I think that a person must try, for himself, adhere to the historical truth. Which many times differs from what is written in wikipedia, especially the English

I think that a person must try, for himself, adhere to the historical truth. Which many times differs from what is written in wikipedia, especially the English version of it when it speaks of the Russian people (to be fair, also the Russian version is often biased in this regard, with an opposite sign). "It was not a liberator" - tell it to the people who greeted the Soviet Army with flowers when they entered Vilnius (I know personally of concrete evidence). Tell it to the Jews, who were being murdered by Lithuianian nationalists, Lithuanian communists aside. Tell it to Serbs and Bulgars. And I do not try to deny any of the the other historical facts: Stalin's repressions to start with. (By the way, what do you think would happen if some of the events which led to Soviet invasion of Chechoslovakia would happen in some european country, with americans taking the role of USSR?) And Soviet Union was perceived as the liberator from the nazis, and not US, contrary to modern Holywood "tradition". People knew then the facts. And I do not try to depict USSR as something different from what it was. "As for Lithuanian Vytautas, we're taking in Ruthenians running from Moscow rule for a loooong time" Who are exactly "we"? The documents of the early Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae were written in Latin and a Russian language variety ("old Ukranian", of course, of course..). This variety of Russian was its de facto official language. And then these mysterious "Ruthenians".. Guagnini speaks of Russians in general ("omnibus Ruthenis"), and "gens Moscovitica" are just part of them. Regarding history in general: what I know personally is the very short period since the 90s. And I know for a fact that Russians were not, at least until 2007, the "aggressors" the west, especially the balts, try to depict them ("forgetting" the elephant in the room, NATO expansion to the east). On the contrary, in Lithuania the aggression came mostly from lithuanians (aggression does not mean necessarily actual physical violence, it can be directed against language, culture, and history), while Russia was actively refusing to defend the rights of the Russian minority (I know this from first hand source). So, also judging by how this period is being depicted by the west, I make my judgement also about the depiction by the west of other periods of Soviet and Russian history.