5 ms·

Yeah I learned that the Russians constantly harassed Ukraine for hundreds of years.

by lvl102 4y ago

trasz2 4y ago
It's a bit more than that - the Russian part of civilisation came _from_ Ukraine. Kiev is much older than Moscow, and that's not something Rashists can forgive.
- kgeist 4y ago
  That's quite a one-sided viewpoint. Kievan Rus was founded by Rurikids who were Scandinavians originally based in Novgorod (now Russia). According to the Nestor's chronicle, Kiev basically became the capital after Oleg of Novgorod (a Rurikid) killed local princes Askold and Dir. Age of Kiev has nothing to do with it. 1000 years ago there was no "civilized Ukrainians vs non-civilized Russians" argument, it was just a bunch of equally civilized East Slavic tribes conquered by Norsemen. Novgorod's birch bark documents and other artifacts show that Novgorod was influenced by Scandinavia more than it was by Kiev. There are several times more references to Novgorod in Scandinavian sagas than there are to Kiev. Novgorod also participated in the Hanseatic league. It was more complex and multi-faceted than what you describe.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    Novgorod was conquered by Moscow a couple hundred of years before Kiev. Yes it's now considered to be an integral part of Russia but I historically it's not really more of a predecessor of the modern Russian state than Kievan Rus is, it's just another East Slavic/Rus subjugated (quite brutally) by the Muscovite empire.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Novgorod was conquered by Moscow" Every territory got conquered at some point. Most "Quite Brutally". This is how current countries were born.
      - qwytw 4y ago
        Perhaps, but I was replying to the comment above... Modern Russia is clearly a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow so I don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod than to that of Kiev/other ancient city states in the current territory of Ukraine.
        int_19h 4y ago
        All the duchies into which Kievan Rus disintegrated were ruled by houses tracing their descent from Rurik. Thus, any one of them could try to "reclaim the ancestral lands" by the standards of that time. Of course, there was a little hitch there since the lands would need "gathering" first... Moscow ending up the one who actually pulled it off is kinda ironic, though, given that it was very much an upstart that wasn't even there when Kievan Rus was still a polity united under a single ruler. Goes to show just how effective collaborationism (in this case, with the Mongols) can be to build a power base.
        nullifidian 4y ago
        > don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod Maybe not bigger, but the people of Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians. What's with that state-centric view? Ukrainians are Ukrainians despite multiple occupations, but if Novgorodian people believe they are Russians it's illegitimate and they lose all the claims, and are now relegated to have their claims go through Kiev->Moscow. Only "pure" identities with existing independent states can have claims? This "Ukraine is the true Rus, and Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins" nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent. It's pretty obvious that both sides have about the same level of claim.
        qwytw 4y ago
        > Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians Obviously. However their relation to the Novgorodian republic is about as strong as that of modern Italians to the Roman Republic. Also I think any such claims are absurd and absolutely irrelevant (imho this applies to Kiev/Novgorod and to Moscow). > This "Ukraine is the true Rus.. nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent Sure, you're right. However this narrative seems to be mostly a response to Russian claims that Ukraine is not a nation and that it should not exist. > Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins Nah... Politically and somewhat culturally they are probably closer to the Mongols (I'm actually half serious, the authoritarian and imperialist tendencies ingrained in Russian culture were probably inherited from the Golden Horde rather than Kiev/Novgorod.)
russianman 4y ago
It’s not true. Modern Ukraine was created not hundreds of years, but just in ~1920. Google a bit more)
- augustuspolius 4y ago
  Commenter didn’t say anything about “modern Ukraine”. Russia has been harassing Ukraine for a very long time, modern or ancient.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    In that case 'Russia' was harrassing itself: the regime first established in Kiev in late X century has conquered the northern territories and spread its rule there, then lost core southern territory in the aftermath of the mongol invasions, and eventually came back, also spreading as far as to Alaska in the east.
    - augustuspolius 4y ago
      We have to agree that either “modern Ukraine” was created in 1920s from Russians and Russian territories or there were different people on that land long before that. If you are leaning towards the former then this could be extended even further: Soviet Union only ever harassed itself. There were no occupied Baltic states, there was no Ukraine, etc etc - just one big happy family called USSR.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        > We have to agree... No, you just constructed a false dichotomy. Russian Empire and its successor states USSR and Russia is a product of imperialism that was born in Kiev when Grand Prince Vladimir has brought Orthodox Christianity to those lands. This imperialism conquered some territories, lost some territories (Kiev proper), then regained them back and conquered a lot more, then splintered. The current war is the result of the imperialist successor of the original Kiev regime to gain Kiev back.
russianman 4y ago
By the way, Ukrainians should be grateful to the Soviet authorities for the Ukrainization of their territory in the 1930s. Just google it)

Yeah I learned that the Russians constantly harassed Ukraine for hundreds of years.

by lvl102 4y ago

Yeah I learned that the Russians constantly harassed Ukraine for hundreds of years.

It's a bit more than that - the Russian part of civilisation came _from_ Ukraine. Kiev is much older than Moscow, and that's not something Rashists can forgive.

kgeist 4y ago
That's quite a one-sided viewpoint. Kievan Rus was founded by Rurikids who were Scandinavians originally based in Novgorod (now Russia). According to the Nestor's chronicle, Kiev basically became the capital after Oleg of Novgorod (a Rurikid) killed local princes Askold and Dir. Age of Kiev has nothing to do with it. 1000 years ago there was no "civilized Ukrainians vs non-civilized Russians" argument, it was just a bunch of equally civilized East Slavic tribes conquered by Norsemen. Novgorod's birch bark documents and other artifacts show that Novgorod was influenced by Scandinavia more than it was by Kiev. There are several times more references to Novgorod in Scandinavian sagas than there are to Kiev. Novgorod also participated in the Hanseatic league. It was more complex and multi-faceted than what you describe.
- qwytw 4y ago
  Novgorod was conquered by Moscow a couple hundred of years before Kiev. Yes it's now considered to be an integral part of Russia but I historically it's not really more of a predecessor of the modern Russian state than Kievan Rus is, it's just another East Slavic/Rus subjugated (quite brutally) by the Muscovite empire.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Novgorod was conquered by Moscow" Every territory got conquered at some point. Most "Quite Brutally". This is how current countries were born.
    - qwytw 4y ago
      Perhaps, but I was replying to the comment above... Modern Russia is clearly a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow so I don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod than to that of Kiev/other ancient city states in the current territory of Ukraine.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        All the duchies into which Kievan Rus disintegrated were ruled by houses tracing their descent from Rurik. Thus, any one of them could try to "reclaim the ancestral lands" by the standards of that time. Of course, there was a little hitch there since the lands would need "gathering" first... Moscow ending up the one who actually pulled it off is kinda ironic, though, given that it was very much an upstart that wasn't even there when Kievan Rus was still a polity united under a single ruler. Goes to show just how effective collaborationism (in this case, with the Mongols) can be to build a power base.
      - nullifidian 4y ago
        > don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod Maybe not bigger, but the people of Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians. What's with that state-centric view? Ukrainians are Ukrainians despite multiple occupations, but if Novgorodian people believe they are Russians it's illegitimate and they lose all the claims, and are now relegated to have their claims go through Kiev->Moscow. Only "pure" identities with existing independent states can have claims? This "Ukraine is the true Rus, and Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins" nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent. It's pretty obvious that both sides have about the same level of claim.
        qwytw 4y ago
        > Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians Obviously. However their relation to the Novgorodian republic is about as strong as that of modern Italians to the Roman Republic. Also I think any such claims are absurd and absolutely irrelevant (imho this applies to Kiev/Novgorod and to Moscow). > This "Ukraine is the true Rus.. nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent Sure, you're right. However this narrative seems to be mostly a response to Russian claims that Ukraine is not a nation and that it should not exist. > Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins Nah... Politically and somewhat culturally they are probably closer to the Mongols (I'm actually half serious, the authoritarian and imperialist tendencies ingrained in Russian culture were probably inherited from the Golden Horde rather than Kiev/Novgorod.)

russianman 4y ago

It’s not true. Modern Ukraine was created not hundreds of years, but just in ~1920. Google a bit more)

augustuspolius 4y ago
Commenter didn’t say anything about “modern Ukraine”. Russia has been harassing Ukraine for a very long time, modern or ancient.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  In that case 'Russia' was harrassing itself: the regime first established in Kiev in late X century has conquered the northern territories and spread its rule there, then lost core southern territory in the aftermath of the mongol invasions, and eventually came back, also spreading as far as to Alaska in the east.
  - augustuspolius 4y ago
    We have to agree that either “modern Ukraine” was created in 1920s from Russians and Russian territories or there were different people on that land long before that. If you are leaning towards the former then this could be extended even further: Soviet Union only ever harassed itself. There were no occupied Baltic states, there was no Ukraine, etc etc - just one big happy family called USSR.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      > We have to agree... No, you just constructed a false dichotomy. Russian Empire and its successor states USSR and Russia is a product of imperialism that was born in Kiev when Grand Prince Vladimir has brought Orthodox Christianity to those lands. This imperialism conquered some territories, lost some territories (Kiev proper), then regained them back and conquered a lot more, then splintered. The current war is the result of the imperialist successor of the original Kiev regime to gain Kiev back.

russianman 4y ago

By the way, Ukrainians should be grateful to the Soviet authorities for the Ukrainization of their territory in the 1930s. Just google it)