.
      If we collect a certain Rus', then what to do with the non-Slavic population of Russia?

      Rus' initially consisted of Slavs and non-Slavs. Read the original source, The Tale of Bygone Years. It clearly and unambiguously lists the “composition of shareholders”, half of which are not Slavs. So you just need to decide what we are building - some kind of new “Russia for Russians” (at the same time, you need to clearly understand that with such a strategy, sooner or later Russia will remain a stub in the European part), or we continue to build the Power according to the centuries-tested formula - a lot peoples, one nation. Those. all peoples, including Russians, form the only nation acceptable in Russia - at the moment designated as some vague Russians.
      Quote: S.Z.
      By the way, why do we, Russians, need this? Neither I nor my friends need this.

      To have the future that we deserve (both great and prosperous), and not the one that we will get by someone’s mercy/evil will? However, who cares what, everyone chooses for themselves.
      1. +4
        13 March 2024 12: 53
        “Thirty years ago, the majority of Ukrainians spoke and thought in Russian, so technically it’s not a problem to reformat them “back” using exactly the same methods. The question is not that something has gone somewhere, and supposedly there is no way to return the past, but Are there/will there be objective economic factors and subjective expectations of the masses working for unification."

        This is still the case - they still think in Russian. But that doesn't matter.

        “Rus' initially consisted of Slavs and non-Slavs. Read the primary source, the Tale of Bygone Years. It clearly and unambiguously lists the “composition of shareholders”, half of which are not Slavs. So you just need to decide what we are building - some kind of new “Russia for Russians” (at the same time, you need to clearly understand that with such a strategy, sooner or later Russia will remain a remnant in the European part), or we continue to build a Power according to the centuries-tested formula - many peoples, one nation. That is, all peoples, including Russians, form a single acceptable nation in Russia - currently designated as some vague Russians."

        Don't you just like the name? The Russian Federation is a power where there are many peoples, and the concept of “nation” is a redundant concept. That is, it has already been built.

        “To have the future that we deserve (both great and prosperous), and not the one that we will get by someone’s mercy/evil will?”

        We have built a great future many times in the past, and each time we have worked out what we have. We need to build a normal, decent life for the people, well-fed and calm. And don’t let anyone “build” something out of us again.
        1. -3
          13 March 2024 15: 25
          Quote: S.Z.
          Don't you just like the name?

          And here the name is, I’m talking about a clear understanding of what strengthens the Power and what destroys it. Some amorphous Russians, without a clear ideological content, do not strengthen anything, but create meaningless noise in the country’s information field, blur and deprive key things of meaning. After this, those strange thoughts that you broadcast appear:
          In the past, we have built a great future many times, and each time we have worked out what we have. We need to build a normal, decent life for the people, well-fed and calm. And don’t let anyone “build” something out of us again

          I don’t know how it is possible not to see the obvious - all those countries where they now live well-fed and calmly, have been doing exactly that for centuries: building their great future, through creating a nation from independent villages, through creating an advantage over others, through blood, through sweat. Why Russia didn’t do as well, but turned out only satisfactorily, is a long conversation (perhaps because we paid with our sweat and blood, and they with strangers?). But there is one way, there is no other.
          1. +1
            13 March 2024 17: 15
            “And here the name is, I’m talking about a clear understanding of what strengthens the Power and what destroys it. Some amorphous Russians, without a clear ideological content, do not strengthen anything, but create meaningless noise in the country’s information field, blur and deprive key things of meaning.”
            Well, call us non-amorphous Russians - we will still remain Russians :)

            “I don’t know how it is possible not to see the obvious - all those countries where they now live well-fed and calmly, have been doing exactly that for centuries: building their great future, through creating a nation from independent villages, through creating an advantage over others, through blood, through sweat. Why Russia didn’t work out as well, but only turned out satisfactorily, this is a long conversation (perhaps because we paid with our sweat and blood, and they with strangers?). But there is one way, there is no other."

            Let's say Sweden lives calmly, but it cannot be called great. The same applies to Germany, Great Britain or France and Spain.

            What is wrong with us? We shed just as much sweat and blood, if not more. Our stories, if we start from the 18th century, are very similar.

            We live poorer - that’s the only negative. But let's see, we ourselves refuse to go down the same path, and we refused quite recently, 20 years ago we walked the same way and achieved almost the same results, but here we go again - stop and go back completely. Of course, with modern politics, we will again be thrown back in our development and our grandchildren will ask - why do we not live like this?
            1. +2
              13 March 2024 19: 35
              Quote: S.Z.
              Let's say Sweden lives calmly, but it cannot be called great. The same applies to Germany, Great Britain or France and Spain.

              Swedes are not ambitious, are you serious? Who built the whole of Europe under Peter the Great? Or maybe the Swiss are pastoral sheep? Do you remember who guards the Vatican, and why they were given such a great honor?
              I don't understand your specific logic! You yourself list exactly those same former superpowers, those same mega-ambitious countries that achieved everything precisely thanks to the exertion of all their strength, without sparing not only strangers, but first of all their own people! How many peasants were literally destroyed in England for the sake of the fabulously profitable textile industry? How many poor fellows were captured in lawless taverns for the sake of the fleet and world domination? How many died in India, in Afghanistan? How many died in the world wars? Why do you ignore the real experience of success and hover in some kind of utopia, that there is no need to build us, let’s do everything at once for the sake of people... This doesn’t work, first strain, sacrifice, and only then will you get something.
              1. +2
                14 March 2024 08: 19
                “You yourself are listing exactly those same former superpowers, those same mega-ambitious countries that achieved everything precisely thanks to the exertion of all forces, not sparing not only strangers, but first of all their own people! How many peasants were literally destroyed in England for the sake of a fabulously profitable textile industry? How many poor fellows were captured by lawlessness in taverns for the sake of the fleet and world domination? How many perished in India, in Afghanistan? How many perished in world wars? Why do you ignore the real experience of success and hover in some kind of utopia, which is not necessary Let's build us all at once for the sake of the people."

                We have already passed this stage - and they have passed. All these countries are reaping the benefits of their past - just like we are too. These countries were great - and they had enough. That's enough for us. We have everything for our people to live with dignity and wealth. Our ancestors took over vast territories containing innumerable resources. What else do we have to conquer? And for what?

                And at the same time, we are clearly behind in technology. So why are we again trying to grab something else, if the main thing we lack is knowledge and skills? We must win the competition, then there will be prosperity. Military victories will not bring prosperity.

                Sales markets cannot be captured by war, then time is over - we simply have nothing to trade with except raw materials. Why continue to sacrifice?

                And recent history tells simple things. We sacrificed everything for the sake of communism - and it didn’t work out. We suffered hardships while building democracy - and with the same result. Now we are called (often by the same people) to build something great, since communism and democracy did not work out.

                And who will believe it?
              2. -1
                17 March 2024 13: 10
                Did I understand your idea correctly that the Swedes built the whole of Europe?
                1. -1
                  18 March 2024 08: 38
                  It’s really impossible to exaggerate a little. Not all of Europe, but all of northern Europe. Specifically, it was no less than the northern analogue of Germany in the mid-twentieth century, it captured everyone, whoever it didn’t capture, it drove them into deep defense (Denmark), and practically achieved its strategic goal - to make the Baltic its inland sea. Namely, it took control of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and wrested Ladoga from the Russian kingdom. The truth was that they couldn’t hold on to the majority; the music didn’t play for long, but much longer than in the Third Reich. The ambitions were certainly not for world domination, but who knows, appetite comes with eating, if the Russian kingdom had been weak at that time, and who would rule the world now...
                2. 0
                  April 9 2024 16: 10
                  and destroyed, and built, and bent) and they were bent) so now everything is in order) they only got into Nat for some reason to their grief)
        2. -1
          17 March 2024 13: 09
          Rus' initially consisted of Slavs and non-Slavs. Read the original source, The Tale of Bygone Years
          I would like to see this quote from PVL from you, otherwise I can advise you to re-read it.
          1. 0
            18 March 2024 08: 02
            Here is a specific listing of all the peoples of that region:
            In the year 6367. The Varangians from overseas collected tribute from the Chud, and from the Slovenes, and from the Meri, and from the Krivichi. And the Khazars took from the glades, and from the northerners, and from the Vyatichi, a silver coin and a squirrel from the smoke.

            Here is a list of peoples who called Rus' to their lands, which is where Rus' actually came from:
            In the year 6370. They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation arose, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, just like these. The Chud, the Slovenians, the Krivichi and all said to the Russians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."

            As you can see, Rus' was founded by two Finno-Ugric peoples (Chud, Ves), two Slavic peoples (Slovenians, Krivichi), and one ancient Germanic, aka Scandinavian, which quite logically follows even from this fragment. Not to mention the other massif discovered by historians to date.
            1. 0
              18 March 2024 19: 40
              Our land is large and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. - here is the exact quote.
              About “order” - these are the fantasies of the Normanists.
  8. +11
    13 March 2024 08: 21
    In the anti-Soviet period, two types of zombies appeared - zombies of anti-Soviet-Russophobic puppeteers, and zombies of the anti-Soviet government, and these zombies rush to hate whomever their puppeteers and the authorities point out to them, and to adore and praise those whom they are pointed at, including Nicholas II and Bandera.
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 08: 51
      During the anti-Soviet period, two types of zombies appeared - zombies of anti-Soviet-Russophobic puppeteers, and zombies of anti-Soviet authorities

      As far as I know, the “true” teaching of Marx-Lenin denies the existence of zombies
      1. +5
        13 March 2024 09: 56
        Marx-Lenin's teaching denies the existence of zombies

        It’s just that neither Marx nor Lenin, fortunately, had anything to do with the current population... And also, they couldn’t even imagine the terrifying power of modern media in brainwashing. Well, what was there in their times besides newspapers and leaflets?

        In general, it’s extremely interesting how Ilyich could use the Internet... what And he definitely could, and he could do it well, because no matter how you treat him, it’s simply stupid to deny his genius.. bully
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 09: 57
          Well, what was there in their times besides newspapers and leaflets?

          Circus and cinema!
          1. +6
            13 March 2024 09: 58
            Well, we have a continuous circus all over the planet... And clowns are in power... With extremely rare exceptions. Alas, we are not included in this number.
            1. +2
              13 March 2024 10: 00
              there's a circus all over the planet

              A cruel and evil circus, it should be noted...
              1. 0
                13 March 2024 10: 04
                Alas... He’s also extremely thieving and extremely clueless.. And clowns don’t amuse, but on the contrary, they drive you into depression with their mere appearance. And as soon as they open their mouths, turn out the lights...

                The last true white clown, at least in our politics, was the late Zhirinovsky, may he rest in heaven... And only now are you beginning to understand how badly we miss him...
        2. +8
          13 March 2024 10: 06
          Yes, if the Soviet communists had propaganda, then their enemies who captured the USSR had powerful, aggressive PROPAGANDA, to which people with low intelligence, unable to think independently and analyze incoming information, easily succumb. So, the perestroika workers told them that before the communists, “Russia fed the whole world,” and they still believe it.
          1. 0
            17 March 2024 15: 19
            The Soviet communists had an ideology that was promoted. There is no ideology - no propaganda.
      2. man
        +3
        13 March 2024 14: 58
        Quote: Vladimir80
        During the anti-Soviet period, two types of zombies appeared - zombies of anti-Soviet-Russophobic puppeteers, and zombies of anti-Soviet authorities

        As far as I know, the “true” teaching of Marx-Lenin denies the existence of zombies

        The teachings of Marx-Lenin deny the existence of many people, psychics, astrologers, sorcerers and other evil spirits. And yet they exist and they exist quite well, including on the first channel! Because "the sleep of reason gives birth to monsters"
  9. +10
    13 March 2024 08: 50
    There was no “Ukraine” in Ancient Rus'

    Another tub of historical delirium. What is the author trying to prove by saying that once “there was no “Ukraine”? During the period of Ancient Rus' (IX - XII centuries) there was not only no “Ukraine”, then there were no most modern states. In North and South America, the first modern the state appeared generally at the end of the 18th century. And in Europe there was no Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium... Even such a well-known state today as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland appeared on the political map in the 19th century.
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 09: 28
      The author somehow did not realize that Bandera’s supporters do not need Ukraine in itself. And he really considers them true Ukrainians. Therefore, for him, everyone who developed Ukraine is one bad team.
    2. +7
      13 March 2024 10: 11
      Another tub of historical delirium.

      At the newly founded Ivan Ilyin Higher Political School, the author is welcomed with open arms.
      1. +3
        13 March 2024 10: 52
        Why, Nazism sticks out of every hole here.... If the author believes that “Bandera’s people should be grateful to the communists,” then he believes that they have the same goals - the creation of a strong Ukraine.

        And this already means equating ideologies and recognizing Nazism as a political path to the prosperity of the nation.

        They write and don’t understand that in a good way they should be reported to the right place. One thing that bothers me is that they are sitting exactly where they should be.
      2. +8
        13 March 2024 10: 59
        The author has a whole bunch of topics: How White Rus' became Belarus, how Caucasian Rus' became Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, how Asian Rus' became Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan. How the Baltic Slavs became Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, etc. . smile
    3. -3
      13 March 2024 10: 52
      Quote: Dekabrist
      Another tub of historical delirium. What is the author trying to prove by saying that once upon a time there was “no “Ukraine”?

      After all, this is just a historical summary, information. And it prompts reflection on the fact that HISTORICALLY we are one people, with a common history and culture. And it is also worth considering the fact that this entity called Ukraine has never had independence, hence the complexes (VNA, Darzhavna Mova, non-brothers, etc., etc.), hence the shifting of responsibility, hence the exposure influence from ANY side, even destructive, and in spite of the parent/elder brother. In general, all the delights of childhood and adolescence of an immature psyche.
      Maybe the article is about this after all?
      1. +4
        13 March 2024 11: 01
        Firstly, those who captured the USSR during their Perestroika proved that they hate both the USSR and the centuries-old Russian State, and secondly, they not only captured the USSR, but also divided it among themselves, because they also hate each other . Just as they started wars against the Soviet people under Soviet power, so after they captured and dismembered the USSR, they began to start wars among themselves.
      2. +9
        13 March 2024 11: 08
        HISTORICALLY we are one people, with a common history and culture.

        The division of one people into several does not in any way contradict historicity.
        This entity called Ukraine has never had independence

        Any state has no independence until its founding
        and to spite the parent/elder brother

        Since you love historicity and comparisons with family, then historically responsibility for the mistakes of younger children was placed... on older children - they didn’t keep track, didn’t save, etc.
        hence the complexes

        And the mantra “there are no Ukrainians, they were invented, they are the wrong Russians, Ukraine never existed” - isn’t this a complex?
        1. -3
          13 March 2024 11: 18
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          The division of one people into several does not in any way contradict historicity.

          Does the enmity of these peoples contradict logic?
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Any state has no independence until its founding

          But not everyone has complexes and reflection.
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Since you love historicity and comparisons with family, then historically responsibility for the mistakes of younger children was placed... on older children - they didn’t keep track, didn’t save, etc.

          Thanks, Cap. There are certainly many questions for our rulers here.
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          And the mantra “there are no Ukrainians, they were invented, they are the wrong Russians, Ukraine never existed” - isn’t this a complex?

          No. This is a statement of fact. And this statement does not appear out of the blue, but precisely in response and as a counterbalance to the nonsense that Kiev is an original Ukrainian city, Rus' was baptized by the great Ukrainian and even the Gagarin was sent into space by the Ukrainian Korolev. And largely because our authorities allowed radical Ukrainization in Ukraine to take its course, we now have a bloody conflict. As you put it correctly, the elder didn’t notice. So.
          So then, after the SVO, we will somehow need to live on, and in order for that future to be NORMAL and not hostile, we need to raise the questions voiced by the author. Well, I think so.
          1. +5
            13 March 2024 11: 35
            Does the enmity of these peoples contradict logic?

            Enmity between peoples does not contradict the fact that peoples are different.
            But not everyone has complexes and reflection.

            There seemed to be a question about “there was never independence.”
            Thanks, Cap.

            Strange. After all, above you accuse Ukrainians of what you should be blaming yourself for.
            Quote: Zoer
            hence the shifting of responsibility

            This is a statement of fact.

            That is, you are saying that
            1) There are no Ukrainians
            2) Ukrainians were invented
            3) These are the wrong Russians
            4) Ukraine never existed
            ?
            Doesn’t it bother you that at least points 1 and 2, for example, contradict each other? feel
            1. -6
              13 March 2024 11: 53
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              Strange. After all, above you accuse Ukrainians of what you should be blaming yourself for.

              There is never only one party to blame. The Ukrainian authorities should also have brains. But...
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              1) There are no Ukrainians

              You cleverly turned it out))) There was no Ukraine as a state before 1991 within the borders that it is now, and there was no republic before the USSR, within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR. Who exactly the Ukrainians are, and when they appeared, is generally an interesting question. The same B. Khmelnitsky did not consider himself a Ukrainian.

              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              2) Ukrainians were invented
              3) These are the wrong Russians
              4) Ukraine never existed

              2. Yes.
              3. Yes. Listen to their language and look. Completely distorted Russian words.
              4. Until a certain period, yes. Just like the Russians or the British.
              1. +4
                13 March 2024 12: 11
                There is never only one party to blame.

                Show me where in your first message
                Quote: Zoer
                hence the complexes (VNA, Darzhavna Mova, non-brothers, etc., etc.), hence the shifting of responsibility, hence the susceptibility to influence from ANY, even destructive side, and to spite the parent/elder brother. In general, all the delights of children and teenagers who have not strengthened their psyche.

                can we see about both guilty parties, and not just one?
                You pulled it off cleverly)))

                I? This list was presented two more messages earlier and it was to this that you responded.
                Quote: Zoer
                No. This is a statement of fact.

                2. Yes.
                3. Yes. Listen to their language and look. Completely distorted Russian words.
                4. Until a certain period, yes. Just like the Russians or the British.

                2. How do you imagine the process of inventing? It is impossible to invent people.
                3. Oh, it turns out they are incorrect because of the language. How wonderful, we are rolling lower and lower. Do you know Ukrainian? Or maybe you are a linguist?
                4. Then how can this be a claim if this is the norm for all states?
                1. -1
                  13 March 2024 12: 26
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  can we see about both guilty parties, and not just one?

                  Should they have seen it if I didn’t write about it? Now we are not talking about the rulers of the Russian Federation, but about the author’s article.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  2. How do you imagine the process of inventing? It is impossible to invent people.

                  Elementary. You live in Kukuevo, in troubled times interventionists come and explain that you are not Russian, but Kukuevo, because, far from the tsar, Russians are not at all like you, they are much worse, and you are better. Don’t you see anything like this in Ukraine now? How do they come up with ancient Ukrov, ancient Ukraine? and ancient Ukrainian princes - Vladimir, Yaroslav, etc. and so on.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Well, it turns out they are incorrect because of the language. How wonderful, we are rolling lower and lower. Do you know Ukrainian? Or maybe you are a linguist?

                  You're twisting everything again. They are not incorrect, but the language is a parody of Russian. Well, okay, they like to make a face at the source code, so they also began to impose this on all dissenters, and with brute force, incl.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  4. Then how can this be a claim if this is the norm for all states?

                  Claims to their hatred and physical oppression of everyone who wants to speak undistorted Russian. Don't tell me that these are Kremlin fantasies. I saw this myself, back in the late 80s.
                  1. +1
                    13 March 2024 13: 09
                    Should they have seen it if I didn’t write about it?

                    Naturally I should have seen it if you were sincere. And then on the one hand, to the phrase “historically the eldest in the family was responsible for the younger ones,” the answer is “both are to blame.” And on the other hand, you have texts where only one side is to blame, with claims not against “both”, but only against one side.
                    Elementary. You live in Kukuevo, in troubled times interventionists come and explain that you are not Russian, but a Kukuevo

                    Little catch. Before the troubled times and interventionists, under the tsars, they had already distinguished a people separate from the Great Russians. Have the interventionists already reinvented something existing?
                    You're twisting everything again. They are not incorrect, but the language is a parody of Russian.

                    I? Or is it not you the phrase "this is wrong Russians commented with the words "Yes. Their language listen"
                    I have to repeat the questions. Do you know Ukrainian? Or maybe you are a linguist?
                    Claims to their hatred and physical oppression of everyone who wants to speak the undistorted Russian language.

                    And you don’t see any connection with their desire to impose their language in your denial of this language, labeling it “inferior”? But many people should think about the fact that nationalism cannot be defeated by other nationalism. Just feed it.
                    1. -4
                      13 March 2024 13: 36
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Naturally I should have seen it if you were sincere. And then on the one hand, to the phrase “historically the eldest in the family was responsible for the younger ones,” the answer is “both are to blame.” And on the other hand, you have texts where only one side is to blame, with claims not against “both”, but only against one side.

                      Carefully re-read everything in chronological order, and it will become clear that we are discussing this article and Ukraine. When the conversation turned to some incomprehensible tack about us, I sincerely replied that it was also the fault of our temporary workers.
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Little catch. Before the troubled times and interventionists, under the tsars, they had already distinguished a people separate from the Great Russians. Have the interventionists already reinvented something existing?

                      There's no problem. Firstly, no one was singled out as a separate nation, but certain preferences and freedoms were given to subjects living in certain regions and territories. Division by nationality Apparently, this is precisely an attempt on the part of the people to divide them.
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      I have to repeat the questions. Do you know Ukrainian? Or maybe you are a linguist?

                      I'm not a linguist, but I know their language. It is a parody and distortion of Russian.
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      And you don’t see any connection with their desire to impose their language in your denial of this language, labeling it “inferior”? But many people should think about the fact that nationalism cannot be defeated by other nationalism. Just feed it.

                      Talking nonsense again! No one forbade them from distorting them or imposed other languages, even under the USSR, and even on the contrary, they supported and developed them in every possible way. Why do you think elements of the Ukrainian language and culture are so widespread in the south of the RSFSR? Yes, precisely from the conscious policy of Ukrainization of those territories that never even had anything to do with the Zaporozhye Sich. But for some reason, the Svidomo horses decided in 2014 that all nations, from the Polish to the Russian border in Ukraine, should talk only in the sovereign language. This is hatred towards all dissidents, and above all towards Russian-speaking people. And this was not done by a large group of Nazis under external control. And this is precisely their fault. It is the fault of our governments that they overlooked all this and allowed it to happen.
                      1. +1
                        13 March 2024 14: 08
                        and it will become clear that we are discussing this article and Ukraine

                        I am discussing YOUR theses with which you justify the article.
                        Firstly, no one was singled out as any separate nation

                        Lord, I don’t know when I’ll have to write about the work of the Imperial Academy of Sciences “Ethnographic Description of the Peoples of Russia” under the patronage of Emperor Alexander 2.
                        Such scoundrels, they even used the word “Ukrainians” to name the people along with “Little Russians”.
                        I'm not a linguist, but I know their language. It is a parody and distortion of Russian.

                        Linguists do not agree with you. By the way, Russian nationalists are struck by the fact that the Ukrainian language has retained more from its ancestor than Russian. The consequences of the “Selyukov veal language”, in the language of nationalists, are that the lack of statehood, urbanization and the “window to Europe” changed the ancestral language less. Why do you think that you know Ukrainian? Have you studied it? Were you born into a Ukrainian-speaking family in a Ukrainian-speaking region?
                        Talking nonsense again! No one forbade them from distorting them or imposed other languages, even under the USSR

                        1) This is not about the USSR, this is about the Russian Federation.
                        2) This is not about prohibition, but about “denying this language, labeling it “inferior”
                        But for some reason, the Svidomo horses decided in 2014 that all nations, from the Polish to the Russian border in Ukraine, should talk only in the sovereign language.

                        This is not true. In 2014, there was talk about only one state language in administrative and public institutions and institutions by employees. And as if in 2014, we gave them a formal reason for such actions.
                      2. -2
                        13 March 2024 14: 26
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I am discussing YOUR theses with which you justify the article.

                        So my theses initially were only about this article. What are the contradictions?

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Such scoundrels, they even used the word “Ukrainians” to name the people along with “Little Russians”.

                        This again is not a selection of a SEPARATE people. Is this like Muscovites - the identification of a separate people in your opinion? Well, yes, these dissidents divided them into Ukrainians, and the subhumans in the east into Muscovites. That's right. But historically, Russians living in those lands defined themselves as Little Russians and Novorossians.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Linguists do not agree with you.

                        Depends on what. Modern in Kyiv, of course))) The rest just agree.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The consequences of the “Selyukov veal language”, in the language of nationalists, are that the lack of statehood, urbanization and the “window to Europe” changed the ancestral language less.

                        Yes, yes, that’s why they don’t even have many analogues for Russian words in their speech)))) For example, a sexual maniac is a evil pussy. laughing
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Have you studied it? Were you born into a Ukrainian-speaking family in a Ukrainian-speaking region?

                        I was born in Leningrad. My father is from central Ukraine and was a native speaker, so to speak. And I spoke it freely every summer THERE, until I was 14 years old. Therefore, I know perfectly well that there has never been ANY oppression of the Ukrainian language anywhere, but the oppression of the Russian language west of Kyiv was in full swing, even at the end of the 80s.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) This is not about the USSR, this is about the Russian Federation.
                        2) This is not about prohibition, but about “denying this language, labeling it “inferior”

                        This is a statement of fact. It is nothing other than a dialect of the Russian language.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        This is not true. In 2014, there was talk about only one state language in administrative and public institutions and institutions by employees.

                        This is HOW true. I have already written above about the oppression of Russian speakers in Western Ukraine. Since 2014, they have already tried to make the entire south-east of Ukraine inferior at the legislative level, which is why they got angry.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And as if in 2014, we gave them a formal reason for such actions.

                        Well, the substitution and manipulation of facts has begun.
                        Remind me what happened first. Russophobic Euromaidan and the language law, or referendums in Crimea and Donbass?
                      3. +2
                        13 March 2024 17: 06
                        What are the contradictions?

                        Then why the complaint “When the conversation turned in some incomprehensible tack about us”?
                        This again is not a selection of a SEPARATE people. Is this like Muscovites - the identification of a separate people in your opinion?

                        Perhaps you didn’t understand the first time - a work about the PEOPLES of the Russian Empire. There are NO “Muscovites” people in it, but there are “Little Russians (Ukrainians)” people.
                        Well, yes, these dissidents divided them into Ukrainians, and the subhumans in the east into Muscovites. That's right.

                        What dissociators? Ethnographers of the Russian Geographical Society? In 1862?
                        But historically, Russians living in those lands defined themselves as Little Russians and Novorossians.

                        Oh, how, it turns out that in the Russian Empire there was an ethnonym “Novoross”. Alternative history is moving into the category of non-science fiction.
                        The rest just agree.

                        This is not true.
                        Read volume 13 of the publication Institute of Linguistics RAS "Languages ​​of the world" and don't be like cave nationalists.
                        Yes, yes, that’s why they don’t even have many analogues for Russian words in their speech)))) For example, a sexual maniac -

                        wassat
                        1) One nuance - sexual maniac - words borrowed in Russian from English.
                        2) Open the Russian-Ukrainian dictionary and make sure that the translation is “sexual maniac”. In accordance with the rules for borrowing foreign words.
                        I was born in Leningrad. My father is from central Ukraine and was a native speaker, so to speak. And I spoke it freely every summer, until I was 14 years old.

                        You confirmed that you do not know the Ukrainian language.
                        This is a statement of fact. It is nothing other than a dialect of the Russian language.

                        Again. Read volume 13 of the publication Institute of Linguistics RAS "Languages ​​of the world" and don't be like cave nationalists.
                        This is HOW true.

                        Yeah, the same as with the translation of “sexual maniac”
                        Well, the substitution and manipulation of facts has begun.
                        Remind me what happened first. Russophobic Euromaidan and the language law, or referendums in Crimea and Donbass?

                        Referendums in 2014, a language law establishing Ukrainian as the only state language in 2019. There are no laws prohibiting the Russian language in general (your “all peoples, from the Polish to the Russian border in Ukraine should speak only in the sovereign language”).
                      4. -3
                        13 March 2024 17: 56
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        What dissociators? Ethnographers of the Russian Geographical Society? In 1862?

                        No ethnographers. Do not lie.
                        Album compiler G. Pauli. - a person born in Germany and who lived all his life in St. Petersburg and never left it further than Gatchina. He worked as a teacher at school. Amateur in ethnography. Not a scientist at all.
                      5. +1
                        14 March 2024 12: 12
                        No ethnographers. Do not lie.

                        You are a Wikipedia victim (at best)
                        Now, already in the 21st century, the Russian Geographical Society puts the result of Pauli’s work on a par with the ethnographic merits of Semenov-Tyan-Shansky.
                        You don't know that Pauli, Ritter, Schott, Köppen, Baer, ​​Erkert, Lerch and others who took part in the appearance of this album are ethnographers.
                        You don’t even understand what a compiler is.
                        You don’t know that the album was published in 1862 simply because they decided to coincide with the holiday and make it available to everyone. Despite the fact that it was presented to the emperor back in 1857. Because two years earlier, Alexander, having become emperor, himself wanted to have an idea about the people he inherited. After all, before this there was not a single review work summarizing the previously accumulated ethnographic material. And the authors were awarded personally by the emperor.
                        Here's what his "work" says:

                        1) If you bothered to read similar works of ethnographers of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, you would see that this is the usual style of that time.
                        2) Somewhere you copied a paragraph for each of the three branches of a once united people, and the site where you copied, in turn, tore them out description, which takes up 92 pages of small print. A favorite technique of manipulators is to tear something out of context and wave it around with foam at the mouth.
                        but linguists have not come to a common opinion.

                        Read volume 13 of the publication of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Languages ​​of the World" and do not be like the cave nationalists.
                        PS
                        After you have
                        1) without a caliper it is impossible to understand that the M10 bolt will not fit the M8 nut
                        2) 12 dollars is more than 35 dollars
                        3) ... etc.
                        I see no point in discussing with you

                        All the best
                      6. 0
                        14 March 2024 13: 23
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Now, already in the 21st century, the Russian Geographical Society puts the result of Pauli’s work on a par with the ethnographic merits of Semenov-Tyan-Shansky.

                        I'm not surprised. Who has headed the Russian Geographical Society since 2009? Great scientist Shoigu. For him (as well as for you), a German language teacher in an orphanage can become a luminary of ethnographic science. And the album with pictures for the big date is a scientific tome.
                      7. 0
                        14 March 2024 14: 09
                        Who has headed the Russian Geographical Society since 2009? Great scientist Shoigu

                        Again you are starting to talk about something you have no idea about.
                        The “leaders” of the Russian Geographical Society in the Russian Empire were the Grand Dukes - Konstantin Nikolaevich and Nikolai Mikhailovich. Never scientists. The actual scientific activity is determined by the scientific council, which is administered by the vice-chairman.
                        For him (as well as for you), a German language teacher in an orphanage can become a luminary of ethnographic science.

                        The world is imperfect. Non-prestigious episodes in a biography are not a sign of mediocrity. Einstein also had to work for a time as a mathematics teacher in an elementary school to make ends meet.
                        And the album with pictures for the big date is a scientific tome.

                        Calling a work on ethnography on four hundred sheets, where illustrations take up 1/8 of the part, a “picture album” is disrespect for one’s own history.
                      8. -1
                        13 March 2024 20: 29
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        There are NO “Muscovites” people, but there are “Little Russians (Ukrainians)” people.

                        More details here please. By what magic did the Little Russians become Ukrainians? There are no Ukrainian people, just as there are no Muscovites. This is a sign of where you live. Muscovites are in Moscow, Ukrainians are on the edge. And the Ukrainians created the nation artificially, just like the Russian-Polish dialect.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) One nuance - sexual maniac - words borrowed in Russian from English.

                        Any living language develops and borrows words from other languages. The Ukrainian language was generally created from Russian, distorted and mixed with Polish. How do you say KOT in Ukrainian? - KIT))). What about the whale, the one in the ocean? Also a whale!!! laughing

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You confirmed that you do not know the Ukrainian language.

                        Well, then in the central regions of Ukraine they don’t know him either. But they seem to know only in the Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. And that’s only because first they were under the Austrians, then under the Poles. That's right. Another confirmation of the artificiality of both the people and the language.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Referendums in 2014, a language law establishing Ukrainian as the only state language in 2019. There are no laws prohibiting the Russian language in general (your “all peoples, from the Polish to the Russian border in Ukraine should speak only in the sovereign language”).

                        Yes Yes. Certainly. In 2012, a law on regional languages ​​was adopted, which gave state status to several languages ​​in Ukraine. The first thing the Maidan authorities did in February 2014 was to repeal this law and proclaim Ukrainian as the only language. This provoked referendums in Donbass and Crimea.
                        And you will also argue that we have cave nationalism. But for some reason you don’t notice the outright ultra-nationalism there. Well, yes, that’s understandable.
                      9. +3
                        14 March 2024 11: 04
                        More details here please. By what magic did the Little Russians become Ukrainians? There are no Ukrainian people. This is a sign of where you live.

                        1) This is the same as saying that there is no word “tomato”, there is only the word “tomato”.
                        2) If we use the perverted logic of nationalists, then, for example, there are no Japanese people either, but there are only Yamato, Ryuku and Ainu. Or not, for example, Venezuelans. And so on with dozens of nations. There are these peoples for the whole world. But nationalists live in their own universe.
                        Any living language develops and borrows words from other languages.

                        I just know this. You don’t know or understand this, since you give an example Russian words "sexual maniac"
                        The Ukrainian language was generally created from Russian, distorted and mixed with Polish. How do you say KOT in Ukrainian? - KIT))). What about the whale, the one in the ocean? Also a whale!!!

                        1) Read volume 13 of the publication of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Languages ​​of the World” and do not be like the cave nationalists.
                        2) You didn’t even understand that Bulgakov, in this passage with the cat and the whale, ridiculed nationalism and showed its inferiority.
                        3) The whale in the ocean is “kyt” in Ukrainian. After your “example”, it’s generally funny to hear about how you spoke fluent Ukrainian every summer until you were 14 years old.
                        4) In the Ukrainian language there are only a few percent more words borrowed from Polish than in Russian. In the Russian language, among words borrowed from other languages, Polonisms occupy first place - 60%. Most ordinary people do not even suspect that many words that they consider “originally Russian” are borrowed from the Polish language. Even the Fatherland.
                        But they seem to know only in the Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions.

                        The dialects closest to literary Ukrainian are in the Chernihiv and Poltava regions. Nationalists of Western Ukraine are making a Frankenstein monster out of the Ukrainian language.
                        Yes Yes. Certainly. In 2012, a law on regional languages ​​was adopted, which gave state status to several languages ​​in Ukraine. The first thing the Maidan authorities did in February 2014 was to repeal this law and proclaim Ukrainian as the only language.

                        You are a victim of Wikipedia (at best) - the Maidan authorities were not able to repeal the 2012 law until 2018. Ukrainian became the only state language in 2019. 2019 seemed to be later than the referendums of 2014. Not to mention the fact that there are no laws banning the Russian language at all. Well, to think that the reason for referendums is language, and that referendums are initiated from below, and not from above, is generally bad manners and a sign of a lack of both life experience and critical thinking. It’s like believing in television interviews with cheerful, energetic pensioners before voting on raising the retirement age.
                        And you will also argue that we have cave nationalism. But for some reason you don’t notice the outright ultra-nationalism there.

                        I am equally disgusted by any nationalism. He is equally destructive. Regardless of the flag.
                      10. -3
                        14 March 2024 12: 22
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) This is the same as saying that there is no word “tomato”, there is only the word “tomato”.

                        Excellent manipulation!))) Well then Ukraine = Little Russia, and Ukraine = Little Russia. Don’t blurt this out in Kyiv now, it’s dangerous to your health.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        2) If we use the perverted logic of nationalists, then, for example, there are no Japanese people either, but there are only Yamato, Ryuku and Ainu. Or not, for example, Venezuelans. And so on with dozens of nations. There are these peoples for the whole world. But nationalists live in their own universe.

                        Again, you're turning everything inside out. It is precisely the ultranationalists who isolate their SEPARATE high-born origin. Moskal mine ne brother. Yeah, that's how it is. So you live in your own universe of ancient Ukrainians who dug up the Black Sea.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) Read volume 13 of the publication of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Languages ​​of the World” and do not be like the cave nationalists.

                        Why should I read about Baltic languages? ))) And in volume 12 the differences at the dialect level from the Russian language are described.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        2) You didn’t even understand that Bulgakov, in this passage with the cat and the whale, ridiculed nationalism and showed its inferiority.

                        It was precisely Ukrainian nationalism that he ridiculed. And both Gogol and Shevchenko spoke about the harm of Ukrainian nationalism. The one that doesn’t have to be wishful thinking.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        3) The whale in the ocean is “kyt” in Ukrainian.

                        Yes, yes, and beer is beer. As I say, distortion and nothing more.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        4) In the Ukrainian language there are only a few percent more words borrowed from Polish than in Russian. In the Russian language, among words borrowed from other languages, Polonisms occupy first place - 60%. Most ordinary people do not even suspect that many words that they consider “originally Russian” are borrowed from the Polish language. Even the Fatherland.

                        Likewise, there are plenty of Russianisms in Polish. But in Russian and Polish there are no Ukrainianisms))) Why not?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You are a victim of Wikipedia (at best) - the Maidan authorities were not able to repeal the 2012 law until 2018. Ukrainian became the only state language in 2019. 2019 seemed to be later than the referendums of 2014. Not to mention the fact that there are no laws banning the Russian language at all.

                        You are a victim of Ukrainian nationalism. And the wiki just supports your side.
                        Once again, the law on regional languages ​​was repealed by the Rada on February 23.02.2014, XNUMX.
                        On February 23, 2014, the law “On the Fundamentals of State Language Policy” was repealed in Ukraine, which granted regions the right to grant individual languages, including Russian, the status of regional
                        This is precisely what served as the final reason for the protests in Donbass and Crimea, with subsequent referendums.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I am equally disgusted by any nationalism. He is equally destructive. Regardless of the flag.

                        Somehow I didn’t notice your condemnation of the fakes of ancient Ukraine. On the contrary, you only defend the correctness of these comical judgments.
                      11. +1
                        14 March 2024 15: 50
                        Excellent manipulation!))) Well then Ukraine = Little Russia, and Ukraine = Little Russia.

                        1) There is no manipulation
                        2) lol Are you expecting some kind of violent negative reaction from me? It is only nationalists who have a problem with the realization that in the course of history the same people can have different names at different stages. And I'm not a nationalist
                        3) You cannot even understand that with this phrase you are refuting your own “there are no Ukrainians” - otherwise there cannot be Little Russians (and you do not deny them).
                        Again, you're turning everything inside out.

                        Nothing is turned out. This is just an inconvenient argument for your “logic”. If there are no Ukrainians, then there are no Japanese, Venezuelans and dozens of other peoples. The obvious absurdity of such a statement shows the absurdity of the premises from which the statement was made that there are no Ukrainians. This is one of the rhetorical techniques that allows you to explain to your interlocutor the incorrectness of his words.
                        It is precisely the ultranationalists who isolate their SEPARATE high-born origin.

                        Are you talking about a separate mission of Samsonov’s “superethnos”? About Paris, founded by the Russians from Zadornov and company? About Shiropaev with his “Manifesto of Orthodox Aryanism”?
                        I already wrote to you - Strange. After all, above you accuse Ukrainians of what you should be blaming yourself for. You cannot demand something from someone and at the same time be the same yourself. Because they will immediately point out this discrepancy. Fighting nationalism with other nationalism is like putting out a fire with gasoline.
                        Moskal mine ne brother.

                        Have you decided to start comparing the destructiveness of nationalist attitudes? Some nationalists say the Muscovite is not my brother, other nationalists say Ukrainians do not exist. There is no difference at all - both contributed to the disunity of peoples. External forces are not overjoyed that nationalists in both countries are playing into their hands.
                        Why should I read about Baltic languages? ))) And in volume 12 the differences at the dialect level from the Russian language are described.

                        Yes, volume 12, not 13. This does not change the essence. But you don’t have the courage to accept the opinion of the highest scientific body of the state. They are even ready to tell lies about “differences at the dialect level.” The book says in black and white that Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are separate languages ​​of the eastern group of Slavic languages ​​with a common ancestor - the Old Russian language.
                        It was precisely Ukrainian nationalism that he ridiculed.

                        You didn’t even understand that Bulgakov showed the inferiority of nationalism in general, both that which pretends not to understand a familiar language, and that which, due to its own incompetence, judges an unfamiliar language.
                        And both Gogol and Shevchenko spoke about the harm of Ukrainian nationalism.

                        And they would be completely right.
                        Yes, yes, and beer is beer. As I say, distortion and nothing more.

                        Serbian, Slovak, Croatian, Czech, Slovenian, Tatar, Uzbek, Turkmen, judging by your logic, these are all Russian languages, and not even distorted ones.
                        It’s funny and sad when people who are INCOMPETENT in this subject begin to talk about any subject.
                        Likewise, there are plenty of Russianisms in Polish. But in Russian and Polish there are no Ukrainianisms))) Why not?

                        1) But this does not make Polish Russian, just like Russian becomes Polish.
                        2) Because you are incompetent - there are Ukrainianisms in both Polish and Russian.
                        You are a victim of Ukrainian nationalism.

                        Find at least one nationalist statement from me.
                        Once again, the law on regional languages ​​was repealed by the Rada on February 23.02.2014, XNUMX.

                        Once again, in Ukraine, like here, a law is repealed by another law. And just like ours, the law does not come into force until the president signs it. Therefore, do not write nonsense after our stupid propagandists.
                        This is precisely what served as the final reason for the protests in Donbass and Crimea, with subsequent referendums.

                        Yes, and interviews with cheerful old men who say that at 65 life is just beginning is the reason for raising the retirement age. lol Complete infantilism in reasoning.
                        Somehow I didn’t notice your condemnation of the fakes of ancient Ukraine. On the contrary, you only defend the correctness of these comical judgments.

                        1) And you won’t find on this site any condemnation of fakes about little green men, Yeti and Chupacabra. Maybe simply because this is not the topic of the site.
                        2) It makes no sense when they say here on the site that blue is blue, to further confirm this, it is already clear. It makes sense to intervene when blue is said to be red.
                        3) What kind of fake news am I defending?
                      12. -2
                        15 March 2024 08: 48
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It is only nationalists who have a problem with the realization that in the course of history the same people can have different names at different stages.

                        Are you talking about different stages? So I asked how, in this way and by magic, the Ukrainians got from the Little Russians? At WHAT point in history? If before the same interim government of the Republic of Ingushetia, no Ukrainians existed as a nation? There were residents of the outskirts of the Republic of Ingushetia. That's ALL about it. You are trying to prove to me about some natural course of history in the matter of the emergence of the Ukrainian nationality. Well, please provide links to studies, etc. and so on. But for some reason you stubbornly avoid answering. Maybe simply because such a nationality appeared for the FIRST time in a Soviet passport?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You cannot even understand that with this phrase you are refuting your own “there are no Ukrainians” - otherwise there cannot be Little Russians (and you do not deny them).

                        You are turning everything inside out again. I'm not saying that there are NO Ukrainians. Now they exist, quite well. BUT
                        1. This is a branch from the Russian people, just like the Basques from the Spaniards, etc.
                        2. Ukrainians are an artificially created ethnic group, and very, very recently by historical standards. Moreover, in many ways, the people and the regime they now spit on, as well as their progenitor people. And the problems are ONLY this and nothing else. I don’t really care how they define themselves in this or that part of the new formation called Ukraine. But the same oppression on a national basis within Ukraine itself, as well as outside its borders, and even more so hostile actions and policies towards neighboring countries, are fundamentally unacceptable. But since they behaved this way, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to remind them of the REAL story and who is who and to whom.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yes, volume 12, not 13. This does not change the essence.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It’s funny and sad when people who are INCOMPETENT in this subject begin to talk about any subject.

                        They took it off your tongue!))) It looks like you yourself don’t know the question, and you haven’t read volume 12. So read it. It is there that the differences from the Russian language are described. But there is no description of phonetics, morphology and syntax. But this greatly changes the essence.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Because you are incompetent - there are Ukrainianisms in both Polish and Russian.

                        Can you give examples other than the Khrushchev period of Ukrainization? laughing
                        Do you know what's the funniest thing? This is that when communicating with you, I only become more convinced of my rightness and the correctness of the author’s article.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Once again, in Ukraine, like here, a law is repealed by another law. And just like ours, the law does not come into force until the president signs it. Therefore, do not write nonsense after our stupid propagandists.

                        This is all verbiage! The first act of the illegal power of Maidan Ukraine was precisely nationalistic and Russophobic. This is how the country split. The fact that they didn’t immediately drag it through all the institutions of power because of the riots in Donbass does not change anything. Stop rebroadcasting Ukrainian nationalist propaganda.
                      13. 0
                        15 March 2024 17: 12
                        So I asked how, in this way and by magic, the Ukrainians got from the Little Russians? At WHAT point in history?

                        lol In the same way and by magic and at the same stage of history, Russians were obtained from the Great Russians.
                        If before the same interim government of the Republic of Ingushetia, no Ukrainians existed as a nation?

                        Can you hear yourself, remember? In one paragraph you manage to admit the existence of Little Russians and in the very next sentence state that there were no Little Russians, because according to your previous messages “Ukrainian = Little Russian”. This is already a clinic.
                        There were residents of the outskirts of the Republic of Ingushetia.

                        But, if you follow your “logic,” the “outskirts” are expanding, for example, to Astrakhan, Voronezh, Samara, Saratov, Kars, Kutaisi, the Amur region in Siberia, the Akmola region in Central Asia, etc. Imagine, ethnic Little Russians lived everywhere in the named places in 1897 (see census), despite the fact that these territories are not connected with the geographical “outskirts”
                        Maybe simply because such a nationality appeared for the FIRST time in a Soviet passport?

                        lol Oh-ho-ho, this is an “argument”, just an “argument”, I would say.
                        The nationality “Russian”, instead of “Great Russian”, also appeared for the FIRST TIME in a Soviet passport. If only because the “nationality” column was not in the empire’s passport documents.
                        You are turning everything inside out again. I'm not saying that there are NO Ukrainians.

                        Here's your second memory booster
                        The vile skeptic - A mantra"there are no Ukrainians, they were invented, these are wrong Russians, Ukraine never existed" - these are not complexes?

                        Zoer- No. This is a statement of fact..

                        tongue
                        This is an offshoot from the Russian people, just like the Basques from the Spaniards, etc.

                        1) Just like the Great Russians and Belarusians. It’s just that nationalists are not smart enough to see the difference between Russians (ancient Russian people) and Russians (Great Russians). They an outdated ethnonym is confused with a new ethnonym. And therefore got it into their heads that if it sounds the same, then it’s one and the same. Haven't heard of homonyms.
                        2) If your Basques descended from the Spaniards, then there is definitely no point in continuing the conversation.
                        Ukrainians are an artificially created ethnic group

                        According to your logic, Russians are an artificially created ethnic group, since you are creating a new people just by renaming them - Great Russians/Russians, Little Russians/Ukrainians. You yourself previously wrote “Little Russians = Ukrainians.” Little Russians were also created artificially? Who? How? When? lol
                        It seems you yourself don’t know the question, and you haven’t read volume 12. So read it. It is there that the differences from the Russian language are described. But there is no description of phonetics, morphology and syntax. But this greatly changes the essence.

                        1) Everything is relative. My knowledge of linguistics is definitely worse than my wife’s, but definitely better than yours.
                        2) A mistake in the volume number does not indicate “not reading” - this is not essential for memorization, since it does not affect the contents of the volume itself.
                        3) This is a lie about the lack of description of phonetic, morphological and syntactic features.
                        Can you give examples other than the Khrushchev period of Ukrainization?

                        I can do it. Bugai, grub, sack, cheesecakes, nonsense, hut, hubbub, breakthrough and so on, I can list for a long time. The question is, where do you get into an argument if you don’t know anything yourself?
                        Stop rebroadcasting Ukrainian nationalist propaganda.

                        That is, the explanation to you of the procedure for repealing and adopting laws in Russia and Ukraine is Ukrainian nationalist propaganda? How lovely. You are your own impartiality and adequacy.
                      14. 0
                        13 March 2024 23: 35
                        Sex and maniac are primordially Slavic words, I would even say poskonno. You gave a great example.
                      15. -2
                        14 March 2024 08: 53
                        Quote: YAHU
                        You gave a great example.

                        Noble, of course. A striking example of how you can distort a completely normal Anglicism in the Selyukov style)))). Bulgakov’s sarcasm with the cat Behemoth is of course more subtle. There is no doubt about it. laughing
                      16. +1
                        14 March 2024 15: 57
                        Bulgakov’s sarcasm with the cat Behemoth is certainly more subtle.

                        God, what kind of cat is Behemoth from “The Master and Margarita” in “The White Guard”? negative
                        This is some kind of nightmare.
                        A striking example of this

                        how incompetent people judge things about which they understand nothing. But for some reason they decided that they understood.
                      17. -2
                        15 March 2024 08: 19
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        God, what kind of cat is Behemoth from “The Master and Margarita” in “The White Guard”? negative
                        This is some kind of nightmare.

                        It looks like you're delirious, delirium tremens. Who spoke about the White Guard and the hippopotamus cat in it? wassat
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        how incompetent people judge things about which they understand nothing. But for some reason they decided that they understood.

                        Thanks for the autocriticism. The only sensible things I finally hear are from you. good
                      18. +1
                        15 March 2024 10: 46
                        It looks like you're delirious, delirium tremens. Who spoke about the White Guard and the hippopotamus cat in it? wassat

                        Oh, I guessed that you will immediately start turning on the rear. Let's refresh your memory.
                        This phrase of yours, which refers to an excerpt from Bulgakov’s “The White Guard,” appeared on March 13
                        Quote: Zoer, March 13
                        How do you say KOT in Ukrainian? - KIT))). What about the whale, the one in the ocean? Also a whale!!!

                        There were no references to Bulgakov’s work “The Master and Margarita” throughout the conversation.
                        But your answer is March 14, THAT IS LATER than the appearance of the phrase with a reference to the “White Guard” (the first and The ONLY one related to the works of Bulgakov in your messages)
                        Quote: Zoer, March 14
                        Bulgakov’s sarcasm with the cat Behemoth is certainly more subtle.

                        Well, give me an excerpt from “The Master and Margarita” (where the cat Behemoth comes from), where
                        Quote: Zoer
                        an example of how you can distort (Russian word) in the Selyukov manner

                        And then where did you use this passage in your messages to this article?
                        tongue
                        negative
                      19. -3
                        15 March 2024 11: 08
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Oh, I guessed that you will immediately start turning on the rear. Let's refresh your memory.
                        This phrase of yours, which refers to an excerpt from Bulgakov’s “The White Guard,” appeared on March 13

                        Again, everything is upside down!))) Cat and Kit are about ridicule from the White Guard, yes. And just about the nationalism of the raging Ukrainians.
                        Cat Behemoth is another work, and again subtle trolling of the Natsik ukrov. Why did YOU put the hippopotamus cat in the White Guard? wassat
                        Without any explanation from the author about the Behemoth Cat, it is already clear how much he trolls the great-power Ukrainians with their lack of language.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        an example of how you can distort (Russian word) in the Selyukov manner

                        Cleverly taken out of context. Here it was all about the sinister pussy.
                        In general, it’s clear. You’ve run out of any arguments, even though they were far-fetched from the very beginning, but there are already problems with this)))
                        The conversation is over.
                      20. +1
                        15 March 2024 11: 13
                        Cleverly taken out of context. Here it was all about the sinister pussy.

                        Which, as an example, COMPARED with the "example of Bulgakov". So no need to fuss
                        Quote: Zoer
                        A striking example of how you can distort a completely normal Anglicism in the Selyukov style)))). Bulgakov’s sarcasm with the cat Behemoth is of course more subtle.

                        tongue
                        Cat Behemoth is another work, and again subtle trolling of the Natsik ukrov.
                        Without any explanation from the author about the Behemoth Cat, it is already clear how much he trolls the great-power Ukrainians with their lack of language.

                        Well, confirm this - give an excerpt from "The Master and Margarita" from which it will become clear that, using the example of the cat Behemoth, Bulgakov is "trolling the lack of language of the Ukrainians"?
                        Otherwise, all your attempts to get out are not worth a damn.
                      21. -2
                        13 March 2024 16: 49
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Lord, I don’t know when I’ll have to write about the work of the Imperial Academy of Sciences “Ethnographic Description of the Peoples of Russia” under the patronage of Emperor Alexander 2.

                        The album “Ethnographic Description of the Peoples of Russia” in French was published by the Imperial Russian Geographical Society in 1862 for the millennium of the Russian state. Its compiler Gustav-Theodor Pauli (1817–1867), a German by birth, came to Russia in 1841 and joined the Russian army as a cornet.
                        He was not any ethnographer or scientist. The publication, financed by the author, was dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of Russia. This is a commercial publication. I don't recommend referring to it anymore.
                        63 chromolithographs depict: Great Russians of different provinces, Little Russians (Ukrainians), Belarusians, Cossacks (Uralian, Donetsk, Chernomorets), Ural Cossack in the steppe, line Cossack, Crimean Tatars, mullah, Bukharan, Khivan, Tatar. Siberian Tatars, Tatars of the Transcaucasian region, Bulgarians, Poles of various provinces, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks and Arnauts, Hindus, Gypsies, Jews (Talmudists), Karaites, representatives of the Caucasian tribes, Mingrelians, Gurians, Chechens, Lezgins, Ossetians, Kabardins, Mezen Samoyeds , Finns of the St. Petersburg province, Germans, Yakuts, Transbaikal Buryats, Kalmyks, forest Tungus, shamans, reindeer Koryaks and other nationalities of the Russian Empire.

                        In general, it has no scientific value. Or only for vile skeptics.

                        The publication was dedicated to Emperor Alexander 2, but there was no trace of any patronage on his part. Don't mislead yourself or others.
                        In the list of illustrations, Little Russians and Ukrainians are synonymous and differ from Great Russians and Belarusians only in their habitat, just like Donets, Black Sea residents and Uralians.
                        And another question: Do you speak French?
                        Because the album was not released in Russian.
                      22. +3
                        13 March 2024 17: 14
                        was published by the Imperial Russian Geographical Society

                        carried out at the expense of the author, was dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of Russia. This is a commercial edition

                        Do you even think you are copying?
                        He was not any ethnographer or scientist.

                        And in the geographical society I was a cleaner. Yeah.
                        You will figure out the nut and bolt first from past conversations, and then shine.
                        And another question: Do you speak French?

                        Yes. Old-timers of the site know all the languages ​​I speak.
                      23. -3
                        13 March 2024 17: 48
                        I repeat again. This favorite publication of yours has nothing to do with the science of ethnography. This is an album with magnificent illustrations, but comments of dubious and unclear content. The compiler of this album is not an ethnographer, but an amateur, an unlucky cornet of the hussar regiment of Duke Maximilian of Leuchtenberg. Having changed several places of service, he subsequently spent many years as a teacher of German at the St. Petersburg Orphanage, was engaged in literary works, and took an active part in the founding of the Russian Patronage Society animals, was a full member of the Russian Geographical Society.
                        Just nothing.

                        Here's what his "work" says:

                        GREAT RUSSIANS
                        The Russian nation is fundamentally Slavic, but its formation occurred under the powerful influence of outside influences. This is an outstanding, but very broad religious, political and national community, which cannot be considered outside the context of the core state idea expressed in the word “king”. Russians, that is, inhabitants of the provinces of Great Russia, are usually people of strong physique. Those of them who live in remote northern or eastern provinces, as well as in the former Polish provinces, descendants of fugitive peasants, have kept the ancient type intact: they are tall, strong, athletically built, they have large expressive eyes, noble, pronounced facial features .
                        LITTLE RUSSIANS
                        Today's Little Russians come from the native population, they have preserved the ancient faith of their ancestors, and before the separation of Little Russia from Russia they lived together with the Russians - a nation of the same faith and brotherhood. The Little Russians are, so to speak, a people of ancient times, indulging in dreams of the past and denying the present along with current progress. At the same time, the lands they inhabit, conveniently located in the south, have undoubtedly preserved untold wealth, which in the future will lead the Little Russians to prosperity. The Little Russians remained free from external influences and preserved the purity of the nation.
                        BELARUSIANS
                        The Belarusians of the Mogilev province are much less dependent on Polish influence at the level of language, costume and other features of private life than their Western neighbors, constituting the most productive part of this nation. They are good-natured, warm-hearted and strictly condemn those who show frivolity in relation to the cultivation of the land, family and home. Their short, gray-eyed men, according to custom, shave their mustaches and trim their beards, and the women wear men's caftans or dresses in the Polish style, for those who are richer. The peasants eat mainly bread and potato soup, which is sometimes boiled in milk, and they do not know kvass at all.

                        Complete nonsense.
                        Don't refer to it anymore.
                        Do not disgrace.
                    2. -3
                      13 March 2024 15: 52
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Little catch. Before the troubled times and interventionists, under the tsars, they had already distinguished a people separate from the Great Russians

                      Who, when and where?
                      How was his “separateness” expressed?
                    3. -1
                      13 March 2024 17: 20
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      But you don’t see any connection with their desire to impose their language in your denial of this language, labeling it “inferior”?

                      A dialect is not an inferior language. The so-called Ukrainian language was previously called the Little Russian dialect, then a dialect of the Russian language, but linguists never came to a common opinion. One thing is clear: neither a dialect nor an adverb is a language. Ukrainian is the everyday language of the lower class of Little Russia.
                      1. -3
                        17 March 2024 15: 25
                        Everyday language of all classes of Little Russia.
                2. -1
                  13 March 2024 16: 21
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  2. How do you imagine the process of inventing? It is impossible to invent people.

                  It's very possible. And the Ukrainians are proof of this. The inventing process is very well described in previous publications by the same author here on VO. Read, listen - and you will be happy.
                  I have a very good idea about my relatives.
                  My grandmother has a Russian surname, my grandfather’s is Little Russian. They lived in Poltava, and in 1929 they moved to the Samara region. The eldest son was born in Poltava and was recorded as Ukrainian, the rest were born in Russia and became Russian. Two sons ended up in the Ukrainian SSR in Kyiv and Kharkov. The one in Kharkov remained Russian, and the one in Kyiv became Ukrainian. The remaining three ended up in Crimea and remained Russian. My mother even Russified her last name and on the common monument between her and my grandmother there are two photos and two last names - Tregub and Tregubova.
                  I ask my cousin:
                  - why do you consider yourself Ukrainian? Your father is Russian, your mother is from the Samara region - also Russian. How did you become Ukrainian?
                  - I was born in Ukraine (in Kharkov) - that means I’m Ukrainian.
                  - And if your parents gave birth to you in Japan, would you become Japanese?
                  The brother widened his eyes, thought for a long time, then said:
                  - you do not understand anything!
                  This concludes our discussion.
                  1. -1
                    14 March 2024 14: 28
                    I have a very good idea about my relatives.

                    wassat You don't understand what you wrote
                    Trying to show his superiority in "logic" over his cousin
                    - What if your parents if you were born in Japan you would become Japanese?

                    nevertheless you write it yourself
                    The eldest son was born in Poltava and was recorded as Ukrainian, the rest were born in Russia and became Russian.

                    Despite the fact that the grandfather is Ukrainian, and traditionally among the Slavs, nationality was passed on through the father (and this is understandable, since, again, traditionally the wife went to her husband’s family after the wedding, which means the children grew up in the cultural environment of the husband’s family).
                    Both laughter and sin with these nationalists.
                    1. 0
                      14 March 2024 19: 17
                      You don't understand anything at all about the subject of conversation. What the hell are the traditions of the Slavs in a state of proletarian dictatorship? Did you fall from the moon or fell from an oak tree? What country do you live in? ...
                      In our socialist fatherland, when receiving a passport, a person himself determined his nationality, regardless of what was written on his birth certificate.
                      The example of my relatives only shows that Russian parents can give birth to a child who considers himself a Ukrainian not by ethnicity, but by political convictions imposed on him by the surrounding nationalist environment, reformatting his consciousness. Russians and Ukrainians are ethnically homogeneous. My brother may consider himself Japanese, but the Japanese themselves are unlikely to accept him as one of their own. And not only him, but also his children, who were born and lived their whole lives in Japan. Metis - yes. The Japanese - no. Because there are not only racial, but also ethnic characteristics. Americans in 3-5-10 generations know their ancestors from the Irish, Jews, Germans and Danes and the same Russians very well.
                      1. -1
                        15 March 2024 10: 16
                        You don't understand anything at all about the subject of conversation. What the hell are the traditions of the Slavs in a state of proletarian dictatorship? Did you fall from the moon or fell from an oak tree? What country do you live in? ...
                        In our socialist fatherland, when receiving a passport, a person himself determined his nationality, regardless of what was written on his birth certificate.

                        Yeah
                        Up to 1974 years The nationality of a Soviet citizen was determined by the nationality of his parents, and if the family was mixed, by his father. And in August 1974, a decree “On the USSR Passport System” was issued, which made it possible to choose nationality differently.

                        Now a citizen born in a mixed family could indicate in the fifth paragraph the nationality of the father or mother of his choice. This opportunity was given only once - when you first received your passport. In addition, the choice was limited by the official list of nationalities of the USSR (128 by 1989), which did not take into account all ethnic groups living in the country.

                        If we take your story on faith, and in this story, your grandfather and grandmother were already a family in 1929, which means that children hardly began to appear only after 1974-16=1958 in order to choose their nationality themselves, and not according to the entry in the certificate birth, then you can guess what your story is worth.
                        The example of my relatives only shows that Russian parents can have a child

                        Is a Russian parent a Little Russian (Ukrainian) grandfather?
                        who considers himself a Ukrainian not by ethnicity, but by political convictions imposed on him by the surrounding nationalist environment, reformatting his consciousness

                        By what political convictions did the peasants, who were far from politics, call themselves Little Russians, and not Great Russians, to the census takers of the first census of 1897 in territories that were not considered Little Russia?
                      2. 0
                        15 March 2024 10: 56
                        The eldest son, born in Ukraine in 1929, was registered as Ukrainian. The rest of the children born in the Samara region had their nationality “Russian” stamped in their passports. I don't know how they did it, but that's how it is. Just like I don’t know how my mother managed to Russify her last name by adding the ending “ova”. But this is a fact. All her life she considered herself Russian. There was no difference between them - neither cultural, nor political, nor any other. Three brothers and two sisters. Their father died at the front and was raised by their mother. All demographic characteristics are the same. During meetings, they often argued about their nationality. The Ukrainian proved his point and argued that Ukraine feeds all of Russia and Russia lives at the expense of Ukraine.
                        This only means that there is no ethnic difference between Ukrainians and Russians. This is one people. I know this from the example of my family.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        By what political convictions did the peasants, who were far from politics, call themselves Little Russians, and not Great Russians, to the census takers of the first census of 1897 in territories that were not considered Little Russia?

                        In the same way, Vologda peasants differed from Tambov or Yaroslavl residents. According to local differences due to the history of the region or region.
                        In the same way that the Bavarians differ from the Saxons in Germany or the Burgundians from the Gauls in France.
                      3. 0
                        15 March 2024 11: 05
                        In the same way, Vologda peasants differed from Tambov or Yaroslavl residents.

                        Your thesis will only make sense if you tell me show in this CENSUS individual Vologda, Tambov and Yaroslavl residents, as separate in the census of Great Russians and Little Russians.
                        This only means that there is no ethnic difference between Ukrainians and Russians. This is one people.

                        There is a difference. But these are really very close peoples, brother nations. The sadder is everything that is happening.
                        There was no difference between them - neither cultural, nor political, nor any other.

                        Why be surprised? Soviet people, internationalism, urbanization erasing ethnic differences (the guardian of identity is the village).
                      4. 0
                        15 March 2024 11: 14
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        There is a difference

                        But not so fundamental as to single out Ukrainians
                        [/quote]into a separate people. [quote = Vile skeptic] Your thesis will only make sense if you show me in this CENSUS individual Vologda, Tambov and Yaroslavl residents, as separate Great Russians and Little Russians in the census.

                        Show me the census.
                      5. -1
                        15 March 2024 11: 33
                        But not so fundamental as to single out Ukrainians

                        To have grounds for such categorical statements, you must, at a minimum, be competent in matters of ethnogenesis. And even in this case, an individual opinion would not play a role - the decision about one’s connection with any culture, that is, classifying oneself as a member of any cultural, and therefore ethnic, group, is made by everyone for himself. If a person considers himself an animal, if he grows up among animals, then what can we say if a person simply grows up in a different cultural environment? You yourself are talking about your family. Modern Americans consider themselves Americans, not Germans and Irish. Modern Japanese consider themselves Japanese, and not Yamato, Ryuku and Ainami, etc.
                        Show me the census.

                        It is digitized and posted on a lot of resources - open archival collections of archives and libraries. Just type in a search engine and choose any site you like.
                        But you don’t even have to waste your time. You will not find Vologda, Tambov and Yaroslavl residents, if only because there is no Tambov, Vologda and Yaroslavl language - in the census the native language of those being enumerated was indicated. Ethnicity in the empire was determined by language
                      6. 0
                        15 March 2024 14: 31
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Ethnicity in the empire was determined by language

                        You are mistaken again.
                        Your hope in the 1897 census as a solid substantiation of the scientific delimitation of Russians into Little Russians, Great Russians and Belarusians seems to me naive and very primitive, and simply amateurish. This census was characterized by numerous shortcomings. Ethnicity was identified through a question about native language and a question about religion. And you deliberately omit the question of religion and do not take it into account. Linguistics at that time was very poorly developed; a number of languages ​​were called adverbs, and adverbs were called languages.
                        The problem is that in 1897 all the Belarusians, Little Russians and Great Russians surveyed considered themselves Russians and did not know whether they spoke a dialect or a language. You are trying to speculate on these contradictions and are substituting concepts.
                      7. -1
                        15 March 2024 15: 06
                        You are mistaken again.

                        You are tiresome. Write below yourself
                        Quote: Silhouette
                        Ethnicity was identified through a question about native language and a question about religion. And you deliberately omit the question of religion and do not take it into account.

                        How am I wrong when I say that in the empire ethnicity was determined by language, when you yourself directly write the same thing? Religion does not play a role in our conversation - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians are Orthodox (exceptions will only serve as confirmation of the common unified faith). This is the first.
                        And the second is that, in addition to the census methodology, scientists have already formulated for a century the general principles of identification and differentiation of ethnic groups
                        Quote: A.L. Schletser
                        May I be allowed to introduce into the history of nations the language of the greatest of natural scientists. I do not see a better way to eliminate the confusion of ancient and middle history... like some systema populorum, in classes et ordines, genera et species redactorum... Just as Linnaeus divides animals by teeth, and plants by stamens, so the historian should classify peoples by languages

                        Quote: G.F. Miller
                        The characteristic difference between peoples is not in morals and customs, not in food and crafts, not in religion, for all this can be the same among peoples of different tribes, but different among people of the same tribe. The only unmistakable sign is the tongue: where the languages ​​are similar, there is no difference between peoples; where the languages ​​are different, there is no need to seek unity

                        Quote: V.N. Tatishchev
                        Most of all, every people needs to know the language in order to through this you will know what kind of offspring they are

                        Quote: N.I. Nadezhdin
                        the language of the people...has been, and will remain forever, the main guarantee and the main sign of nationality

                        Linguistics at that time was very poorly developed; a number of languages ​​were called adverbs, and adverbs were called languages.

                        It’s good that now it has been “developed” very strongly and clearly indicates that Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian are separate languages ​​of the eastern group of Slavic languages ​​with a common ancestor - the Old Russian language
                        The problem is that in 1897 all the Belarusians, Little Russians and Great Russians surveyed considered themselves Russians and did not know whether they spoke a dialect or a language.

                        Oh-ho-ho, the Dunning-Kruger effect in all its glory. It was not the respondents who determined the language, but the census taker.
                        The White Russians, Little Russians, Great Russians and other peoples were ignorant and illiterate and generally did not understand the meaning of the concept of “ethnic group”.. Here is a living example that Kulish described in “Notes on Southern Rus'”, when he tried to determine the origin of the exonym “Circassians” (that’s what the old Great Russians called the Little Russians (!!!))
                        Little Russian commoners, to the question
                        - Where are you from?
                        will respond
                        - From such and such a province.
                        but to the question
                        - Who you are? What people?
                        will not find another answer as soon as
                        - People act like this Tai Godi people.
                        -Are you Russian?
                        - Hi.
                        - H-o-h-l-s?
                        - Yakii w mi h-o-h-l-i?
                        -...Little Russians?
                        - What kind of Little Russians are they? It’s hard for us to see him.”

                        Therefore, to assume that in the census the respondents themselves named their native language is to show their complete ignorance of both the subject of discussion and the realities of that time. A person’s language was determined by a CENISTER during a survey, based on what he heard from the person. The problem with the census was finding census takers who could tell the difference between similar languages.
                        You are trying to speculate on these contradictions and are substituting concepts.

                        Yes, yes, absolutely lol
                      8. 0
                        15 March 2024 18: 05
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Religion does not play a role in our conversation - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians are Orthodox (exceptions will only serve as confirmation of the common unified faith). This is the first.

                        In relation to the conversation about the 1897 census, which you took as the basis for determining nationality (in the understanding of that time), religion was the primary characteristic of a person. But for some reason it doesn’t matter to you. You put him out of brackets in every possible way and ignore him. Orthodox means Russian
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And the second is that, in addition to the census methodology, scientists have already formulated for a century the general principles of identification and differentiation of ethnic groups

                        Again you wrote nonsense. The 1897 census did not aim to identify and differentiate ethnic groups. How could her methodology exist for a century if this general census was carried out for the first time? It is entitled “The First General Census of the Russian Empire.” Peoples were not studied for the sake of ethnography, but populations were studied for statistical purposes.
                        You quote the historian and statistician Schletser, who has never been an ethnographer and whom Lomonosov even brought to the table for his errors and the more than dubious Kulish, the author of the famous “kuleshovka”, which cannot cause anything other than laughter. These “authorities did not make an impression on me. Alas.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        A person’s language was determined by a CENISTER during a survey, based on what he heard from the person.

                        Ukrainian is the everyday language of the lower class of Little Russia. Any peasant who moved to Little Russia from Belarus or Russia after a few years communicated quite well in everyday life, including with census takers.
                      9. 0
                        16 March 2024 14: 00
                        I understand well why you insist on the priority of language over religion. You are a conductor of pro-Ukrainian ideology, which is based on this false postulate. Kulish himself renounced his invention when he realized that the Poles were using it to drive a wedge between Russians living in different regions of Russia
                        Kulish, in a letter to Yakov Golovatsky dated October 16, 1866, very clearly outlines the purpose of the Ukrainian grammar he created:
                        “You know that the spelling, nicknamed “Kulishivka” in Galicia, was invented by me at a time when everyone in Russia was busy spreading literacy among the common people. In order to make the science of literacy easier for people who don’t have time to study for a long time, I came up with a simplified spelling.”
                        That is, Kulish came up with a simplified version of... the Russian language to spread literacy among the common people. To make science easier for villagers who simply don’t have time to study the full and more complex Russian grammar at work.
                        His intentions were good. But these good intentions were used by “knowledgeable” people for completely different purposes. And for what exact purposes, P. Kulish himself indicates in the same letter: “I came up with a simplified spelling. But now they are making a political banner out of it. Poles are pleased that not all Russians write the same way in Russian; They have recently especially begun to praise my invention: they base their absurd plans on it and therefore are ready to flatter even such an opponent as me... Now I am tempted to write a new statement of the same kind regarding the “kulishivka” they extol. Seeing this banner in enemy hands, I will be the first to strike at it and renounce my spelling in the name of Russian unity.”
                        Read carefully again what the creator of the Ukrainian language writes about. He lays everything out very clearly and concisely:

                        The Ukrainian language is a simplified version of Russian, invented with the goal of spreading literacy among ordinary people who simply have no time to study the more complex Russian grammar.

                        Poles create a political banner from simplified spelling.

                        The Poles base their absurd plans on simplified grammar.

                        The Poles are pleased that not all Russians will write the same way - in Russian.

                        The Ukrainian language is a banner in enemy hands.

                        I am the first to renounce my simplified Ukrainian spelling in the name of RUSSIAN UNITY.
                      10. 0
                        18 March 2024 11: 00
                        I understand well why you insist on the priority of language over religion. You are a conductor of pro-Ukrainian ideology, which is based on this false postulate.

                        Are Tatishchev and Nadezhdin also “conductors of pro-Ukrainian ideology”?
                        Or does the Catholic faith not make the Czechs Spaniards?
                        You know that the spelling, nicknamed “Kulishivka” in Galicia, was invented by me at a time when everyone in Russia was busy spreading literacy among the common people. In order to make the science of literacy easier for people who do not have time to study for a long time, I and came up with a simplified spelling».
                        That is, Kulish came up with a simplified version of... the Russian language to spread literacy among the common people.

                        I look at the book and see nothing. Not a simplified version of the Russian language, but a simplified form of converting SPOKEN Ukrainian into WRITTEN, using the existing Russian alphabet. SPELLING. Just like, for example, Kazakh words are written in Cyrillic. Did this make the Kazakh language Russian?
                        Russian unity is the unity of the Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians who separated from the Old Russian people. And not Little Russians and Belarusians - these are Great Russians.
                      11. 0
                        18 March 2024 20: 57
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I look in the book - I see a fig.

                        It happens....

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Not a simplified version of the Russian language, but a simplified form of converting SPOKEN Ukrainian into WRITTEN, using the existing Russian alphabet. SPELLING.

                        Then, to be precise: not the spoken Ukrainian language, but the spoken local dialect of the Russian language into its written form. An attempt to construct a grammar for the illiterate people of Little Russia subsequently resulted in the construction of a new language by pro-Polish and pro-Austrian Russophobes as the basis for creating a new identity - anti-Russian. When it dawned on Kulish, when he realized that the literacy of the illiterate could not be increased in this way, they would still write with errors, he renounced his brainchild. But it was too late. The genie came out of the bottle and became the trigger for the division of the Russian people into those who express themselves in everyday life. At this point, the opposing intellectuals picked up the baton and began to invent newspeak for the educated.
                        By the way, the creation of artificial languages, as practice has shown, is accessible not only to philologists. In 2005, Tomsk entrepreneur Yaroslav Anatolyevich Zolotarev created the so-called Siberian language, “which has been around since the time of Velikovo Novgorod.” After the Bolshevik coup, the Bolsheviks created Centrosiberia, and then completely pushed Siberia to Russia.” If this activity had not been shut down in its infancy, then by now we would have had a movement of Siberian separatists instilling in Siberians that they are a separate people, that they should not feed Muscovites (non-Siberian Russians were called that way in this language), but should trade oil on their own and gas, for which it is necessary to establish an independent Siberian state under the patronage of America and reach our days in the dialects of the Siberian people.”
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Russian unity is the unity of the Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians who separated from the Old Russian people. And not Little Russians and Belarusians - these are Great Russians.

                        Not Russian unity - but the Russian people living in the territories of Great (Great), Little, White Russia. Do not invent entities that lead to a split in the Russian people. Grandfather Lenin with his national pride of Great Russians is enough for us
                      12. 0
                        19 March 2024 10: 19
                        Then, to be precise: not the spoken Ukrainian language, but the spoken local dialect of the Russian language into its written form.

                        You failed to be precise. There are only two dialects in the Russian language - northern and southern.
                        By the way, the creation of artificial languages, as practice has shown, is accessible not only to philologists. In 2005, Tomsk entrepreneur Yaroslav Anatolyevich Zolotarev created the so-called Siberian language, “which has been around since the time of Velikovo Novgorod.” After the Bolshevik coup, the Bolsheviks created Centrosiberia, and then completely pushed Siberia to Russia.”

                        Excellent proof that the Ukrainian language was not invented. lol But you won't even understand why.
                        Not Russian unity - but the Russian people living in the territories of Great (Great), Little, White Russia. Don't invent entities

                        “Entities were invented” by the Russian Academy of Sciences, argue with it lol
                      13. 0
                        18 March 2024 21: 25
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And not Little Russians and Belarusians - these are Great Russians.

                        Where did I call Little Russians and Belarusians Great Russians? Don't make up nonsense. And Great Russians and Belarusians and Little Russians are Russians living in different territories of Russia.
                      14. 0
                        19 March 2024 10: 23
                        And Great Russians and Belarusians and Little Russians are Russians living in different territories of Russia.

                        How in Rosstat during the population census they will start using “Velikoross” instead of “Russian”, come back. Otherwise, these manipulations with the selective use of outdated ethnonyms are boring.
                      15. 0
                        18 March 2024 10: 28
                        In relation to the conversation about the 1897 census, which you took as the basis for determining nationality (in the understanding of that time), religion was the primary characteristic of a person. But for some reason it doesn’t matter to you. You put him out of brackets in every possible way and ignore him.

                        1) We are not talking about the 1897 census, but about ethnography. And the 1897 census is only one of the arguments in it.
                        2) Religion was not a primary characteristic. Your peoples who professed Islam did not appear in the census as one people.
                        3) I am taking it out of brackets because religion does not determine nationality, but only... religion. Otherwise, according to this logic, the Czechs are Spaniards.
                        Orthodox means Russian

                        That is, a Serb, a Bulgarian and even a Georgian are Russian? Don't you see the absurdity of such slogans? The level of thinking of uneducated peasants of the 19th century - after your “arguments” I immediately remembered the memories of Pavel Rovinsky about his trip to Serbia
                        I see a villager walking ahead (a resident of the village), I catch up with him: “God help me!” - I tell him first. - God help you! - “What’s it like?” (how are you?) - Fala to God! (thank God) - “Iosh kakoste?” (yet) - Let’s fill it up (thank you). Avoboch huh? (where are you going?) - At Petkovitsa - I answer and start asking about the road. He explained the way to me and I was about to go, saying “with God,” when he stopped me with the question: “What is it?” - what you? those. who are you? I declare that I am Russian. What faith? - Orthodox. - “Do you know Our Father?” - I know. - “Talk.” — I read “Our Father,” and he stared at the ground and listened, weighing every word I said. “Ama good, brother, you read; pa ti si srbin.” I begin to explain that I am not a Serb, but a Russian, but that Russians and Serbs are Slavs, people related in language and of the same Orthodox confession.
                        No, you are Serbin, you don’t know this yourself; but you want to see our monasteries, so when you get to the Studenitsa Lavra, There are learned monks there and they have old books, they will show you that the Russians are all Serbs.

                        It’s the same obscurantism and now, 2 centuries later, illiterate people talk about things that go beyond their competence.
                        Again you wrote nonsense. The 1897 census did not aim to identify and differentiate ethnic groups.

                        If you thought about what they write to you, you would see that I did not have such statements.
                        How could her methodology exist for a century if this general census was carried out for the first time?

                        If you thought about what they write to you, you would see that for centuries it was not the “method of the 1897 census” that existed, but “general principles for the identification and differentiation of ethnic groups.”
                        You quote the historian and statistician Schletser, who has never been an ethnographer and whom Lomonosov even brought to the table for his errors and the more than dubious Kulish, the author of the famous “kuleshovka”, which cannot cause anything other than laughter. These “authorities did not make an impression on me. Alas.

                        1) I quoted not only Schlozer and Kulish.
                        2) You will read Schloetser’s quote and see what he is saying from the point of view of studying the history of peoples. It may come as a surprise to you, but ethnography is closely related to history.
                        3) For what misconceptions and with what reasoning did Lomonosov “beat his face on the table”? If not for the thesis that “a historian should have classified peoples by languages,” then your “argument” is not an argument against this statement.
                        4) Laughter for no reason is a sign...
                        Any peasant who moved to Little Russia from Belarus or Russia after a few years communicated quite well in everyday life, including with census takers.

                        The only thing that was included in the census was data not about the languages ​​that you had studied, but about your native language.
                      16. 0
                        18 March 2024 21: 18
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) We are not talking about the 1897 census, but about ethnography.

                        Not about ethnography, but about Ukraine, its people and language. And you cited the census to substantiate your pro-Ukrainian position. Now you are trying to shift the conversation to ethnography.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I take it out of brackets because religion does not determine nationality, but only determines... religion. Otherwise, according to this logic, the Czechs are Spaniards.

                        Again you are distorting. In the Republic of Ingushetia, nationality was determined by the symbiosis of language and religion. And there is no need to separate them. Then the Czechs in your mind will not be Spaniards. And Georgians and Serbs will not be Russians.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        For what misconceptions and with what reasoning did Lomonosov “beat his face on the table”? If not for the thesis that “a historian should have classified peoples by languages,” then your “argument” is not an argument against this statement.

                        Exactly for him. Not only in language, but also in religion, as the basis of any folk culture.
                      17. 0
                        19 March 2024 10: 39
                        Not about ethnography, but about Ukraine, its people and language. And you cited the census to substantiate your pro-Ukrainian position. Now you are trying to shift the conversation to ethnography.

                        1) “Her people and language” is what ethnography does.
                        2) My position is no different from the position of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Argue with academics. And blame them for their “pro-Ukrainian position” too lol
                        Again you are distorting. In the Republic of Ingushetia, nationality was determined by the symbiosis of language and religion. And there is no need to separate them. Then the Czechs in your mind will not be Spaniards. And Georgians and Serbs will not be Russians.

                        I am forced to repeat, if you don’t immediately understand - In your country, peoples who professed Islam did not appear in the census as one people. And no symbiosis will help here - in the 19th century, without knowledge of religion, you could determine ethnicity by your native language, but without your native language, only by religion - no.
                        In my mind, a Catholic Czech speaking Czech will not become a Catholic Spanish speaking Spanish. After all, it was not me who wrote “the definition of nationality (in the understanding of that time) religion was the primary characteristic of a person.” tongue
                        Exactly for him. Not only in language, but also in religion, as the basis of any folk culture.

                        Lie. What kind of kindergarten? The conflict is due to the Norman theory, and not because of the thesis “a historian should classify peoples by languages.”
                      18. 0
                        19 March 2024 14: 13
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And no symbiosis will help here - in the 19th century, without knowledge of religion, you could determine ethnicity by your native language, but without your native language, only by religion - no.

                        You do not understand the word symbiosis and continue to divide the indivisible.
                      19. 0
                        19 March 2024 14: 17
                        You do not understand the word symbiosis and continue to divide the indivisible.

                        1) I understand both the word “symbiosis” and the futility of your use of it in the matter of identifying ethnicity
                        2) Language is inseparable from faith, and faith from language? Can you show the world at least some evidence of this stupidity?
                      20. 0
                        19 March 2024 15: 07
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Language is inseparable from faith, and faith from language?

                        When we talk about Russians, then yes. I don’t know about the rest, I wasn’t interested. All nations have different histories.
                      21. 0
                        19 March 2024 15: 17
                        When we talk about Russians, then yes.

                        That is, news for you that among Russians there are atheists who are not speechless.
                      22. 0
                        19 March 2024 20: 12
                        All atheists were brought up within the framework of Orthodox culture.
                      23. 0
                        15 March 2024 11: 24
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Your thesis will only make sense if you show me in this CENSUS individual Vologda, Tambov and Yaroslavl residents, as separate Great Russians and Little Russians in the census.

                        You asked a meaningless question.
                        You want me to show you in this census “INDIVIDUALS OF VOLOGDA AND TAMBOVES AS INDIVIDUAL GREAT RUSSIA AND LITTLE RUSSIA”.
                        What is this even about?.... How can Vologda residents be shown as Little Russians? Or Tambovites?
                      24. -1
                        15 March 2024 11: 36
                        How can Vologda residents be shown as Little Russians? Or Tambovites?

                        The sentence turned out to be somewhat clumsy, so you did not catch the meaning contained in it.
                        The point is that Great Russians and Little Russians were shown in separate positions in the census.
                        If you show Vologda and Tambov residents in separate positions, then your phrase
                        In the same way, Vologda peasants differed from Tambov or Yaroslavl residents.

                        as an argument to mine
                        By what political convictions did the peasants, who were far from politics, call themselves Little Russians, and not Great Russians, to the census takers of the first census of 1897 in territories that were not considered Little Russia?

                        will make sense. Otherwise - no
                      25. -1
                        15 March 2024 13: 34
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The sentence turned out to be somewhat clumsy, so you did not catch the meaning contained in it.

                        The proposal is quite consistent with your thinking. Nothing surprising.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The point is that Great Russians and Little Russians were shown in separate positions in the census.

                        You are wrong. The title of the census clearly and unambiguously states that we are not talking about the national self-identification of the population, but about its linguistic statistics.
                      26. -1
                        15 March 2024 13: 38
                        The proposal is quite consistent with your thinking. Nothing surprising.

                        It's funny to hear this from a person who
                        1) without a caliper it is impossible to understand that the M10 bolt will not fit the M8 nut
                        2) 12 dollars is more than 35 dollars
                        3) .... etc.
                        You are wrong. The title of the census clearly and unambiguously states that we are not talking about the national self-identification of the population, but about its linguistic statistics.

                        Once again, for the gifted, ethnicity in the empire was determined by native language
                      27. 0
                        15 March 2024 14: 42
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Once again, for the gifted, ethnicity in the empire was determined by native language

                        And now for the especially sophisticated: the concept of ethnicity or nationality in the Russian Empire did not exist in our current generally accepted understanding. All Little Russians, Belarusians and Great Russians were Russians, the difference in their speech was determined by the territory of their residence. . Everything else is innuendo.
                      28. -1
                        15 March 2024 15: 19
                        And now for the especially sophisticated: the concept of ethnicity or nationality in the Russian Empire did not exist in our current generally accepted understanding.

                        You are incompetent in the matter and write nonsense. In one of my messages, using the example of specific scientists, it is shown that in the Russian Empire they were aware of ethnogenesis.
                        All Little Russians, Belarusians and Great Russians were Russians, the difference in their speech was determined by the territory of their residence.

                        1) Who can argue that Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians are Russians? They are trying to explain to you that in this case, Russian is the name of the Old Russian nationality, and not Russian, into which the Great Russians were renamed. And you are incompetent and write nonsense.
                      29. 0
                        15 March 2024 18: 18
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        In one of my messages, using the example of specific scientists, it is shown that in the Russian Empire they were aware of ethnogenesis.

                        Yes, they didn’t know such a word - ethnogenesis. All these Schletzers, Millers and your other scientists. They began to talk about ethnogenesis when their remains decayed - in the 20s of the 20th century.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        They are trying to explain to you that in this case, Russian is the name of the Old Russian nationality, and not Russian, into which the Great Russians were renamed.

                        Did you even understand what you wrote? Or do you again have confusion in your head and indigestion of thoughts?
                      30. 0
                        18 March 2024 10: 49
                        Yes, they didn’t know such a word - ethnogenesis. All these Schletzers, Millers and your other scientists. They began to talk about ethnogenesis when their remains decayed - in the 20s of the 20th century.

                        I’m having a conversation with you, so I’m speaking in terms that are now accepted.
                        The processes of transformation of ethnic communities (and this is ethnogenesis), starting from linguistic differentiation, began to be formulated by Herder and Humboldt in the 18th century.
                        Do you even understand what you wrote?

                        Naturally, I get it.
                      31. 0
                        19 March 2024 15: 37
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        They are trying to explain to you that in this case, Russian is the name of the Old Russian nationality, and not Russian, into which the Great Russians were renamed.

                        Where did I claim that Russians are renamed Great Russians? What nonsense are you talking about? Russians are a symbiosis of Little Russians, Belarusians and the so-called Great Russians.
                        As for the ancient Russian nationality, it was invented by Soviet historians of the Stalin period and no one had heard of them before.
                      32. 0
                        19 March 2024 16: 37
                        As for the ancient Russian nationality, it was invented by Soviet historians of the Stalin period and no one had heard of them before.

                        1) I’ll tell you a little secret - the subject of any discovery is not known until the moment of its discovery.
                        2) The fact that in the 1930s the concept of the Old Russian nationality was formulated in its final form does not mean that it did not exist earlier. Otherwise, you again do not understand the essence of the metaphor about “tomato and tomato”
                        In modern times, the idea of ​​the unity of the Eastern Slavs in ancient Russian era goes back to late chronicle sources and historical works of the 17th century. It is mentioned in the Gustyn Chronicle, and in the Kiev synopsis, the authorship of which is attributed to the Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innocent Gisel, sets out the assumption of the eternal unity of Little and Great Rus', justifying the genealogical rights of the Russian Tsar to the lands of the former Kievan Rus. These provisions of the “Synopsis” predetermined the views of Russian historians of the 18th and 19th centuries on all Eastern Slavs as representatives of the “single Russian people”. In Russian historiography of the 19th century, disputes arose from time to time regarding “primogeniture” and inheritance benefits Old Russian state, which individual representatives of the Little Russians (Ya. M. Markovich, M. A. Maksimovich) or Great Russians (M. P. Pogodin) attributed specifically to their branch. A. E. Presnyakov tried to smooth out these contradictions, arguing in 1907 that Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians have equal rights to heritage Ancient Russia. In parallel with historians and the Russian Orthodox Church, the idea ancient Russian unity supported by philologists who showed the existence of a single Old Russian language, which subsequently split into several related languages. The most influential works on this issue belong to A. Kh. Vostokov, I. I. Sreznevsky, A. I. Sobolevsky, A. A. Shakhmatov

                        Moreover, you don’t even understand that if you “invented” the ancient Russian nationality, that is, there was no such people, then you are saying exactly the same thing as Ukrainian nationalists who reject the kinship of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians say.
                        Russians are a symbiosis of Little Russians, Belarusians and the so-called Great Russians.

                        wassat
                        In your cave nationalism, you have become so entangled under the pressure of arguments that in your attempts to somehow get out, your Great Russians have already become so-called wassat
                        And you still don’t understand that Russians cannot be a symbiosis of Little Russians, Belarusians and Great Russians, if only because they separated from the Russians and did not unite into Russians. And your egg appeared before the chicken? lol
                      33. 0
                        19 March 2024 20: 16
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And you still don’t understand that Russians cannot be a symbiosis of Little Russians, Belarusians and Great Russians, if only because they separated from the Russians

                        I don’t understand this latest gobbledygook of yours. And no one will understand.
                      34. 0
                        15 March 2024 14: 50
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It's funny to hear this from a person who
                        1) without a caliper it is impossible to understand that the M10 bolt will not fit the M8 nut
                        2) 12 dollars is more than 35 dollars
                        3) .... etc.

                        No wonder:
                        As the first mate of the missile cruiser "Vladivostok" said: For every nut there is a threaded bolt.
                        And yes: 12 dollars in 1920 is more than 35 dollars in 2020.
                        This is elementary, Watson!
                      35. -1
                        15 March 2024 15: 14
                        Each nut has its own threaded bolt.

                        This has nothing to do with the fact that “without a caliper it is impossible to understand that the M10 bolt will not fit the M8 nut”
                        And yes: 12 dollars in 1920 is more than 35 dollars in 2020.
                        This is elementary, Watson!

                        Show me where you understood this in that conversation. lol
                        I explained this to you, but you did not accept this explanation (not exactly in the form you just wrote - you again got everything mixed up)
            2. 0
              17 March 2024 13: 15
              Doesn’t it bother you that at least points 1 and 2, for example, contradict each other?
              And what is the contradiction that you yourself brought up? This is called a tautology.
              1. 0
                18 March 2024 09: 37
                And what is the contradiction that you yourself brought up?

                1) Not “you yourself came up with it”, but “you showed theses that your opponent considers true” (that’s what he says - a statement of fact)
                2) If something is invented, then it cannot but exist.
                3) After a certain number of messages, the opponent comes up with a new thesis “Ukrainians = Little Russians.” Which also contradicts the points “there are no Ukrainians” and “Ukrainians were invented.”
                If you want to argue, start by explaining why Solánum lycopérsicum did not exist as a plant before receiving the name "tomato", having the first recorded name "tomatl" and why another name did not make it Cucumis sativus.
        2. -3
          13 March 2024 14: 54
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          And the mantra “there are no Ukrainians, they were invented, they are the wrong Russians, Ukraine never existed” - isn’t this a complex?

          First of all, these are not mantras.
          Secondly, these are not complexes
          Thirdly, mantras and complexes are not the same thing.
          Fourthly, there is no need to confuse issues of ethnicity and citizenship.
          Fifthly, all of the above is true.
        3. -3
          13 March 2024 15: 58
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          The division of one people into several does not in any way contradict historicity.

          What is this about?
          1. 0
            15 March 2024 14: 52
            I don't see the answer to the question. Or do you simply not have it?
      3. +2
        13 March 2024 11: 10
        Maybe the article is about this after all?

        In the genre of historical delirium, you can write about anything, which the author has successfully demonstrated for many years, including today’s article.
    4. -2
      17 March 2024 15: 22
      There was no “Ukraine” in Ancient Rus' - that’s absolutely true. There was no such ethnic group, no such state, no such territory.
      1. +1
        17 March 2024 15: 24
        What ethnic groups existed in Ancient Rus'?
        1. -2
          17 March 2024 15: 39
          The Novgorodians called themselves Slovenes, and the Rus were in Kyiv. Well, the rest are Vyatichi, Krivichi, etc.. You can find it in the Wiki, which mentions “northerners” instead of “severians”. Oleg, together with the Slovenians, took Kyiv; the Kievans did not show any resistance, which is suggestive.
          Konstantin Porphyrogenitus mentions the first two in connection with an unidentified source about the rapids on the Dnieper and specifically mentions that they had the same language.
          1. +1
            17 March 2024 16: 15
            You can find it on Wiki

            Studying the ethnic structure of Ancient Rus' “on the wiki” is, of course, a strong move. But I’m not familiar with such serious sources as wiki; I increasingly prefer Grekov, Pogodin and others like them. Well, the chronicles are still preserved. According to these sources, it turns out that all modern ethnic groups did not exist in Ancient Rus' - neither Russians, nor Belarusians, nor Ukrainians.
            1. -2
              17 March 2024 16: 46
              Oh, for this only to the Normanist Pogodin. And of course the term “Rus” was coined by Nicholas II. You can turn to the Galicians themselves, who were always called “Rusyns”, or look at how many rivers and rivers bear the root “Rus”, or remember Staraya Russa. Well, of course, Pogodin’s textbooks are “stronger” than Konstantin, some Porphyrogenitus, he lived later.
              Well, a Georgian manuscript from the 11th century is a copy of an older chronicle talking about the attack of the “Scythians who are Russes” on Constantinople in 626. The manuscript is several decades older than PVL, of course it doesn’t tell you anything. The most interesting thing is that this ethnic group “Rus” appeared before the Varangians and Vikings came into history, whose graves were found by Lev Samoilovich Klein wherever possible.
            2. 0
              18 March 2024 19: 36
              You asked a childish question to me as a schoolchild, I answered you the same way - look at WIKI.
              Your complacency on the historical issues of Rus' may impress anyone, but not me.
              1. 0
                18 March 2024 19: 52
                impress anyone, but not me.

                Boris Alexandrovich? Igor Yakovlevich? I don't recognize you in makeup...
  10. +8
    13 March 2024 09: 00
    There was no “Ukraine” in Ancient Rus'.

    Again Samsonov’s article about the outskirts - Ukraine...how long can you rinse this topic. lol
    I suggest something new:
    “There was no “Austria” in Ancient Germany.” (Austria (Österreich German) - eastern country)
    “In Ancient Spain (Iberia) there was no “Portugal”.” (Portugal (Portus Cale lat.) - warm harbor)
    well and so on fellow
    1. +2
      14 March 2024 08: 00
      All states are created as a result of wars. Ukraine is no exception. So everything is fine. Wars after the collapse of the empire are also a historical law. Let's see what the Ukrainian state will become as a result of this war. Something tells me that it is not within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR.
  11. +7
    13 March 2024 09: 04
    What are the enemies of the USSR trying so hard to prove? After all, until 1991, not a single one of their States existed on the territory of the USSR. Or did the enemies of the USSR, who captured one of the 15 republics of the USSR, seriously imagine that they have the right to the entire territory of the USSR, and even to the entire territory of the Russian Empire? That they do not recognize the division of the USSR between the enemies of the USSR along the borders of the republics of the USSR?
  12. +7
    13 March 2024 09: 51
    In the Byzantine Empire, in the church-administrative practice of the 14th century, two terms were introduced into circulation: “Little and Great Russia (Rus)”

    The terms Great and Small in relation to peoples were introduced into circulation by the Greeks almost from the time of Herodotus. To designate the original region of the people and the areas of its further expansion. Naturally - as they themselves imagined it. For example, Greater Greece is the Greek colonies in the south of Italy and Sicily. Also, Lesser Scythia is the Crimea, Greater is the rest of the Black Sea region..
  13. +7
    13 March 2024 10: 03
    It’s clear that the Bolsheviks planted 15 bombs, which exploded in 1991, and several bombs in Russia, well, some of which were neutralized, but the “Chechen” bomb exploded completely, requiring several operations
    1. +9
      13 March 2024 10: 19
      Another thing is interesting - if our non-alternative sincerely considers the structure of the USSR to be a bomb - who prevented him from turning the Russian Federation into a unitary state during a quarter of a century of pandemonium? As the experience of Chechnya shows, the current federal format is no less dangerous than the Soviet one..

      Why can't it? Why does he assume that Lenin could then? What are the grounds for this?
      1. +8
        13 March 2024 10: 41
        Why does he assume that Lenin could then?
        We need to appoint a switchman to explain why nothing is working out now.
  14. +4
    13 March 2024 10: 27
    Don’t remind me who the bastards attached the name “Ukrainian” to the Sumy Hussar Regiment.
    And in what year?

    Thank you.
    1. -2
      14 March 2024 08: 04
      Ukraine is a territory. Like Siberia. Hence the name. Or do you think that only Ukrainians served in the Sumy Hussar Regiment?
  15. +8
    13 March 2024 10: 32
    I would like to note that the kings were masters of their word - they wanted to give, they wanted to take away. This is about “Little Russia received broad autonomy under the rule of the Moscow sovereign.” Livonia and Courland, as well as the Bashkirs and Finland, initially received autonomy, various rights and liberties. Several decades passed, and everyone was taken away. Bring the Baltics under a common denominator in the 1880s, the Bashkirs in 1730-40, the Finns began to gradually take away their rights under Nicholas 2 and the process was never completed, due to revolutions and WWII. The article mentions the abolition of the Hetmanate by Catherine. The modus operandi was the same and it would be worth wondering if this is one of the reasons why the closest neighbors prefer that Russia stay away.
  16. +4
    13 March 2024 12: 31
    If Ukrainian nationalists – Petliurists had won the Civil War (Russian Troubles) (Who are the Petliurists), Little Russia-Ukraine would have remained within the borders of several provinces. Kyiv, Podolsk, Volyn, Poltava and Chernigov. It was these lands that the Central Rada claimed in 1917.

    Had Petliura won the civil war, the USSR could have turned out to be much smaller and weaker in 1939. Petliura’s Ukraine was an ideal satellite of Hitler’s Germany with all the attendant consequences. She could have taken part in the division of Poland in 1939 and the war against the USSR in 1941. The decision of the Bolsheviks to wrest the weapon of nationalism from the hands of the Petliurists then saved both Russia and Ukraine from becoming German colonies.
  17. +1
    13 March 2024 14: 43
    Well-fed author! You are already “the hundredth on this historical field”, you don’t even want to read. We are in the 21st century.
  18. -3
    13 March 2024 18: 08
    Only after the two most powerful Empires in the person of the Romanov Empire and the Red Soviet Empire were destroyed, only then was Russia divided, first into republics of the USSR, and then generally into “independent” “states”. And these two mighty Empires were destroyed by the liberals! First, liberals surrounded by Nicholas II, and then liberals surrounded by Gorbachev. Yeltsin has already “appeared” to everything that had already been destroyed, having previously been a “good” destroyer in the “shadow”, and all he had to do was formalize the destruction. And the Bolsheviks in 1917 only picked up power that was unnecessary to anyone and abandoned by everyone like a rag. The tsarist liberals and the liberals under Nicholas II himself managed to destroy, destroy, grind their tongues, but they didn’t have enough strength to power the state, even if only to select this power! Moreover, they had all the “levers”. Army, police, communications, media communications. As did the Gorbachev-Yeltsin liberals later. So be afraid of the Danaan liberals who are distributing such gifts.
  19. -1
    13 March 2024 18: 48
    But it all started with the Tptaro-Mongol invasion; what they did not capture went to the Principality of Brest-Litovsk and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
  20. 0
    13 March 2024 19: 49
    The same map should be shown to the Kazakhs at every opportunity
  21. +1
    13 March 2024 22: 07
    Fie on such an article!
    What is in the author’s theme is exaggerated, and what is not included in the author’s theme, he does not know, and labels it as heresy in advance.
    But I wrote a lot of interesting materials earlier... The information was good, and the style and style were interesting to read.
    Is the author getting old? Or did he cast a net for money?
  22. +2
    14 March 2024 14: 15
    I believe it is a mistake to consider Galicia as Stalin’s “gift” to Ukraine only because the guarantor recently said this in an interview. Galicia, or Galicia, was annexed following the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and more broadly, in the Second World War. Where should it be annexed - to Tajikistan, or the RSFSR? It is geographically adjacent to the territory of Ukraine. This is not a gift, but a “prize” for Victory. Whether we needed it or not is a debatable question. sad
    So dear - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsFdSXsSmZQ
  23. 0
    14 March 2024 17: 04
    Muy interesante el artículo, pero mucha agua ha pasado por el puente ya.

    Como "justificación" para "anexa la Novarosia" a Rusia, es double, mas un sin sentido.

    Me explico. La discusión no pasa por si Ucrania es independiente (cosa que en los hechos nunca lo fue por su dependencia a Rusia), sino por la injerencia otanista yanqui.

    Recuperar Novorosia, debe verse en el contexto señalado arriba y no en la historia lejana.

    La discusión es que Rusia, a traves de Ucrania, está siendo amenazada en un programa geopolitico de más de 100 años.

    Los errores del pasado, solo sirven si se aprenden de ellos y no se vuelven a repetir.

    Creo que a Rusia solo le conviene recuperar la Novorosia y no más. Dejar a Ucrania como la pequeña Rusia y si Polonia y Hungría exigen territorios, dárselos para debilitar aún más a Kiev.

    Controlar la totalidad territorial de la actual Ucrania, no solo es un despropósito, sino que no creo que sea la intention de la dirigencia Rusa.

    La experiencia tras la gran guerra patria, donde el KGB tuvo que lidiar con los sobrevivientes de Bandera y demases, indica que es gastar energías y tiempo en gente que odia su pasado ruso, como son los banderistas.

    Sería interesante que Rusia tomara toda la pequeña Rusia, pero creo que el costo no lo amerita, y dejar un estado débil y servil en el medio, controlando toda la costa del Mar Negro, poniendo a Moldavia en su lugar y un largo etc es mucho mejor que tener que poner soldados para que sean asesinados por bandas terroristas como en el pasado, sino pregúntenle a Vatutin.

    Teniendo en cuenta que la población rusa se encuentra al este del Dnieper y en la costa del mar negro, controlar estos territorios sería mucho más facil ya unos costos mucho menores.

    Regards!!!

    ----------------------------

    The article is very interesting, but a lot of water has already passed through the bridge.

    As a “justification” for the “annexation of Novarosia” to Russia, this is doubly, rather, nonsense.

    I'll explain. The debate is not about whether Ukraine is independent (which it never really was due to its dependence on Russia), but about NATO intervention by the United States.

    The restoration of Novorossiya should be viewed in the context indicated above, and not in distant history.

    The debate is that Russia is being threatened through Ukraine in a geopolitical program that is over 100 years old.

    Past mistakes are only useful if you learn from them and don't repeat them again.

    I believe that it is in Russia’s interests only to return Novorossiya and nothing more. Leave Ukraine as Little Russia and, if Poland and Hungary demand territory, give it to them in order to further weaken Kyiv.

    To control the entire territory of what is now Ukraine is not only impermissible, but I do not think that this is the intention of the Russian leadership.

    Experience after the Great Patriotic War, when the KGB had to deal with surviving Banderaites and others, shows that it is not worth wasting energy and time on people who hate their Russian past, such as Banderaites.

    It would be interesting if Russia took over all of Little Russia, but I think the price is not worth it, and leaving a weak and slave state in the middle, controlling the entire Black Sea coast, putting Moldavia in its place, etc. is much better than sending soldiers to the slaughter for terrorist gangs, as in the past, but ask Vatutin.

    Considering that the Russian population lives east of the Dnieper and on the Black Sea coast, controlling these territories would be much easier and at much lower cost.

    Greetings!!!
    1. -1
      17 March 2024 13: 26
      As long as NATO exists, created to destroy Russia, Russia is allowed any movement against it.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. 0
    16 March 2024 18: 04
    Discussing how it was does not convey anything other than information on history. How to solve the Ukrainian issue today? This is the third year of the SVO. There are no official legal documents of the Russian Federation. What is SVO? The purpose of the SVO in Ukraine? How will the SVO end? During the Patriotic War, everyone knew the goal, this was the defeat of the Nazis, the surrender of Germany. It is necessary to issue a Law of the Russian Federation in which it will be written that the entire territory of Ukraine, within the borders of 1975, is an integral part of Russia and everything will immediately fall into place. Next, fight and liberate Russian lands. There is no other way out.
  26. -1
    17 March 2024 13: 20
    Ukraine from the word steal. Those convicted of thefts were resettled to the edge. Not otherwise.
  27. -2
    17 March 2024 15: 11
    The note correctly answered its own title: “Ukraine” and “Little Rus'” are Polish terms that have entered the Russian language. Moreover, the term “Ukraine” designates a territory, not an ethnic group, and the second designates several regions around Kyiv at the time these territories entered the “Rzeczpospolita”. And the “Little Russians” are the people who lived in this territory, most of whom were serfs of Polish landowners and a small part of registered Cossacks (6000), like Bogdan Khmelnitsky, who wanted to become Polish nobles, receiving a salary from the Polish king, but unequal according to the rights of the Polish nobles.
    The Western analogue of the word “Ukraine” is the term “marka”, that is, a territory bordering on another state and did not mean anything else. Hence the title "Margrave".
    In Muscovite Rus' they also used this term in documents: Ryazan Ukraine, Smolensk Ukraine, etc.
  28. -1
    18 March 2024 14: 49
    The Ukrainization of Russians is one of the crimes of the communists.
    1. 0
      20 March 2024 21: 38
      And who else and who hasn’t turned Russians into?
      In your opinion, everyone around is criminals and only Russians are saints... Or are they called some other word?
      And the fact that communists themselves cannot be Russian—how did you come up with that? Reveal the secret....
  29. 0
    18 March 2024 14: 52
    Quote: Luenkov
    As long as NATO exists, created to destroy Russia, Russia is allowed any movement against it.


    Hola Arkadi!!!

    No entiendo su comentario, podría ampliarlo?

    --------

    Hello Arkady!!!

    I don't understand your comment, could you expand on it?
  30. 0
    21 March 2024 13: 05
    Quote: ivan2022
    And who else and who hasn’t turned Russians into?
    In your opinion, everyone around is criminals and only Russians are saints... Or are they called some other word?
    And the fact that communists themselves cannot be Russian—how did you come up with that? Reveal the secret....


    Communists are internationalists without family or tribe, nationality is not important to them, class is more important to them. These are the globalists
  31. 0
    April 9 2024 14: 37
    Not a single Ukrainian existed before 1917.
    On the Russian lands of Rus', Novorossiya and the Russian city of Kyiv, only Russian people have lived for centuries.
    Little Russians are Russian people who speak different dialects of the Russian language.
    In 1917, a separatist sect occupied Russian people living on the Russian lands of Rus' and forcibly imposed on them the nickname Ukrainian.
    All so-called Ukrainians now are ethnically Russian people or ethnically Russian people.