How and why did Ukraine appear?

17 050 128
How and why did Ukraine appear?

In modern Ukraine, it is officially accepted that the statehood of Ukraine originated from Kievan Rus, and has its ancient roots different from the Russian ones. history and is part of Europe. Naturally, the question arises as to when and how Ukraine emerged, how the "Ukrainian nation" was formed, and why nothing was known about this state before 1991. In one of my recent articles, some commentators accused me of distorting the history of the origins of Ukraine and the Ukrainian language. Indeed, it's not good to be unfounded, and in this regard, it's worth briefly reviewing the historical facts.

It turns out that Kievan Rus' originated not from Kyiv, but from Novgorod, where in 862 the Rurik dynasty began to rule Rus'. Expanding to the south, they moved down the Dnieper and in 882 moved their capital to Kyiv, where Russian princes continued to rule.



Beginning in the 10th century, the chronicle "Russkaya Pravda" spoke of Rus', the Russian land, and as early as 882, Prince Oleg commanded that Kyiv be considered the "mother of Russian cities." From Lake Ladoga to the tributaries of the Dnieper, one people, a common history, speaks a common language, the Rurik dynasty rules everywhere, and the whole world calls them Rus', Rus', Rusichi, and Russians.

From the mid-12th century, civil strife among the Russian princes began to disintegrate the unified state, and in 1240, southwestern Rus' became easy prey for the Horde. The capital of Rus' moved to Vladimir and then to Moscow. Grand Prince Ivan III assumed the title of Sovereign of "All Rus'," and in 1480, the Horde was finally expelled from Russian lands.

The southwestern lands are desolate, and Kievan Rus' ceases to exist independently. While Northern Rus', due to the weakening of the Golden Horde and internal unrest, unites into the Russian state, Southwestern Rus' (the future Ukrainian lands) ceases to exist independently for 400 years and is considered only within the shared history of Lithuania and Poland. The southern Russian nobility and the local Rurikids who led it betray their people, assimilating with the Lithuanian and Polish gentry for selfish reasons, and the southern Russian people, reduced to serfs and servants, are left without their elite.

What kind of continuity can we talk about between modern Ukraine and ancient Kievan Rus' if the entire spiritual, cultural, and secular life of the Old Russian state moved to Northern Rus', which became the successor to Kievan Rus'.

The next step taken by the Poles in southwestern Rus' was to eliminate the very concepts of "Rus'" and "Russian" from circulation. At this time, in both Polish and Russian societies, the borderlands of the two states were colloquially referred to as "ukraina," and in 1581, the papal envoy Antonio Possevino proposed calling the southwestern Russian lands by this name. At the same time, the Russian language was banished from official use, and the Russian population was forced to use Polish exclusively. This led to the introduction of numerous Polish words into the Russian language, and by the mid-17th century, it had degenerated into an ugly Polish-Russian jargon—the precursor to the future Ukrainian language.

A wealth of historical documents has long since proven that the word "Ukraine" derives from the "outskirts" of the Russian and Polish lands. In Rus', from the 12th to the 17th centuries, "outskirts," "krainas," and "ukrainas" were used to refer to various borderlands. Thus, in 1187, the Pereyaslav "outskirts" were mentioned, in 1189, the Galician "outskirts," in 1271, the Pskov "ukrains," and in 1571, the Tatar "ukrains," and "Kazan ukrains." In the 17th century, "outskirts of the Wild Field" were mentioned, and the word "ukraina" began to designate the lands of the Middle Dnieper region. Polish sources also mention the border "Kiev ukraina" and "Ukrainian lords and elders."

There was no ethnic connotation in the Russian and Polish names; this concept was purely toponymic, indicating the geographical location of the area.

The new toponym is being incorporated into official documents, and gradually, the term "Ukraine" appears in Polish document circulation instead of "Rus." Thus, from a purely geographical concept, this term acquires political significance and becomes ingrained in the popular imagination.

At the end of the 16th century, a Cossack movement was gaining strength on the border between Russia and Poland. These Cossacks were free and warlike people accustomed to living in the border steppes and whose main occupation was raiding the lands of neighboring states. They sought en masse to become a registered part of the Polish Cossacks, receiving payment and privileges for their service to the Polish king.

Knowing no other way of life than banditry, they began to torment a weakening Poland, linking the struggle to plunder the nobility with the liberation of the people from Polish oppression. After half a century of struggle, they succeeded in creating not a state, but a militarized entity, the Zaporizhian Sich, led by a headstrong Cossack army and a supreme leader, the hetman, who for many reasons were incapable of independent state building. They sought protection in Crimea, Turkey, and Russia, and, betraying each patron, they sought to live as they pleased, free from state oversight.

In 1654, the Zaporizhian Sich and the Left Bank voluntarily joined Russia, which brought them into line, gradually curtailing their liberties. In 1775, the Zaporizhian Sich was finally abolished, while the Right Bank remained part of Poland. After the partition of Poland in 1793, the Right Bank was returned to Russia, but Galicia remained in the West and became part of Austria-Hungary.

With the incorporation of Poland into Russia and the return of the Right Bank, another wave of Ukrainization began, led by the Polish gentry, who sought to achieve Polish independence and recruit "Ukrainians" to this end. In their books, the Poles Tadeusz Czacki and Franciszek Duchinski substantiated their invented concept of a separate Ukrainian people with an independent origin, along with delusional ideas about the "chosenness" of the Polish and related "Ukrainian" peoples, and argued that Russians (Muscovites) were not Slavs at all, but descended from Tatars. Later, an anonymous pseudoscientific work of ideological intent, "History of the Rus," appeared, concocted from conjecture, cynical falsification of historical facts, and imbued with a zoological hatred of all things Russian.

At this time, the Ukrainophile Kulish proposed his own system of simplified spelling (kulishovka) in 1856 to teach the common people to read and write, which, against Kulish’s will, was used in Austrian Galicia to create a Polonized Ukrainian language.

Overall, the word "Ukrainians" as an ethnonym failed to catch on, and attempts to "educate" the peasants to awaken a "Ukrainian consciousness" were completely unsuccessful. Later, the Austrian subject Hrushevsky's attempts to prove the existence of an independent "Ukrainian people" with Austrian funding also failed, and the scholarly community of the time dismissed him as a "scientific nonentity."

Among the Ruthenians of Austrian Galicia, the Russian language could not be completely eradicated; it remained the primary language of education and worship. Therefore, a decision was made to introduce a new language based on "phonetic spelling"—as I hear, so I write, using the Cyrillic alphabet. This version of the "Ukrainian language" was approved by the Austro-Hungarian parliament in 1893.

According to the official Ukrainian myth, this is an ancient Old Ukrainian language spoken by the equally ancient Ukrainian nation. This nonsense is not supported by any written monuments or documents of ancient Rus', which spoke and wrote in a single Old Russian language.

The "Kulisovka" alphabet was used as the basis for the new alphabet, removing letters such as "ы," "э," and "ъ" from the Russian alphabet and simultaneously introducing new ones—"є," "ї," and the apostrophe. To further differentiate it from Russian, individual Russian words were deliberately eliminated and replaced with Polish and German ones, or new ones were invented. As the basis for the "Ukrainian language," the founding fathers used the vernacular speech of the peasantry, with Polish borrowings resulting from the everyday communication of Russian serfs with the gentry. This speech was adapted only to describe peasant life and was incapable of serving as a language of literature and scholarship. Therefore, the Ukrainian language closely resembles a distorted Russian, with "folk phrases" that border on indecency.

To differentiate it as much as possible from Russian, the artificially created language was based on a Polonized Galician dialect, poorly understood in the central and eastern regions. This can be confirmed by the so-called "Ukrainian" words of Polish origin: umbrella (parasolka), brick (cegla), cemetery (cmentarz), noble (szlachetny), which are still used today.

The prominent Ukrainophile Nechuy-Levytsky, analyzing this language, wrote that it resembled a caricature of the vernacular and was "devilry dressed up in a so-called Ukrainian sauce." Thus, by decree of the Austro-Hungarian parliament in the late 19th century, an artificially invented Ukrainian language was born. It was never native to the Little Russians, and it becomes clear why it has failed to take root in modern Ukraine.

Under Hrushevsky's leadership, numerous Ukrainian-language publications opened in Kyiv and other cities of the Southwestern Territory in 1906, and hundreds of advocates of the invented "Ukrainian" language emerged. Its artificiality immediately became apparent to everyone: while the Rusyns in Galicia could still understand it, for residents of the Southwestern Territory, this "mova" was gibberish. Despite substantial Austrian funding for this initiative, it received no support and, due to lack of demand, quickly ceased to exist.

The imposition of Ukrainianism in Russia before February 1917 was unsuccessful. The toponym "Ukraine" was practically never used, the invented Ukrainian language was rejected by all levels of society, and no "Ukrainian" national liberation movement was observed. In Galicia, however, the Rusyn movement was completely crushed through terror, its ideologists were physically exterminated, the invented Ukrainian language was forcibly imposed on the bulk of the peasantry, and the weak-willed were reforged into a "Ukrainian nation" with an inferiority complex and a fierce hatred of all things Russian.

With the outbreak of World War I and the monumental events of 1917 unfolding across Russia, Germany, in its own interests, took center stage in imposing a "Ukrainian nation." Russian liberals rendered them an invaluable service: the leader of the Kadet Party and an old acquaintance of Grushevsky, Milyukov, forced a debate in the State Duma about the existence of a "Ukrainian people." The term "Ukrainians" gradually became ubiquitous, first in a geographical sense, and then in an ethnic one.

In March 1917, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, Guchkov, declared that the Ukrainians of Galicia could unite with the Ukrainians of Russia, thereby recognizing for the first time at the government level the existence of two different peoples – Russian and “Ukrainian.”

Considering that virtually all the "Ukrainians" were outside Russia, their leaders from Austrian Galicia quickly moved to Kyiv, establishing the Central Rada there, headed by the Austrian citizen Hrushevsky. Having appointed themselves members (of the 18 leaders of the Central Rada, 12 were Austrian subjects), they began energetically working to create an "independent Ukraine." In doing so, they did not unite Galicia with Russia, but rather annexed the lands of the southwestern region to Galicia.

Thus, as a result of the collusion between a short-sighted segment of the Russian elite and the "independenceists," an opportunity arose to seize part of the Russian lands from Russia. The Central Rada's entire subsequent activity consisted of consolidating its acquired rights and elevating the "Ukrainian question" to the international stage, while the Germans and Austrians enthusiastically supported the aspirations of their puppets, having long dreamed of separating these lands from Russia.

During this period, unfolding against the backdrop of the February and October Revolutions that sparked the Civil War, numerous attempts were made to establish an independent Ukrainian state in Russia's southwestern region. However, due to the irreconcilable confrontation between the parties, a series of mutual betrayals, and the intervention of external forces, nothing came of these attempts. Nevertheless, history retains not one, but seven self-proclaimed sham "states."

Ukrainian People's Republic - November 7, 1917 - April 29, 1918
Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets - December 12, 1917 - April 24, 1918
Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic – January 30, 1918 – April 28, 1918
Odessa Soviet Republic – January 18, 1918 – March 13, 1918
Ukrainian State - April 29, 1918 - December 14, 1918
West Ukrainian People's Republic - November 13, 1918 - July 18, 1919
Directory - December 14, 1918 - December 2, 1919.

None of these "states" managed to hold power for even a year; no one recognized them except the Ukrainian People's Republic, which Germany needed. Germany recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as an independent state and signed a separate treaty with it to counter Soviet Russia during the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In exchange for military assistance against Soviet troops, the Ukrainian People's Republic pledged to supply Germany and Austria-Hungary with 1 million tons of grain, 400 million eggs, up to 50 tons of meat, as well as lard, sugar, hemp, manganese ore, and other raw materials. The signing of the separate treaty between the Ukrainian People's Republic and Germany became the legal basis for the occupation of all of Ukraine by Austro-German troops and saved the Ukrainian People's Republic from imminent liquidation.

Both the Ukrainian State led by Skoropadsky and its successor, the Directory, led by Vynnychenko and the nationalist clown Petliura, who became famous for his insatiable desire to convert the entire population into Ukrainians, fell under Germany's thumb. The Western Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR), established in Galicia, was fundamentally impossible to survive, as a resurgent Poland laid claim to these lands and quickly expelled its rivals. All the Soviet republics also lacked popular support and were unable to maintain power for long.

As a result of this "state-building" on the farmsteads, chaos and anarchy descended upon the vast expanses of the Southwestern Territory, and rapidly changing "Ukrainian" regimes and governments failed to establish "Ukrainian independence," as the idea had no support among the population. This chaos ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks, who, now driven by their own ideological goals, began a new phase of the Soviet Ukrainization described earlier.
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 August 2026 04: 14
    Ukraine is not needed
    Little Russia is important
    Home to Novorossiya
    Down with Westernism
    1. +2
      25 August 2026 05: 16
      Quote: Andrey Krutilin
      Down with Westernism

      I wonder when Poland, Hungary, and Romania will decide to reclaim their "historical" lands? And how quickly will Western Ukrainians be reduced to serfs and servants again (the author's words)?
      1. +1
        25 August 2026 06: 38
        Drive Banderites out of Malorossiya and Novorossiya into Galicia.
        Prosecute under Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. All these "language" patrols.
        Let them flee with their families and fight forever with the Polish nationalists.
        Most Poles have Lviv written on their foreheads, from mozha to mozha.
        This will be denazification.
        1. -2
          25 August 2026 07: 26
          Quote: Andrey Krutilin
          Drive Banderites out to Galicia

          What to do with the Ukrainians who are not Banderites?
          1. -2
            25 August 2026 07: 34
            Quote: Alexey Sedykin

            What to do with the Ukrainians who are not Banderites?

            Re-educate them, the main thing is to avoid having to dig them out of hiding for decades again! If Russians were turned into Vyrusians, the reverse process is also possible.
    2. -8
      25 August 2026 07: 27
      Quote: Andrey Krutilin
      Down with Westernism

      Ukrainianism originated precisely from Little Russia and New Russia... Kyiv and Kharkiv are the parents of Ukrainian nationalism.
      1. 0
        29 August 2026 23: 17
        The majority of the "parents" of Ukrainian nationalism are... the St. Petersburg "intellectuals"-liberals
  2. +7
    25 August 2026 04: 40
    The author demonstrated a complete ignorance of Ukrainian history! If you believe the textbooks, it's 140,000 years old. And if you go back further and further, its history begins with the first strand of DNA! And you're writing about some 9th-century Kievan Rus'. wink
    1. +3
      25 August 2026 10: 56
      Exactly! The first sperm that came into the world immediately screamed, "Glory to Ukraine!"
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        25 August 2026 13: 59
        Quote: Grencer81
        The first sperm that was born immediately cried out: "Glory to Ukraine!"
        He already had a forelock and was wearing an embroidered shirt! wink
    2. +1
      29 August 2026 23: 18
      You're wrong! The ancient Ukrainians came from outer space! They fell from the Moon! Or from Mars.
  3. +3
    25 August 2026 04: 43
    "Folk words" on the edge of decency.
    Ass. It turns out that there it's a perfectly common and non-offensive word, meaning something obvious.
    1. +9
      25 August 2026 08: 49
      Quote: U-58
      a completely common and non-offensive word

      Who terrorized the Russian population with this vile language that doesn't even exist? The Hetman. Who bred all this scum with tails on their heads? The Hetman. And now, when the cat's in the lurch, they've started forming a Russian army?
      "He's a bastard," Turbin continued with hatred, "he doesn't even speak that damned language himself! Huh? The day before yesterday, I asked that scoundrel, Doctor Kuritsky, and if you please, he forgot how to speak Russian since November of last year. He was Kuritsky, and now he's Kuritsky... So I ask him how to say 'cat' in Ukrainian? He replies 'whale.' I ask, 'And what about whale?' And he stops, his eyes wide, and says nothing. And now he doesn't bow.
      1. +2
        25 August 2026 13: 15
        I fully support this, I studied when the Union collapsed, in this bad time with UkrainiansEveryone was normal until they left for Ukraine, those who stayed in Russia are fine.
  4. +2
    25 August 2026 04: 48
    Under the leadership of Grushevsky, in 1906, numerous Ukrainian-language publications opened in Kyiv and other cities of the Southwestern region, and hundreds of propagandists of the invented “Ukrainian” language appeared.

    I wonder why the Russian leadership so zealously guards the right to exist (study and teach in the language) of this invention? In Russian lands, Russian should be the only official language, lest the story of the builders of the Tower of Babel repeat itself...
    1. +1
      25 August 2026 07: 28
      There is no need to imitate Zelensky and his company, which banned the Russian language.
      All this fool had to do after being elected was come to Donbass and make an agreement along the lines of: speak the language you consider your native language, repeal this idiotic law.
      And Ukraine would have lived in the old paradigm.
      No way. Under the influence of the Western (and pro-Western) electorate, he started to bite the bullet and ended up with what he got. He's an idiot. Even though he's Jewish...
      1. +1
        25 August 2026 09: 51
        Come on, all this started just a month after their coup.
      2. +7
        25 August 2026 10: 14
        Is that really your opinion? Have you done much research on primary sources? Say, Ukrainian websites from the LPR/DPR territories Kyiv controlled as of February 2022? Or websites/newscasts from Kharkiv, Odesa, and so on. Are you sure the problem is solely language, and specifically the Kyiv authorities? Why do you echo the author's dichotomy between ethnically correct people and those who aren't? History is both simple and complex. In the 10th-14th centuries, there were no Russians or Ukrainians, just as there were no Poles or French—nations are a much later societal "invention." In places where society hasn't advanced further, such "invention" still doesn't exist. Even in the Russian Empire, divisions were primarily religious... there were Orthodox Christians, there were "Germans," there were Jews, and so on. And anyway, today, whose land was in the 15th-17th centuries is of purely historical interest. Before the British, there were no India or Pakistan as unified states. In fact, without the Europeans, there were no states in Africa in the modern sense. So what? When did Italy or Germany form? What about the USA or Canada? Mexico?
        The point is that initially there were many Slavic tribes, but their fates turned out differently, so today it is impossible to put = between Slavs and Russians, since Poles and Czechs are also Slavs, but the author somehow separates them, saying that they are some other groups of peoples.
        More importantly, by the end of the Civil War, the communists were unable to effectively control the territory of modern-day Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucasian republics, and were therefore forced to form a federation. If you're feeling disconcerted, formally, from a legal perspective, Russia was not a member of the UN until the collapse of the USSR, while Belarus and Ukraine were among the founding members of that organization. It seems to me that all our problems and misunderstandings with our neighbors stem from one fundamental issue: we associate Russia and the USSR with each other, although this isn't entirely accurate. According to Soviet documents, the union was an organization, not a state per se.
        1. +1
          25 August 2026 18: 50
          According to Soviet documents, the union was an organization, not a state as such.
          What are you saying?! According to the 1977 constitution
          Article 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people. state
        2. 0
          26 August 2026 21: 31
          Even in the Russian Empire, the division was primarily religious... there were Orthodox, there were “Germans,” there were Jews, and so on.
          Something like that, but not exactly like that.
          They were divided according to objective characteristics, and these characteristics were recorded in passports or in official church records (like the Civil Registry Office)
          The division was by taxable class - peasant, tradesman, nobleman, merchant,
          By religion: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant (not German), Jewish (not Jewish). This information could be objectively verified. Go to the appropriate clergyman and ask, make inquiries about the person.
          Nationality was not officially recorded anywhere. Nations and ethnic groups were described in a number of documents, but they had little influence on a person's fate.
        3. 0
          29 August 2026 23: 11
          The USSR was destroyed by those high-ranking communist nomenklatura members, each of whom wanted to carve out their own fiefdom. Ukrainianism wasn't particularly popular in Ukraine itself. The authorities only flirted with it to secure funding from the West, which, however, was promptly stolen. I was in Kyiv in 2008, and not only did they not speak Russian, but no one was interested in Ukrainianism. Even now, almost all radio communications between Ukrainian troops on the front are in Russian.
          Incidentally, "Ukraine" isn't just in Russia. There's, for example, Serbian Krajina. Israel is the "Ukraine" of the Middle East, and Pakistan is India's outskirts.
      3. 0
        25 August 2026 12: 57
        Zelensky couldn't have done that. They wouldn't have let him do it.
      4. -1
        25 August 2026 15: 02
        You've forgotten that when Zelensky became president, Crimea had been in the cards for five years, and three years later, someone didn't join somewhere, and now for four years those who didn't join have been sniffing the scent of Istanbul, then the scent of Ankor...
    2. 0
      25 August 2026 09: 46
      Quote: yuriy55
      It would be interesting to know why the Russian leadership so zealously guards the right to exist (study, teach in the language) of this invention?


      Constitution of the Russian Federation.
      Article 26, paragraph 2: everyone has the right to use their native language, to freely choose the language of communication, education, training and creativity.
      Article 68, paragraph 3: The Russian Federation guarantees all its peoples the right to preserve their native language and to create conditions for its study and development.
  5. -3
    25 August 2026 05: 51
    Nations are not created by the will of individuals or the result of intelligence conspiracies. A nation is a significant group of people united by shared economic activity, cultural development, and interaction. These foundations, coupled with historical circumstances, shape nations. The territorial unification of the Eastern Slavs, centered in Kyiv, inevitably disintegrated into appanage principalities, each of which followed its own historical path, shaping its economy and culture. And by the 19th century, the time of the formation of political nations, everything had fallen into place: three ethnically related nations emerged—Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. Now, the debate is not about whether such nations exist, but about whose bourgeoisie, the nation's founder, will control which resources.
    1. +7
      25 August 2026 06: 44
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Three ethnically related nations emerged: Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians

      Yeah, that's why Shevchenko I didn't know Ukrainians...
      1. -3
        25 August 2026 06: 58
        You're right, Shevchenko didn't know such a nation. Firstly, this is because there were no nations or nationalities in the Russian Empire. People were divided by religion and race, and the entire population was not citizens, but subjects of the crown. Secondly, Shevchenko was not among the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intelligentsia, who create and shape political nations. Shevchenko was a "kobzar" (in Belarusian, "pesnyar," in Russian, "free singer"), who celebrated local culture and language. He was not a nationalist, but his role in shaping the culture and literary form of the Ukrainian language is significant.
        1. +4
          25 August 2026 07: 20
          Quote: Yuras_Belarus
          Shevchenko was not among the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intelligentsia who create and shape political nations.

          Shevchenko was a member of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood, which gave birth to modern Ukrainians. Ukrainians are the offspring of Russian liberals, not the bourgeoisie, which didn't exist as such in Molorossiya... and which was problematic in Russia itself in the 19th century.
          You don't know Shevchenko's work well.
          And also, nations don't emerge in a few years; even the Americans and Germans never managed to completely create a single nation... but you Belarusians and Ukrainians became nations in a couple of decades.
          1. -1
            25 August 2026 09: 08
            All sorts of "brotherhoods" are informal associations of creative people, not conspiratorial unions. Russian writers and poets were also members of such associations, but they did not create a political nation of "Russians" or "Rossiyans."
            It's completely unclear on what basis you deny the existence of a bourgeoisie in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. Firstly, a bourgeoisie always and everywhere arises where favorable conditions for the development of production relations exist. And in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, at that time, they emerged simultaneously with the entire European part of the Russian Empire.
            Finally, the period of emergence of a political nation can be any and depends primarily on the strength and capabilities of the local bourgeoisie, and not on any plan or standard.
            1. -3
              25 August 2026 09: 47
              Quote: Yuras_Belarus
              All sorts of "brotherhoods" are informal associations of creative people, not conspiratorial unions. Russian writers and poets were also members of such associations, but they did not create a political nation of "Russians" or "Rossiyans."
              It's completely unclear on what basis you deny the existence of a bourgeoisie in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. Firstly, a bourgeoisie always and everywhere arises where favorable conditions for the development of production relations exist. And in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, at that time, they emerged simultaneously with the entire European part of the Russian Empire.
              Finally, the period of emergence of a political nation can be any and depends primarily on the strength and capabilities of the local bourgeoisie, and not on any plan or standard.

              You misinterpreted my comment, which implied that if the titular (state-forming) nationality begins to oppress other nationalities, then this is a sure path to the collapse of the state. This is precisely what happened in Ukraine, when the Bandar-logs reduced their entire national policy to elevating the "titular nationality" at the expense of the rights (language, education, religion) of other nationalities living in Ukraine.
              Russia and the United States followed different historical paths to nation formation, but nations emerged in both places. The bourgeoisie had nothing to do with it.
              1. 0
                25 August 2026 18: 30
                Quote: Nyrobsky
                It worked out both there and there.

                Tell that to the Italians, Latinos, Blacks and other "non-whites" in the US... they don't know.
                1. 0
                  25 August 2026 20: 15
                  Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                  Quote: Nyrobsky
                  It worked out both there and there.

                  Tell that to the Italians, Latinos, Blacks and other "non-whites" in the US... they don't know.

                  Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                  Quote: Nyrobsky
                  together with their lands.

                  Where exactly do you put Russians, or do you think they don’t have the right to an identity?
                  Tell the "whites" in the US that they are one nation with the "coloreds"... I'm afraid they don't know it.

                  You seem to know how to write in Russian, and you can read what's written in Russian, but you can't understand what you've read. Why is that? winked
                  We're talking about nations, and you're still trying to get involved with nationalities and race. No.
                  1. +1
                    25 August 2026 20: 43
                    Quote: Nyrobsky
                    get involved with nationalities and races

                    Open the Great Russian Encyclopedia and read the meaning of Russian... maybe then you'll stop being so dismissive of the great Russian ethnic group, which, by the way, I don't belong to.
                    1. 0
                      25 August 2026 22: 32
                      Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                      Open the Great Russian Encyclopedia and read the meaning of Russian... maybe then you'll stop being so dismissive of the great Russian ethnic group, which, by the way, I don't belong to.

                      I already realized that you do not belong to the Russian ethnic group because you do not grasp the meaning of what you read.
                      Regarding my disparaging attitude toward the great Russian ethnos, I would like some clarification: where did you dig this up? And how is it expressed? Unlike you, I am Russian.
                      1. -1
                        4 September 2026 19: 52
                        Quote: Nyrobsky
                        Unlike you, I am Russian.

                        Very often it is the Russians who "push" for internationalism and for whom Russians are not an ethnic group but a nation of All Rus', as it was under the USSR... in Russia the nation is Russians. Nationality is Russian.
                        As for the rest... well, you're very good at casting shadows. Because you still haven't written anything about the US. 🤣
            2. 0
              25 August 2026 18: 28
              Quote: Yuras_Belarus
              opportunities for the local bourgeoisie

              Don't talk about things you don't have the slightest idea about.
              Zmagars are so funny...
        2. +5
          25 August 2026 07: 32
          Shevchenko was the emblem of all things Ukrainian. In the 60s, when my family lived in Kyiv, Taras Shevchenko and Taras Bulba were mentioned so often on the radio that I thought they were the same person.
          1. +1
            25 August 2026 11: 05
            Ukrainians had a cult of Shevchenko long before the Revolution - busts of Shevchenko were so widespread that Korney Chukovsky wrote in his "Diaries" that when he was little Kolya Korneichukov, he believed that every bust was called "Shevchenko".
            Korney Chukovsky spent his childhood in Odessa at the end of the 19th century, long before its Ukrainization.
        3. +2
          25 August 2026 07: 32
          Quote: Yuras_Belarus
          Shevchenko did not know such a nation.

          He didn't know the Ukrainians, but he knew the Russians.
        4. 0
          29 August 2026 23: 21
          It was Russian liberals who called the Little Russian dialect a language. And the culture there... how is it different from the culture of Rostov or Kuban? Or Orenburg?
    2. +2
      25 August 2026 08: 25
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Nations are not created by the will of individuals or the result of intelligence conspiracies. A nation is a significant group of people united by shared economic activity, cultural development, and interaction. These foundations, coupled with historical circumstances, shape nations. The territorial unification of the Eastern Slavs, centered in Kyiv, inevitably disintegrated into appanage principalities, each of which followed its own historical path, shaping its economy and culture. And by the 19th century, the time of the formation of political nations, everything had fallen into place: three ethnically related nations emerged—Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. Now, the debate is not about whether such nations exist, but about whose bourgeoisie, the nation's founder, will control which resources.

      In principle, when giving a correct definition of what a nation is, you confuse the concepts of "nation" and "nationality".
      There is a "Russian nation" that encompasses all peoples and ethnicities living in a single state and economic space. There is the American nation (precocious), which also unites a mass of peoples and ethnicities also living in a single state and economic space, where a black person is considered an "African American." The same can be said of China, Iran, India, and so on, but the same cannot be said of Ukraine, since the Banderists have chosen to create a monoethnic state in favor of one Ukrainian nationality at the expense of all others, and that is Nazism. The Banderists failed to create a Ukrainian nation.
      The mattresses, despite their "youthful age" of 250 years, were still able to "boil in one pot" all nationalities and create the American nation, but the Bandarlogs lacked the intelligence and dragged their Ukraine to the cutting table themselves in order to eliminate this historical misunderstanding, since the nationalities they oppressed will leave Ukraine, but along with their lands.
      1. -4
        25 August 2026 09: 20
        The American "melting pot" of a unified nation was created by assimilating other communities to the founding nation—the Anglo-Saxons. When this failed due to resistance and isolation from other communities, American philosophers and political strategists turned to the "salad bowl" theory, which supposedly suggests that all communities are not fused but simply mixed to achieve a "single national flavor." But this theory also doesn't work. Ethnic, racial, and religious contradictions in American society are not eliminated, but rather blended and suppressed by imposing other goals and interests on society. This is precisely the source of the propaganda of non-traditional culture in American society. In short, you are proposing that all Russian ethnic groups follow the same path: from the imposition of a Russian identity to the stratification of Russian society and its disintegration.
      2. +1
        25 August 2026 18: 35
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        together with their lands.

        Where exactly do you put Russians, or do you think they don’t have the right to an identity?
        Tell the "whites" in the US that they are one nation with the "coloreds"... I'm afraid they don't know it.
  6. +3
    25 August 2026 07: 17
    It's strange that the author took on such a topic and wrote nothing but hackneyed cliches... not about the historian Kastomarov and the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood in Kyiv, nor about the "Brotherhood of Tarasovites," nor about the RUP and other "Ukrainian" parties on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia... even the notorious Wikipedia is much more informative.
    1. +5
      25 August 2026 10: 34
      Quote: Alexey Sedykin
      It's strange that the author took on such a topic and wrote nothing but hackneyed cliches... not about the historian Kastomarov and the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood in Kyiv, nor about the "Brotherhood of Tarasovites," nor about the RUP and other "Ukrainian" parties on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia... even the notorious Wikipedia is much more informative.

      You simply haven't read the author's entire series of articles. If you had, you would have realized that asking him to mention something like "Tarasovtsy" or RUP is too shallow. The author deliberately ignored these "minor details" in favor of exposing a grandiose, intercontinental conspiracy relay race spanning 450 years, where the baton was passed back and forth with pharmaceutical precision between history's most sworn enemies!
      Take a look at this timeline if you put the author's entire cycle together:
      16th century: The papal envoy Possevino, together with Polish lords, quickly came up with the word "Ukraine" and a Polish-Russian slang (although the roots of the conspiracy, apparently, go back to the Hypatian Chronicle of 1187).
      19th century: The Austrian Emperor, the Austro-Hungarian parliament, and its General Staff adopt the Polish methodology and, using Austrian money, force millions of peasants to suddenly “forget” their native language.
      Then, in the 19th century: In parallel with the Austrian plan, the ungrateful Taras Shevchenko, who had just been bought out of serfdom by Russian patrons for enormous sums of money, instead of saying "thank you," goes and carries out a large-scale ideological sabotage - he writes poetry and consolidates the "invented" language.
      1920s: Bolsheviks Lenin and Kaganovich (seemingly ideological enemies of the Austrian monarchs!) take this same Austro-Polish blueprint out of the safe and carry out total Ukrainization.
      1950s: The secret engine of history, Nina Kukharchuk, enters the picture. She dresses Nikita Khrushchev in an embroidered shirt, hypnotizes him, and forces him to personally resettle hundreds of thousands of Banderites in the Ukrainian SSR.
      1991: Yesterday's party secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, together with the US State Department, press the final button and, within 24 hours, materialize a ready-made 52-million-strong "anti-Russia".
      And after such an epic, centuries-long special operation, in which the Vatican, the Austrian Emperor, Lenin, Khrushchev, and Washington worked as a single, well-coordinated team, you still dare demand that we recall some real historical fact, like the Tarasovites or the RUP? Marvel's screenwriters are nervously smoking on the sidelines, while you pester the man with your dreary Wikipedia!
      1. 0
        25 August 2026 18: 41
        Quote: Skif32163216
        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
        It's strange that the author took on such a topic and wrote nothing but hackneyed cliches... not about the historian Kastomarov and the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood in Kyiv, nor about the "Brotherhood of Tarasovites," nor about the RUP and other "Ukrainian" parties on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia... even the notorious Wikipedia is much more informative.

        You simply haven't read the author's entire series of articles. If you had, you would have realized that asking him to mention something like "Tarasovtsy" or RUP is too shallow. The author deliberately ignored these "minor details" in favor of exposing a grandiose, intercontinental conspiracy relay race spanning 450 years, where the baton was passed back and forth with pharmaceutical precision between history's most sworn enemies!
        Take a look at this timeline if you put the author's entire cycle together:
        16th century: The papal envoy Possevino, together with Polish lords, quickly came up with the word "Ukraine" and a Polish-Russian slang (although the roots of the conspiracy, apparently, go back to the Hypatian Chronicle of 1187).
        19th century: The Austrian Emperor, the Austro-Hungarian parliament, and its General Staff adopt the Polish methodology and, using Austrian money, force millions of peasants to suddenly “forget” their native language.
        Then, in the 19th century: In parallel with the Austrian plan, the ungrateful Taras Shevchenko, who had just been bought out of serfdom by Russian patrons for enormous sums of money, instead of saying "thank you," goes and carries out a large-scale ideological sabotage - he writes poetry and consolidates the "invented" language.
        1920s: Bolsheviks Lenin and Kaganovich (seemingly ideological enemies of the Austrian monarchs!) take this same Austro-Polish blueprint out of the safe and carry out total Ukrainization.
        1950s: The secret engine of history, Nina Kukharchuk, enters the picture. She dresses Nikita Khrushchev in an embroidered shirt, hypnotizes him, and forces him to personally resettle hundreds of thousands of Banderites in the Ukrainian SSR.
        1991: Yesterday's party secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, together with the US State Department, press the final button and, within 24 hours, materialize a ready-made 52-million-strong "anti-Russia".
        And after such an epic, centuries-long special operation, in which the Vatican, the Austrian Emperor, Lenin, Khrushchev, and Washington worked as a single, well-coordinated team, you still dare demand that we recall some real historical fact, like the Tarasovites or the RUP? Marvel's screenwriters are nervously smoking on the sidelines, while you pester the man with your dreary Wikipedia!

        "Some little things" gave birth to the Central Rada and the Ukrainian People's Republic, gave birth to "Ukrainization" and Modern Ukraine... but it's far more interesting to examine global conspiracies than to carefully search for the roots of the problem. Blaming external enemies is much easier.
        You, like the author, have absolutely no idea about the origins of Ukrainianism or what it is in general.
        As I already wrote above, repeating hackneyed cliches does not require much effort.
  7. +4
    25 August 2026 07: 52
    One can debate at length what is myth and what is reality in Ukrainian history, but it's worth remembering that the history of states is often politicized. Goebbels even said that myth and reality are irrelevant when it comes to national cohesion and unity. The main thing is that the myth has a driving force and that the people believe in it.
  8. 0
    25 August 2026 08: 15
    Whatever one may say, it is unnecessary and it is unnecessary...
  9. -7
    25 August 2026 09: 13
    The people split in the 12th century, when part of them, thwarted by constant Polovtsian raids, fled north and formed the Great Russian nation. Little Russia fell under Polish influence.
    Under European influence, Little Russia embarked on the path to modernization earlier. Education, industry, and trade flourished. Meanwhile, in Moscow, most of the boyars could not write.
    The Moscow Orthodox Church, despite its astronomical resources, neglected public education, preferring to see its flock as rabble. Naturally, there were objective reasons for this. Poor soil and a harsh climate forced Great Russians to work significantly harder, leaving them no time for education.
    And so the schism occurred. The Little Russia elite was very reluctant to accept the poorly educated rulers from Moscow.
    We love to say that Tartu is the Russian city of Yuryev. But Tartu is primarily known for its university, founded by the Swedish king and closed by Peter the Great. And we wonder why the Balts don't like Russians...
    1. +6
      25 August 2026 09: 29
      The University of Tartu was re-established in 1802.
      1. -1
        25 August 2026 19: 24
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        The University of Tartu was re-established in 1802.

        In 100 years...
        Over the course of 100 years, the Germans (Austrians) turned the Russian people living in Western Ukraine into ideological Nazis.
        1. 0
          25 August 2026 19: 34
          What's your problem? The faculty of the University of Tartu has been relocated to Voronezh State University.
          I don't understand what you don't like?
        2. 0
          25 August 2026 19: 46
          Quote: ism_ek
          Over the course of 100 years, the Germans (Austrians) turned the Russian people living in Western Ukraine into ideological Nazis.

          They have been Nazis throughout history... every "uprising for freedom" the Zaporozhian Cossacks, under the leadership of their atamans, like Khmelnitsky, began with Jewish pogroms.
    2. 0
      25 August 2026 18: 46
      Quote: ism_ek
      The people split in the 12th century, when part of them, thwarted by constant Polovtsian raids, fled north and formed the Great Russian nation. Little Russia fell under Polish influence.
      Under European influence, Little Russia embarked on the path to modernization earlier. Education, industry, and trade flourished. Meanwhile, in Moscow, most of the boyars could not write.
      The Moscow Orthodox Church, despite its astronomical resources, neglected public education, preferring to see its flock as rabble. Naturally, there were objective reasons for this. Poor soil and a harsh climate forced Great Russians to work significantly harder, leaving them no time for education.
      And so the schism occurred. The Little Russia elite was very reluctant to accept the poorly educated rulers from Moscow.
      We love to say that Tartu is the Russian city of Yuryev. But Tartu is primarily known for its university, founded by the Swedish king and closed by Peter the Great. And we wonder why the Balts don't like Russians...

      Thank you for making me laugh... it turned out to be a good fairy tale.
      1. -1
        25 August 2026 19: 52
        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
        Thank you for making me laugh... it turned out to be a good fairy tale.

        What if there is no flooding?
        Remember Gogol. What were Taras Bulba's children doing in Kyiv? They studied at the Seminary. Was there anything similar in Moscow at the time? The Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was founded only in 1687.
        1. +1
          25 August 2026 20: 01
          Quote: ism_ek
          Studied in Bursa

          The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy trained clergy and was not a Soviet institution. That's one thing. Secondly, it was thanks to Russia that Estonians developed their own literary culture... Before that, their lot was to live on farmsteads and serve German and Swedish lords.
        2. -1
          26 August 2026 16: 05
          Quote: ism_ek
          What if there is no flooding?
          Remember Gogol. What were Taras Bulba's children doing in Kyiv? They studied at the Seminary. Was there anything similar in Moscow at the time? The Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was founded only in 1687.

          Read the Novgorod birch bark letters.
        3. +1
          29 August 2026 23: 34
          Bursa is a Turkish word... Do you think it's a coincidence?
          1. -1
            30 August 2026 07: 37
            If you're talking about a city in Turkey, it existed back in the days when the Turks were grazing sheep in Altai.
            1. -1
              30 August 2026 12: 45
              It doesn’t matter, the fact is that he was and is!
    3. 0
      29 August 2026 23: 32
      Just tell me, why did these “free and educated people” toil for centuries under the Tatars, the Turks, or the Poles?
      And who were these Balts before Russia arrived? Uneducated Chukhonian cattle (forgive the expression, but that's how it was!) under the yoke of German landowners! When did all these Lithuanians, Latvians, and other Estonians appear? In 1918, when the Russian Empire collapsed! And did they even study at this university of yours? I suspect they still don't. If it still exists, it's a university! That's what freedom is all about...
      1. -1
        30 August 2026 07: 39
        Quote: futurohunter
        In 1918, when the Russian Empire collapsed! And did they even study at this university of yours?
        1. 0
          30 August 2026 12: 44
          And why did you publish this map?
  10. 0
    25 August 2026 09: 16
    Quote: ANIMAL
    Quote: Andrey Krutilin
    Down with Westernism

    I wonder when Poland, Hungary, and Romania will decide to reclaim their "historical" lands? And how quickly will Western Ukrainians be reduced to serfs and servants again (the author's words)?

    Poland won't return western Ukraine. They believe that Stalin made Poland a monoethnic state in 1939 by seizing that part of Poland. Therefore, Poland won't agree to live in the same state with western Ukraine again; they've already had that experience and didn't like it. Reuniting western Ukraine only makes sense once the population of that territory has been expelled.
    For example, all my life I wanted to live in a Ukraine that didn't include Western Ukraine. It would have been a completely different Ukraine, friendly and brotherly. In the end, the former Ukrainian SSR was turned into one big Lviv region, and we will all be dealing with the consequences of this for many years to come.
    There will be no peace for the neighbors of Western Ukraine as long as the bearers of the ideology of Bandera, the UPA, and others live there. As the classic said, Carthage must be destroyed.
    1. -1
      25 August 2026 18: 53
      Quote from: mad-max78
      Quote: ANIMAL
      Quote: Andrey Krutilin
      Down with Westernism

      I wonder when Poland, Hungary, and Romania will decide to reclaim their "historical" lands? And how quickly will Western Ukrainians be reduced to serfs and servants again (the author's words)?

      Poland won't return western Ukraine. They believe that Stalin made Poland a monoethnic state in 1939 by seizing that part of Poland. Therefore, Poland won't agree to live in the same state with western Ukraine again; they've already had that experience and didn't like it. Reuniting western Ukraine only makes sense once the population of that territory has been expelled.
      For example, all my life I wanted to live in a Ukraine that didn't include Western Ukraine. It would have been a completely different Ukraine, friendly and brotherly. In the end, the former Ukrainian SSR was turned into one big Lviv region, and we will all be dealing with the consequences of this for many years to come.
      There will be no peace for the neighbors of Western Ukraine as long as the bearers of the ideology of Bandera, the UPA, and others live there. As the classic said, Carthage must be destroyed.

      A Ukrainian is initially "anti-Russian." In the Ukrainian SSR, there was the same ideology as the Banderites, just in a softer version and more loyal to Moscow.
      Petliura wasn't a Westerner and had never been there before the revolution... but that didn't stop many others from deciding they weren't Russians but "true Ukrainians." Half of the Central Rada members quietly held positions in the Ukrainian SSR; they were only slightly suppressed in the 30s.
  11. +2
    25 August 2026 10: 17
    Of course, the author gave his very subjective assessment of the historical situation in the article.
    He left out a lot, including the existence of Sloboda Ukraine as part of the Russian state in the first half of the 17th century.
    Having studied this issue in recent years, I have come to the conclusion that modern (20th and 21st century) views on Ukrainian history are politicized; it is more useful to turn to pre-revolutionary sources.
    I present several historical maps from pre-revolutionary publications that clearly show the history of the issue.
    Here are maps of the kingdoms of Ivan Kalita and Ivan the Terrible
    1. 0
      25 August 2026 10: 20
      I won't comment - let the sighted see.
      1. +1
        25 August 2026 10: 23
        Maps from the 17th century, the era of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Russo-Polish wars, are quite interesting.
        1. +1
          25 August 2026 10: 27
          It is interesting that on some maps you can see both Little Russia and Ukraine, and the latter is both Russian and Polish
          1. 0
            25 August 2026 10: 41
            Here are two 18th-century maps. One is in German, but "Klein Russia," meaning Little Russia, is clear.
            1. +2
              25 August 2026 10: 46
              Finally, two ethnographic maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Interestingly, one doesn't show Belarusians or Ukrainians (Little Russians), but only Russians. And the other doesn't show Ukrainian or Little Russian, but southern Russian dialects.
          2. 0
            25 August 2026 18: 56
            Quote: olbop
            It is interesting that on some maps you can see both Little Russia and Ukraine, and the latter is both Russian and Polish

            Naturally, the outskirts are still the outskirts...
  12. +2
    25 August 2026 10: 47
    Such articles are examples of extremely weak and crude propaganda, which in the internet age can be verified in two minutes and produce precisely the opposite effect. The attempt to rewrite historical facts to suit a current agenda is ironic, especially when one recalls Russian history textbooks from the early 2000s (for example, those edited by Danilov or Academician Sakharov).
    Back when history was still taught in schools in a balanced manner and without aggressive political overtones, these topics were explained simply and understandably to any teenager. Here's how these textbooks and historical facts contradict the article's arguments:

    Regarding the Austrian decree of 1893: Claiming that the language was created by a vote of the deputies in Vienna is a ridiculous myth. The Austro-Hungarian parliament merely approved school orthography rules. The language itself had long existed by then: Ivan Kotlyarevsky published "The Aeneid" in the living Poltava dialect back in 1798, and Taras Shevchenko wrote "Kobzar" in 1840. Following the article's logic, the Russian language was also invented by the Bolsheviks in 1918, when they carried out an orthographic reform and abolished the letters "yat" and "fitu." Regarding the Polish machinations of 1581: Papal envoy Antoni Possevino could not possibly have "invented" this name in the late 16th century. The word "oukraine" was recorded in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1187 - 400 years before his mission and long before the emergence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    On the cradle of three peoples: Russian sixth-grade textbooks have always clearly stated: "Eastern Slavs are the common ancestors of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians." The Old Russian state is our common historical root. Trying today to prove that entire peoples and languages ​​arose "at the snap of a finger" by foreign politicians is to completely ignore the laws of history and linguistics.
    Low-quality, home-made propaganda doesn't help the common cause; it only elicits laughter and undermines trust in those who spread it. It's worth sticking to the facts we were once taught in school.
    1. +3
      25 August 2026 11: 20
      Quote: Naofumi
      Russian sixth-grade textbooks always clearly stated: "Eastern Slavs are the common ancestors of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."

      The same thing was written in the Soviet textbooks for the 6th grade, which I and most of those present studied from (and Yuri Apukhtin, if he was born in 1948).
      And now, according to the new Party line and the joint resolution of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the Central Committee of the Komsomol, this should be considered erroneous.
      1. +2
        25 August 2026 11: 52
        The same thing was written in the Soviet textbooks for the 6th grade, which I and most of those present studied from (and Yuri Apukhtin, if he was born in 1948).
        And now, according to the new Party line and the joint resolution of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the Central Committee of the Komsomol, this should be considered erroneous.


        Absolutely right. It's just a shame that, along with the party line, many people's critical thinking is being shut off. Tomorrow, a new decree will be issued, and the same authors will be foaming at the mouth, proving that the Volga was dug by the ancient Romans, and Novgorod was founded by Martians. It's sad that adults are falling for this circus instead of remembering the basics they were taught as children.
        1. -1
          25 August 2026 15: 04
          And do you remember how the party line recently said that the Syrian brothers are even more Slavic?
    2. 0
      25 August 2026 19: 00
      Quote: Naofumi
      which were once taught in school.

      The school also presented a politicized version in favor of the "brotherly republic," in which left-wing Ukrainian nationalists loyal to Moscow ruled.
      1. +1
        25 August 2026 19: 25
        The school also presented a politicized version in favor of the "brotherly republic," in which left-wing Ukrainian nationalists loyal to Moscow ruled.

        If the history textbooks that generations learned from are merely a "pleasure" and the result of secret influence in Moscow, then what should we believe? Today's online journalistic articles? Academic science and the laws of linguistics were developed over centuries based on real documents, and they are somehow more reliable than short-term political theories.
        1. +1
          25 August 2026 19: 29
          Quote: Naofumi
          What should I believe then?

          There are plenty of sources for scholarly works... reference books, documents... but most people aren't interested. Because it breaks school stereotypes. After all, school textbooks don't mention that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Kharkiv was considered the unofficial capital of Ukrainian nationalism.
          1. +1
            25 August 2026 19: 44
            Scientific works...


            I agree with you one hundred percent on this one. Scientific works, specifically!
    3. +1
      29 August 2026 23: 37
      Let me add: "Ukraine" existed in both the Orenburg region and Siberia. And the mentality of all these "Ukraines" differed little from that of the "Ukrainian Ukraine"... a borderland...
      1. 0
        30 August 2026 07: 50
        Let me add: "Ukraine" existed in both the Orenburg region and Siberia. And the mentality of all these "Ukraines" differed little from that of the "Ukrainian Ukraine"... a borderland...


        Exactly! Excellent observation. History knows of both Siberian Ukraine and Tula Ukraine—those were the names used in Rus' for any borderland. The word lived a normal linguistic life. But the author of the article is much more interested in the conspiracy theories about Polish diplomats and Austrian deputies voting for the creation of languages.
        1. 0
          30 August 2026 12: 47
          A separate article needs to be written about how pro-Western liberals have been trying for centuries to fit the Ukrainian owl onto the globe.
  13. -2
    25 August 2026 10: 58
    The enemies of the USSR have proven that they hate the entire centuries-long history of our country and people before their capture of the USSR, and use it only to justify what they did both against the USSR and the Soviet people, and against each other.
  14. BAI
    -3
    25 August 2026 12: 30
    Who knows what happened before. Even yesterday. The main thing is that today we have a fully formed Ukrainian nation. So do with it what you will. And how old it is—one day or a million years—is absolutely irrelevant.
    1. -1
      25 August 2026 12: 49
      Quote: BAI
      The main thing is that today we have a formed Ukrainian nation.

      Extremist Arestovich said that 2 million people need to be liquidated in Ukraine, the rest will join Russia, but one is definitely gone.
      1. 0
        29 August 2026 23: 41
        And then there's the "extremist Arestovich" who proposed making Kyiv the center of the "Russian world"... Pure farce...
    2. +2
      25 August 2026 19: 02
      Quote: BAI
      We have a formed Ukrainian nation

      Just don't tell the people of Lviv that they are of the same nation as the people of Kharkiv. laughing
    3. 0
      29 August 2026 23: 40
      There is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation, only attempts to declare a hodgepodge of diverse groups, including a bunch of Armenians (!), Greeks, descendants of Serbs, and even Jews, a separate nation altogether. Purely political games. And yet, there still isn't a nation.
    4. 0
      30 August 2026 12: 49
      There's no nation there! There's just a crowd of frightened and embittered Russian-speaking people, most of whom want to be left alone.
  15. +2
    25 August 2026 12: 32
    The author has done a great job. Thank you. But the nation "Ukrainians" and the state "Ukraine" are pure political fabrication. Everything is artificial and nothing is natural. But "ragulism" is their original and historical essence.
    1. 0
      25 August 2026 19: 23
      Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
      The author has done a great job

      It would have been a great work if the author had comprehensively examined the history of Ukrainian nationalism and not just the part where there was external influence... only the lazy haven't written about this.
      1. 0
        30 August 2026 12: 50
        Ukrainian nationalism = Russian-liberal betrayal and servility to the West
  16. -3
    25 August 2026 13: 58
    Well, something like that. The author is right. It's just that little by little the Slavs managed to pull through.
    From under the influence of the Vatican and its popes. And then the Russians appeared. Who are you? A Tatar, Azerbaijani? No, I'm Russian!
    1. 0
      25 August 2026 19: 04
      Quote: Grim Reaper
      Who are you? Tatar, Azerbaijani? No, I'm Russian.

      And what happened to the Russian ethnic group? Or do they not have the right to self-identity?
    2. 0
      30 August 2026 12: 52
      And who are you? And what influence did the Vatican have in the 9th century, when Kyivan Rus' officially emerged? And explain how the Czechs and Poles managed to escape papal influence to such an extent that one of the popes was Polish?
  17. -1
    25 August 2026 14: 11
    Naturally, the question arises as to when and how Ukraine emerged, how the “Ukrainian nation” was formed, and why nothing was known about this state before 1991.

    The author may not be aware of this, but it has been known since the 12th century. The Ukrainian SSR was one of the founding countries of the UN, in case the author is not aware.
    Beginning in the 10th century, the chronicle "Russkaya Pravda" spoke of Rus, the Russian land, and Prince Oleg, back in 882, commanded that Kyiv be considered "the mother of Russian cities."

    The author is Mamkin's historian. I'll let him in on a secret: before the Revolution, the term "Russians" didn't refer to a single people, but to a group of East Slavic peoples—Great Russians, Little Russians, and White Russians. It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the names changed: Great Russians began to be called "Russians," White Russians "Belorussians," and Little Russians "Ukrainians." No one before then considered Russians a single people (that's why "Russians" is plural). And when Dahl wrote "The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" in the mid-19th century, or Lenin wrote "On the National Pride of the Great Russians" in 1914, they were referring to precisely those we now call Russians.
    As for Ukrainian and Russian, the author appears to have taken lessons from Chudinov. The first publication in modern literary Ukrainian is considered to be Major Ivan Kotlyarevsky's "Aeneid," written in the 18th century based on the language spoken in Poltava and the surrounding area (which became known as Ukrainian in the 19th century). This is practically the same language used today, with minimal changes.
    As for the modern literary Russian language, it only began to take shape under the name "Russian Language" by Lomonosov in the 18th century, based on Melentiy Smotritsky's "Grammar" (a grammar of Church Slavonic, from which Lomonosov himself learned to read). In its form at that time, no one would confuse it with the modern literary Russian language, which acquired its modern form only at the beginning of the 20th century, after the participation of Pushkin, another whole group of people in the 19th century, and after several administrative reforms of the language.
    1. +1
      25 August 2026 19: 27
      Quote from solar
      It is practically the same language that is used today,

      Far from it... the Little Russian surzhyk is quite understandable there, with the exception of certain words, but the modern language is incomprehensible even to Ukrainians themselves.
      1. 0
        25 August 2026 22: 32
        Look online for a modern edition of the Aeneid and compare it with the reprint I provided.
      2. 0
        30 August 2026 13: 05
        Well, that's right, because the language was invented by a narrow layer of Ukrainianized Russians.
    2. 0
      27 August 2026 01: 31
      Quote from solar
      And only at the beginning of the twentieth century the names changed - Great Russians began to be called Russians, White Russians - Belarusians, and Little Russians - Ukrainians.

      Great Russia and Little Russia. These terms are the origin of the names "Little Russians" and "Great Russians." Little Russia is the core of the state where the people lived and later migrated to new lands, which are called Great Russia only because they were settled by Russians later. Visit any regional museum of Great Russia and you'll see that for another 1000-15000 years, Slavic tribes lived in those lands alongside Finno-Ugric peoples (Moscow, Dmitrov, Kostroma) or Turepians (Bryansk). The same applies to Greece. Little Greece refers to the historical lands where the Greeks lived during the Iliad. And Magna Graecia refers to its colonies in Sicily, Italy, Crimea, and the Azov region.
    3. 0
      30 August 2026 13: 01
      So tell me, what kind of country was the Ukrainian SSR? If it obeyed the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Constitution of the USSR?
      As for the Russians, everyone in this territory called themselves "Russians", or more precisely, "the Christian people".
      As such, the Ukrainian language only began to emerge after 1991, when it began to be persistently constructed. The Little Russian dialect wasn't a separate language. Even in 2008, almost no one spoke Ukrainian in Kyiv, and if they did, it was in SURZHYK, which is definitely not a language! Most Russian-speaking people perceived this "language" as a parody of Russian, like the "Albanian" (Padonkaffian Yezig) popular in the 90s. And he created it in much the same way as this Padonkaffian Yezig.
      1. -2
        31 August 2026 23: 51
        So tell me, what kind of country was the Ukrainian SSR? If it obeyed the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Constitution of the USSR?

        According to the Constitution of the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR, they were independent states. Similar to how individual countries in the EU are today.
        As for the Russians, everyone in this area called themselves "Russians"

        In fact, the term "Russian peoples" was used to refer to a group of East Slavic peoples. Later, this name was transferred to one of these peoples—the Great Russians.
        As such, the Ukrainian language began to appear only after 1991.

        This fabrication doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Read Major Kotlyarevsky's Aeneid—it's practically modern literary Ukrainian.
        Most Russian-speaking people perceived this "language" as a parody of the Russian language.

        Have you composed yourself?
        1. 0
          31 August 2026 23: 59
          independent state
          What kind of delirious dream did you have? Or are you from the 404 territory? Fighting for the independence of who knows what?

          Later this name passed to one of these peoples - the Great Russians.
          It didn't. Incidentally, in the West, until recently, all residents of the former USSR were called Russians.

          Major Kotlyarevsky
          Is this your nickname?

          there is practically modern literary Ukrainian
          Yeah, with scallops, corpse-diggers, and screens of perephunchiks. And there are also perephunchiks and perephunchiks flying around.

          parody of the Russian language
          Have you composed yourself?
          I heard it in Kyiv in more or less normal times, and more than once
          1. -2
            1 September 2026 00: 52
            What kind of delirious dream did you have? Or are you from the 404 territory? Fighting for the independence of who knows what?

            I'm trying not to buy into this utter nonsense, to put it mildly. Have you ever seen the USSR Constitution? For example, Articles 71, 72, and 76?
            It didn't go over.

            It's passed. History is a fascinating subject, if you read it. In old statistical reference books, there was a separate general column with this title, consisting of three separate columns: Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians.
            Yeah, with scallops, corpse-diggers, and screens of perephunchiks. And there are also perephunchiks and perephunchiks flying around.

            Read Dahl's dictionary and you'll see how different the actual spoken language of the Great Russians of that time was from the modern one.
            Is this your nickname?

            No, this is Ivan Petrovich Kotlyarevsky, a major in the Russian army, who is considered the author of the first work in the modern literary Ukrainian language.
            I heard it in Kyiv in more or less normal times, and more than once

            I've heard many times that people living in Ukraine find Belarusian to be such a parody. It's a matter of individual perception, I suppose.
            1. 0
              1 September 2026 12: 11
              Articles 71, 72 and 76
              Alaverly: Did you read Article 73? Extracting fragments from a coherent text is a favorite pastime of liars. And even if you did read these three articles, you certainly didn't understand them.

              Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians
              Did the USSR exist in 1897? These terms fell out of use in the USSR. I don't recall anyone using the words "great" and "little" when I was a child.

              if you read it
              Have you read it yourself? And what did you read? "The Veles Book"? Or "Grushevsky"?

              Read Dahl's dictionary
              Dahl also describes archaisms. And the dialect of villagers was quite different from that of city dwellers. I have fiction books from 1918 and 1895 at home. They don't reveal any special "language" that differs greatly from modern usage. Well, the 1895 book is difficult to read because of the yati.

              Kotlyarevs
              There are two points of view:
              1. Affftar wrote in common Russian with many colloquial words and local expressions. Like "padonkafsky ezig" (Albanian). It was a humorous parody of Virgil's "Aeneid." Affftar was just having fun, and narrow-minded people (or politicians) saw "an entire language." And would they have allowed an entire "major of the Russian army" to publish something "in the separatist language"?
              2. Affftar wrote in a "language" he invented himself, and even included a dictionary of his own words. There have been many similar examples throughout history—see, for example, the "Elven" language.

              For those living in Ukraine, Belarusian seems like such a parodic language
              I have not heard.

              with raspykrykami, corpse dumps and skrinka perpehunchikov. ...outsmarters with outsmarters
              All these words were invented after 2000. There was a revolt at the Kharkiv Aviation Institute in 2000 when they tried to force them to switch their teaching to the Ukrainian language. The professors even threatened to quit. Although this was before 2022. I don't know what it's like now. Radio intercepts at the front show that even Ukrainian Armed Forces communications are conducted in Russian.

              I remember my first visit to post-Soviet Kyiv in 2008. Not a single (!) sign in Ukrainian, not a single newspaper or magazine. I wanted to bring back some souvenir, but that was a challenge. The CD was exclusively Russian pop. I went into a large bookstore and asked for books in Ukrainian. They laughed at me and showed me a TINY shelf with FIVE books.

              The funniest thing is that you're now arguing about the Ukrainian language with someone who has Ukrainian roots and relatives in Ukraine. I honestly don't know who you are.

              I heard
              That's exactly what you HEARD. I was "there," talked to the locals, and saw it with my own eyes. And another funny fact: there are not much fewer Armenians there than Russians and "Ukrainians" (they're hard to tell apart—even their last names don't help). Even when Arsen Avakov (Avakyan) was suddenly the main Ukronazi.
          2. -2
            1 September 2026 01: 03
            It didn't. Incidentally, in the West, until recently, all residents of the former USSR were called Russians.

            Do you know why "Russians" is an adjective, while the names of other peoples are nouns? Because initially, the concept was "Russian peoples," and that's how it appeared in statistical data; it was later shortened.
            1. 0
              1 September 2026 12: 20
              They made it up again. Or they pulled out an old, worn-out phrase. In Russian, it's both an adjective (Russian language/person/people/world) and a noun (Russian). Have you studied English? Similar phenomena—the transition of different parts of speech into each other—are common there.
              Examples of similar, supposedly adjectives are “sick”, “military”, “firefighter”, “bakery”, “policeman”.
              It's just that they used to say "Russian people," then shortened it to just "Russians." Languages, and not just Russian ones, become simpler over time, and their words become shorter.
              By the way, it's the same for the English and Germans. Nobody says "Englishman" or "Deutschman."
              You get a two for knowing basic things and being generally educated, otherwise you wouldn't believe in such utter nonsense.
  18. +1
    25 August 2026 15: 07
    If the Rusyns in Galicia somehow understood it, then for the residents of the Southwestern region this “language” was gibberish.
    Even in Soviet times, Donbass did not understand the Western language.
    1. +1
      29 August 2026 23: 15
      Even in 2008, Kyiv didn't really understand and hardly spoke this very "mova"
  19. +1
    25 August 2026 16: 59
    It turns out that Kievan Rus' originated not from Kyiv, but from Novgorod, where in 862 the Rurik dynasty began to rule Rus', expanding to the south, they descended down the Dnieper and in 882 moved their capital to Kyiv,
    another retelling of this old fable - how much more can this go on? laughing
    There are good reasons to consider Kyiv the first large Russian city, and Novgorod the first large Slavic city in this part of the continent.
    1. 0
      26 August 2026 09: 59
      However, the dates of the foundation of Novgorod and Kyiv cannot be deduced from chronicle sources, the reliability of which is subject to reasonable doubt.
      Reliably dated archaeological layers of Novgorod date back to no earlier than the 930s.[9] According to archaeologists, Novgorod appeared around the turn of the 9th–10th centuries.[10][11] or at the beginning of the 10th century.
      This is what Wikipedia believes based on solid scientific research, but not 862.
      Kyiv is not 1500 years old, as was proclaimed in Soviet times based on the discovery of ancient shards.
      Some researchers point out that the discovered archaeological sources do not provide sufficient grounds for the proposed interpretation[58] and believe, as before, that the formation of Kyiv as a pre-urban settlement took place in the 8th-10th centuries. And at the turn of the 7th-8th centuries, Kyiv, in terms of its level of socio-economic development, compared to the synchronous Pastyrsky settlement in the Cherkasy region, was an ordinary settlement and could not have been a "tribal center"
      1. -1
        26 August 2026 14: 10
        some researchers point out

        He spun it, guessed, and thought he had guessed the ball.
        For a good zreny 100 rubles per person
        laughing
      2. 0
        26 August 2026 16: 39
        Quote: olbop
        However, the dates of the foundation of Novgorod and Kyiv cannot be deduced from chronicle sources, the reliability of which is subject to reasonable doubt.

        Indeed, the date of Novgorod's founding must be deduced from fossil evidence. It clearly indicates that Novgorod emerged much earlier than 932. This is simply because only a wealthy, developed city (the capital of a principality) could have built a bridge across the Volkhov River at least 345 meters long.
        The Radiocarbon Dating and Electron Microscopy Laboratory of the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Center for Isotope Research at the University of Georgia in the United States conducted mass spectral analysis of the spruce and pine trees from which the support was cut. It was found that the trees ceased growing between 932 and 946.

        The ancient crib bridge had less than 15 supports, while the bridge of the 12th-14th centuries had 23 supports. 

        The distances between the centers of the supports at the bottom of the Volkhov River were 23 meters, which means that the spans of the ancient bridge were at least 17 meters long.

        Only a very wealthy and developed principality could have erected such a monumental structure. The village could have reached the other bank by boat. Therefore, Novgorod was founded long before 932; otherwise, the Novgorodians would not have needed a bridge; they would have made do with boats, as in Kyiv.
  20. +2
    26 August 2026 08: 34
    If I remember correctly, Sholokhov's "Quiet Flows the Don" features Cossacks, Russians, and Ukrainians. This understanding, then, existed and was well-established even before the Revolution.
    1. -1
      26 August 2026 10: 02
      However, Taras Bulba considered himself Russian. And Gogol lived almost 100 years before Sholokhov. So literary sources always contained the author's subjective opinions.
      1. +2
        26 August 2026 11: 01
        Quote: olbop
        However, Taras Bulba considered himself Russian.

        A literary character, although based on a real person.
        So literary sources always contained the subjective opinions of the author.

        Absolutely.
        My personal opinion is that you can't just suddenly invent a nation. There has to be a foundation, and Ukrainians have been slowly building theirs (and they were actively assisted in this process). And today, we can already say that such a nation exists.
        1. 0
          26 August 2026 12: 20
          and they were actively helped in this

          This is the most intriguing thing - who helped and why?
        2. 0
          30 August 2026 13: 27
          They tried so hard to invent this nation. They tried so hard that most of those who call themselves Ukrainians couldn't care less about this nation. Just like most of those who call themselves Orthodox have never even opened a Gospel in their lives. It's all just a stupid fad and a stupid show-off.
    2. 0
      27 August 2026 20: 26
      I once served with some guys from these parts. According to them, their elders described their origins as "Cossacks descended from Cossacks."
  21. -1
    26 August 2026 15: 46
    At the edge - at the border. That says it all.
  22. 0
    26 August 2026 16: 57
    Let's replace the vile French parasolka with our Dutch zonndek, and the Latin tegula/tsegla with our Tatar kerpich!!
    (as for the cemetery/cemetery - these are all variations of the ancient Indo-European "kmtro").

    I wonder if this is AI or a provocateur?
    1. 0
      30 August 2026 13: 31
      Ukrainian politicians have long since replaced the parasol with a comb, the gearbox with a screen of perephunchikov, and the pathologist with a corpse digger, but most Ukrainians are unaware of this.
  23. 0
    29 August 2026 21: 20
    In 1905 and 1906, the Japanese resident in Europe, General and Ambassador Akashi Motojiro, financed the Paris and Geneva Conferences.
    As a result, a united front against the autocracy was formed, and a course was set for armed uprising.
    The conference was attended by all revolutionary parties and nationalists of all stripes, from the Finns and the Bund to the Armenians.

    But there were no Ukrainian nationalists.

    There were many different borderlands in Rus', but it was Ukrainian nationalists who emerged after the start of World War II, when the Austrians organized concentration camps for recruitment and financed Professor Hrushevsky, who in 1915 created a theory about Ukraine.
    1. 0
      30 August 2026 13: 38
      You're slightly mistaken. Ukrainian nationalists initially emerged in St. Petersburg in the 19th century among the pro-Western liberal intelligentsia. There were no revolutionaries (Social Democrats), no liberal intellectuals, and therefore no Ukrainian nationalists. Besides, the Japanese didn't perceive them as a serious force. In fact, the first "Ukrainian state" in 1918 was created by those same Russian liberals.
  24. 0
    29 August 2026 23: 14
    The Ukrainian nation doesn't exist. I tell you this as a descendant of Ukrainians. There are only a multitude of different groups of people ready to tear each other's throats out for who knows what reason. It's like the old days of village against village, "wall to wall." The same thing with "Ukraine." It's the same anachronism.
  25. 0
    1 September 2026 13: 14
    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: Alexey Sedykin
    Thank you for making me laugh... it turned out to be a good fairy tale.

    What if there is no flooding?
    Remember Gogol. What were Taras Bulba's children doing in Kyiv? They studied at the Seminary. Was there anything similar in Moscow at the time? The Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was founded only in 1687.

    So where does Ukraine fit in here?
  26. 0
    1 September 2026 18: 25
    Quote: futurohunter
    Ukrainian politicians have long since replaced the parasol with a comb, the gearbox with a screen of perephunchikov, and the pathologist with a corpse digger, but most Ukrainians are unaware of this.


    So it turns out that those who champion the purity of their native language from vile borrowings are sitting in the same warm company with the "great Ukrainians."