Even if your narrative & some of your facts are not 100% accurate (what ever is?); I think the gist of your article is that the history of eastern Europe & western Asia is a lot more complicated than most Americans realize, or are willing to put in the effort to understand. Your typical American doesn’t know that far more Russians died in the first (3) months of WW-2, then Americans during the entire war.
I am not excusing Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or the atrocities they have perpetrated, but in order to stop the war as soon as possible, you need to understand it. No body has clean hands.
In order to understand the present, you gotta understand the past. - Thank you for this article. The war needs to stop!
This otherwise excellent narrative slights the most scarring event in Ukraine in the 20th century, beyond even the devastation of WWII: the Holodomor genocide of 1933-1934.
The "1933 famine" was not a natural event, but a genocide engineered by Stalin and the USSR regime to starve Ukraine to force collectivization and break the backs of Ukrainian 'kulaks', independent farmers. Grain was being exported from USSR at the same time as millions starved. It killed as many as 7 million Ukrainians, a death toll as great as Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews in WWII. To say that this genocide has left many Ukrainians with a deep-seated distrust of Russian power, especially led by former KGB officer Putin, would be an understatement.
The Holodomor killed not only many Ukrainians, but also Bulgarians from the Bessarabian region of Ukraine, as well as Cossacks and other nationalities.
You link to a debate snippet by Obama regarding the passive acceptance of Putin's election fraud and the beginning of animosity after banning homosexual propaganda. I think that is reading too much into Obama's rhetoric and was used as a post hoc justification to garner domestic support for US actions against Russia. US and post soviet Russia geopolitical antagonism predates Obama and homosexual worship in America.
I'm still making my through this article and enjoying it immensely.
I wanted to ask whether or not you are familiar with the theories of Fomenko regarding the true identity of the Mongols. He argues that there is no proof of an asiatic horde and that it was actually a civil war over succession between northern and southern princes, from what I can remember.
He further argues that significant parts of the chronicles are copies and retellings of the same tale told over again. So, for example, the Khazars and the Mongols are the same threat. In the same way that the Gaetae and the Goths are the same threat that Rome faced duplicated.
There are serious problems with the chronicles, and different steppe groups could get confused with each other, but the problems are dynastic revisionism and inaccurate identifications rather than extensive duplications.
I don't know. The main point is that it appears that Peter the Great's historians spliced together several rulers into one personality to hide away the existence of a rival dynasty and defeat their opponents' in the south's claim to rule over Russia.
the 'stitch in time' foldunders and -overs, combined with name tweakery and splitting is a specialty Ralph Ellis hunts down but he has focussed on the Levant and Nile Delta, not eurasia, as far as i know.
I dont usually comment on these articles but I feel that this particular one merits a long response. In short, while the article seems to be written as an in-depth historical research piece it is actually a very skillfully produced Russian contemporary propaganda. As a laughable cherry on top the author posted a picture of Peter Wrangel (the last general of the russian imperialist forces during the russian civil war) as an avatar and pathetically tried to present himself as someone with a western last name (Nimitz) while it is actually russian (Nemets - Немец). Not today Vanya! Americans are not that stupid.
While the historical events listed here are mostly accurate, here is a list of blatantly misleading implications and frankly made-up assertions. The list is by no means exclusive - these are merely the most obvious ones:
- Its cute how the author described Igor Strelkov's forces as "80% Ukrainian citizens", conveniently avoiding the fact that the leadership of these forces (Strelkov, Borodai, etc) were Russian citizens with a background in Russian intelligence forces. Furthermore, the author implies that some branches of the Russian government acted independently and stoked the conflict, as to force Putins hand vis-a-vis Donbas. However, it is now proven beyond any doubt with the evidence presented by the dutch airplane tribunal that Putin himself was giving orders to these so called "separatists" as early as May 2014.
- The author blithely mentions the 1930s famine as "failures of collectivization". This, to put it mildly, is disputed. Suffice it to say Holodomor is now recognized by a growing number of countries, not to mention Ukraine itself, as a deliberate genocide aimed at breaking the back of Ukrainian nationalism and diluting the Ukrainian populace with more obedient Russians.
- How would the author know that majority of eastern Ukrainians felt sympathetic with the Russian regime in the 17th and 18th century? Are there any contemporary polls or records attesting to this hypothesis? Also, the author implies that there was very little difference between Russians and Ukrainians at that time. I should mention that at this point Ukrainians and Russians were sufficiently different to such a degree that, for example, Chmelnitzkiy needed a translator to talk to Moscow emissaries in 1654. Even older Ukrainians alive today can testify that Ukrainian, not Russian, was still the everyday language of Ukrainians of Eastern Ukrainian cities all the way into 1920s.
- The author barely mentions the Ukrainian Peoples Republic of Simon Petlyura during 1917-1921, as if it is a minor historical footnote. It was a major geopolitical establishment and theres plenty of evidence that Petlyura and his brand of nationalism were immensely popular among the Ukrainians at the time and served as a beacon for the nationalists of the 1980s and 1990s.
- There a repeat of the old Soviet trope about Crimean Tatars collaborating with the Nazis thats just presented as a fact. Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? In fact it is more likely that Stalin deported the Crimeans to repopulate the region with the military that he trusted more. Is it any wonder that Crimea today is essentially a giant military base and most Russians living there have or have had in the past some kind of a connection to the Russian military?
- Theres an implication that the Ukrainian state is overly centralized, squashing local wishes. How convenient - this happens to be one of the major demands of the Russian government during the Minsk negotiations! Except the transparent purpose of it is to make Ukraine sufficiently dysfunctional to be dominated by Russia.
- Im not sure what "pro-homosexual" politicians the author has in mind when hes describing the Maidan Uprising sympathizers in the West. Victoria Nuland? Barak Obama? Holland? Merkel? To blame the Western support of Maidan on some sort of a LGBT conspiracy is beyond absurd. But this happens to be another Russian talking point, about the LGBT lobby taking over the West and Russia being the bastion of traditional values. How clever.
- Theres a long discussion over establishment of the Orthodox Metropoly as a supposed natural consolidation of Orthodox Church in Moscow and not a single mention that this fact was opposed by the Orthodox authorities in Constantinople. I will not mention the key historical events of the 16th century but this was the main reason Ukrainian orthodox Church was given autocephalous status a few years ago by the current patriarch of Constantinople.
These are just off the top of my head. Im sure there are many more misleading allegations.
1) This piece is educational, not propaganda. If it was propaganda I'd hardly have mentioned Russia's historical failings. You should be more polite in the future - accusing people of being foreign agents is rude.
2) I'm an American with Mennonite ancestry, not a Russian. Again, be polite to strangers.
3) This article covers up to *April* 2014 - not May. The Dutch investigation has not confirmed that the Russian separatists in the Donbass were receiving orders from the beginning of the rebellion in April. Additionally, the separatists held referendums in the Donbass against the wishes of the Kremlin.
4) There were contemporary famines in non-Ukrainian regions such as the Volga, southern Urals, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus. It speaks to how awful communism was that its agricultural policy had the effects of a genocide without actually intending to cause a genocide. Also, Stalin was hardly a Great Russian nationalist - he condemned Russian chauvinism on numerous occasions. See "The Affirmative Action Empire" for a discussion in English.
5) People voted with their feet - they fled to Free Ukraine under Russian suzerainty rather than to the lands of the Polish magnates and joined the Russian army over the Swedish. Obviously relations weren't always pleasant, but a general pro-Russian tendency was there. In regards to the Donbass, "The Affirmative Action Empire" has relevant statistics for Ukrainian use - a mere 16.8% of government employees knew Ukrainian in 1928, and that was its peak that decade.
6) Petlyura was an irrelevant failure so I didn't bring him up. Even the WWI German puppet Skoropadsky did more to promote Ukrainian culture than he did.
7) Regarding Crimean Tatar collaboration with the Nazis, my source is Magocsi. He doesn't cite any specific sources for his claims, but his chapter notes cite John Armstrong, Alexander Dallin, and Timothy Snyder - all of whom look reputable. It's not an implausible claim - hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians collaborated with the Germans, why not 20,000 Tatars?
8) The Ukrainian state was already dysfunctional. I don't think any Ukrainians would dispute that. Federalism was popular in some regions, as you can read for yourself in the link in the text.
9) The propagation of homosexuality is one of the United States' great moral causes, comparable to the way that Christian missionary work was seen a century ago. There is no conspiracy - it is a widespread values system that is completely out in the open. When Putin rigged his spring 2012 election few in the United States cared. They cared a lot after Putin passed an anti-gay propaganda bill in the summer of 2013, strongly suggesting that it was homosexuality that drove USA's change of attitude towards Russia.
10) I did not suggest that the Orthodox Church's consolidation in Moscow was natural.
Stalin was clearly closer to russians than to others although he wasnt nationalist. We can check demoghraphical changes during soviet era. Russian percentage increased everywhere(baltic, ukraine,central asia). Russian language spread everywhere.
Sure you are, Mr Nemets. How did they come up with that cover story for you, did they figure most people will translate the word "nemets", realize it means "german" in Russian and go...hm, maybe hes Amish after all? You'd probably be better off naming yourself John Smith or something of the kind.
Im not going to comment on your sources but if you assert that Petlyura was an irrelevant figure of Ukrainian history then you obviously dont know anything about Ukraine and we have nothing else to discuss. And if you think that Americans cared more about a mostly obscure anti-homosexuality law of 2013 than the democratic protests on Bolotnaya square in 2011 then you obviously are not an American who was watching the news back then. Also, I will not re litigate the Holodomor with you. There are plenty of online resources that people can look up if they are interested regarding the matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech we have in this country
I brought out several disagreements. Like I mentioned, the historical facts are more or less accurate on their face but some are twisted to mean something that they don't and the facts that disagree with the narrative were omitted. Thus, the general narrative is very transparently a Russian propaganda piece, touching on all the talking points it's trying to currently spread. Anyone interested can check out my previous long comment.
And Mr Nemets is obviously a Russian. It's very transparent to people who come from Eastern Europe and can spot the patterns. And the length of time he spent propagandizing on this site is irrelevant to his true nature. I find it hilarious that he's still denying it.
But I'm done feeding the trolls. A blessed day to you all
You started so early in history that might as well start from when Adam and Eve graced the earth!
Good article but I wished you explained more on what happened in recent times, like between 2004 and 2014 or what happened after the storming in Slavyansk, how the government responded and how the first war proceeded and ended.
I don't understand the purpose of this article. Ukraine is a sovereign country, with clear borders, recognised internationally, including by Russia. We cannot invade other countries because of some historical "injustices", this would mean that the US would be able to the the whole Planet, since it is by far the strongest nation on the planet. And no nuclear war would stop that!
Ukraine's borders must be respected no matter what! Russia must leave Ukraine completely! And Moldova and Georgia! And close the frozen conflits they created internationally to have control of the fate of those countries.
The current government of Ukraine came into power by unlawfully removing President Yanukovych. Subsequent elections have not included the Eastern Ukrainians; this is true because the Western Ukrainians who seized power refused to abide by the Minsk agreements. As a result, the Western Ukrainians have no basis on which to claim popular sovereignty over Eastern Ukraine.
Unless you're arguing for rule by divine right you need to show me where the Eastern Ukrainians voted to be ruled by the government of Western Ukraine after the Western Ukrainians overthrew the lawfully elected government in 2014.
The American Republic came into power by unlawfully removing British administrators and judges. I'll take pro-Russian Americans like you seriously when you rejoin the British Crown.
Opposing the EU's diplomatic annexation of Ukraine does not make me pro-Russian. I will always support an independent and sovereign Ukraine which is why I call for a return to the Minsk agreements.
The Banderist regime in Kyiv is an EU puppet government which does not represent the people of Ukraine and, most importantly, does not seek Ukrainian independence from the EU.
Will you not join me in denouncing the Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera and his genocide of the Polish people of Ukraine?
Will you not join me in denouncing both the RF and EU for their attempts to subjugate the people of Ukraine and to annex their lands?
Will you not join me in calling for the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the restoration of Ukraine as a sovereign nation independent of both the EU and RF?
Diplomatic annexation? Pfui. A sovereign Ukraine has the right to join whatever alliances it wishes, including EU and NATO. But you seem to know better than the people of Ukraine what that people really wants, who does or does not represent it, and what sovereignty means, so I see no point continuing the discussion. I wouldn't join you in front of a row of urinals. Cheers!
why did igor girkin admit that the minsk agreements were a sham to let his forces rearm and that his troops intentionally broke ceasefires to provoke the Ukrainians ?
There's only ONE Ukraine, internationally recognised! Not 2 as you claims, just as there's one Russia. Even so, this doesn't give Russia the right to target civilian building and infrastructure with cruise missiles, and to level entire cities and kill hundre ld of thousend of civillians... ironically in Eastern Ukraine, where you claims the Russians are "loved".
This means Iran, N Korea and Russia should be invaded and divided by the victors just because there are illigal dictatorships in those countries? Lukashenko lost the fraudulent elections, this means Poland can take Western Belarus??
There are 40 mil Turkic people in Iran which are mistreated by an illigal Allatoyah that came to power through a coup, this means Turkey and Azerbaijan are legitimate to attack Iran and take the territory where the turkic people live? Same with Tatarstan in Russia? Does Kazan belong to Turkey??
Germany is a sovereign country, with clear borders, recognised internationally, including by America. We cannot occupy other countries because of some historical "injustices". Germany's borders must be respected no matter what! America and American troops, all 35.221 of them, must leave Germany completely! And Italy and Poland! And end the artificial status of Europe they created internationally to have control of the fate of those countries.
Unfortunately “We live in a world that is governed by the use of force”. I don’t remember who said it, but try to argue with it. In my understanding international conflicts usually resolved in accordance with resources of the parties involved. China took Tibet because it could, US sends its aircraft carriers and troops everywhere it can, there are wars of aggression and conquest that are going on, primarily in Africa, for decades, but it’s somewhere there and no one cares.
Whether we like it or not Russia is a military and nuclear superpower. So Russia does what it thinks it can.
The adage from Mao is that power grows from the barrel of a gun. This is an extension of Clauswitz who held that war is merely politics by other means.
The EU attempted to enter into a trade deal with Ukraine which would have expelled Russia from their critical naval base in Crimea. Russia counter-offered with a superior trade deal including a $50b lease of the naval base. Yanukovych took the demonstrably better offer.
The EU and Obama administration, unable to beat the Russian trade offer, collaborated with the Banderists to overthrow the government of Ukraine. They EU installed a Banderist regime on exchange for the Banderists agreeing to the diplomatic annexation of Ukraine by the EU.
Neither side is fighting for an independent Ukraine. They are fighting over who should annex Ukraine. The independent and sovereign nation of Ukraine ceased to exist the moment Yanukovych was removed.
The purpose of the article is to show that intellectual shortcuts, intended to get the person making them to the conclusion they want to get to anyways, are not appropriate in this case
What are you talking about? The Russian "soldiers" were destroyed by Ukraine in the first 3 months of the war. Russia is fighing with CONVICTS that have no idea how to fight, they are thown in the Ukranian meat grinder.
Why didn't Russia, if it is a superpower, defetead Ukraine by now???
Russia barks a lot but cannot bite since it doesn't have the capability.
The US population is growing, many want to settle there but Russia's population is getting older and dripping, only the Muslim republics withing Russia are growin. Soon Russia will became an Islamic caliphate, already has 30 million muslims, more than the entiere Europe.
How can you vaporize America AWACS when you can't vaporize Ukranian planes? Hahaha Russia is a JOKE, people in Africa, Asia, S America, Europe etc are making fun of the Russian army. For the past 2-3 year you still treat everyone with nuclear war but you know very well that would be the end of Russia. That's the only thong Russia has left - treat countries with nuclear war hahaha soo pathetic.
"In 3 days we take Kyiv" - Putler before the war hahaha 2 years later Russia ia thowing convics into war and can't take Adviikva 🤣 😆 😅
A war with the US and NATO (almost 1 billion people and $42 trillion GDP) will be the end of Russia (142 million people and $1.8 trillion GDP 😄🤣). There will never ever be a country called Russia agin.
Still better than a sick murderer apologist who thinks killing children, men women, raping is acceptable. No, it is not, and people like you deserve to be destroyed!
Thank you for well researched and crafted article. I really appreciate the fact that you took a labor to go really deep into history of that entire region and brought it up to present. I also appreciate your objectivity in view of present events.
The quote is that power political power grows from the barrel of a gun and it is attributed to Mao.
This is an extension of Clauswitz argument that warfare is merely the continuation of political discourse by other means.
The EU failed to evict Russia from their military base in Crimea after the Russians counter-offered $50b. As the EU couldnt beat the Russian trade offer (which was clearly superior to the EU offer) the US State Department (i.e. Victoria Nuland) and EU officials collaborated with the Banderists to overthrew the government of Ukraine. They installed a Banderist regime by force in exchange for the political annexation of Ukraine into the EU.
a word of appreciation for the thought and effort you put into your account of ukrainian history, which i found very enlightening. i especially found your account of the legitimate reasons russian speakers in east ukraine had reason to resist kievan rule very enlightening - you usually only hear the pro-western ukrainian side. this doesn't excuse putin and it would be ironic if his invasion creates in a nationalist reaction the very unitary ukrainian state he hoped to prevent. still, your account makes me more understanding why in any future negotiation, the donbass and crimia might be given to russia in order to secure peace. that and russia giving up its imperialist goals for all the ukraine.
I got to the part where the author claims the Ukrainian language has origins in the 12th century before the invasion of the Mongols when I realized the author was not being truthful.
The Ukranian Constitution requires a 3/4 vote to remove a sitting President. The vote to remove the Eastern Ukrainian Yanukovych failed. The Western Ukrainians removed him anyway and replaced him with an unelected President. Subsequent elections have not included Eastern Ukrainians and therefore do not represent popular sovereignty.
The idea that the Ukrainian language existed before the late 18th century is garbage. The Ukrainians intentionally changed their language to distinguish themselves from Russians. This is no different than the Americans political decision to removed the 'u' from the British words labour and honour to distinguish themselves from the British.
The Ukrainians and Russians are not distinct people. Ukrainians are just Russians of a certain political persuasion who have intentionally modified their language. At what point do we decide the people using 'ze/zer' pronouns are distinct and therefore entitled to an independent country?
I understand completely: Those who support the Banderists are Ukrainians; those who oppose the Banderists are Russians.
The split between Ukrainian and Russian can directly traced to the late 18th century. These changes were made itentionally and for political reasons; just as Americans removed the 'u' from labour and honour in a public campaign to spite the British.
Doesn't Prigozhin teach you internet trolls to use words other than just Banderovtzi? Don't you know that it doesn't sound anywhere near as menacing to English speakers as it does to Russian speakers? You should watch Valeriy Solovey's lecture about it more closely. He used to work for your height-challenged czar in the past, you know.
PS, Nathaniel Talcott? Well, at least you're more creative with fake names than the author, I'll grant you that
English speakers are much less likely than Russian (or Polish) speakers to be familiar with Stepan Bandera: the Nazi collaborator who committed genocide against the Polish residents of Galicia and Volhynia to create lebensraum for the Ukrainian people.
The Nazi Stepan Bandera is a national hero to those who seized power in Ukraine during the 2014 coup. They have been erecting statues in honor of his genocidal acts with the dream that they exterminate the Russian population of Ukraine just as he exterminated the Polish population.
My name is Nathaniel Talcott and I live in Miami Beach. It takes a 5 second Google search to find my backstage profile complete with pictures and video. I am posting under my real name while you hide behind a pseudonym.
Will you not join me in denouncing the atrocities that Stepan Bandera committed against the Polish people? Will you not denounce those who erect statues to honor this genocidal monster?
Sure. You said it and that’s the end of the story. Because you’re from Ukraine. So you must know what you’re talking about. Who cares about History if the only thing that matters is your story? Because you said so! Because you’re from Ukraine!
Somebody comes up and tells you that people from your town and people from a neighboring town are the same people. Who would be the best person to ask if that assertion is true or not?
A biological male (with all of the evident masculine physical attributes) comes up and tells you that he is in fact a biological woman. Who would be the best person to ask if that assertion is true or not? A medical scientist or a gender-affirming psychiatrist?
Russia was never a superpower, the Soviet Union was a superpower ( which included Ukraine, the Baltic States, Kazakhstan, Georgia Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova etc). Russia will never be a superpower again without those countries, an Putler knows that.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, which was entitled to after the Soviet Union collapsed in exchange for security, with Russia agreeing not to invade Ukraine. Since 1990 Russia invaded Ukraine 2 times and stole Crimea, Dombas and Luhansk. If Ukraine had nukes capable of hitting Moscow and St Petersbourg, this would not have happened. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukranian lives were save, and those people would have enjoyed their lives, not rotting in a coffin as they do now, thanks to the Russian "brotherly" love.
Russia is an extremely aggressive nation, they have conflicts and unsolved issues with all their neighbours, even with China. Also they stole some Islands from Japan AFTER the end of WW2 . So Russia cannot be trusted and it is not trusted by its neighbours. The US never tried to steal Cuba's land, or Mexico's (lets talk about after WW2 when the UN was created and lets not go back to stone age). They promised Cuba that they will never invade Cuba if they remove the nukes from their territory, a promise that the US kept since 1960's. Russia on the other hand did not keep its promise to Ukraine. See the difference between these 2 nations, between these 2 people? Can you see who's not trust worthy here? And why the Eastern European nations do not trust Russia? This is just one small example, there are hundreds of examples. Another one is that Russia, everytime they have a disagreement with another nation, they send photos of their nuclear weapons, threatening them with a nuclear strike, or invade their air space even 30 times/day. You can do as much whataboutism as you wish, but there's no country on the face of the earth that does that!
So the Eastern European nations have 2 choices - 1 to build nuclear weapons capable of destroying Moscow and all the other major Russian cities or to join NATO. There's no other option! Russia made sure they have no other options. Germany for example could build the nuclear bomb in 6 months, Poland probably in 2-3 years, Romania the same. This won't be a big issue for them, but nobody will allow them to own nukes like Russia. Ain't that double standards?
Sweden and Finland are joining NATO Because of the Russian invasion, they don't trust Russia. They want NATO's protection against a dictator gone mad! The NATO' expension is Russia' fault 100%! Just look that is happening with 2 neutral countries, Finland and Sweden!
NATO has not forced any country to join. They joined on their free will because of Russia. If you want less NATO, then stop being a bully and respect the territorial integrity of tour neighbours! It is very easy and simple to do! As the US is doing in regards to its neighbours 😉
Even if your narrative & some of your facts are not 100% accurate (what ever is?); I think the gist of your article is that the history of eastern Europe & western Asia is a lot more complicated than most Americans realize, or are willing to put in the effort to understand. Your typical American doesn’t know that far more Russians died in the first (3) months of WW-2, then Americans during the entire war.
I am not excusing Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or the atrocities they have perpetrated, but in order to stop the war as soon as possible, you need to understand it. No body has clean hands.
In order to understand the present, you gotta understand the past. - Thank you for this article. The war needs to stop!
This otherwise excellent narrative slights the most scarring event in Ukraine in the 20th century, beyond even the devastation of WWII: the Holodomor genocide of 1933-1934.
The "1933 famine" was not a natural event, but a genocide engineered by Stalin and the USSR regime to starve Ukraine to force collectivization and break the backs of Ukrainian 'kulaks', independent farmers. Grain was being exported from USSR at the same time as millions starved. It killed as many as 7 million Ukrainians, a death toll as great as Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews in WWII. To say that this genocide has left many Ukrainians with a deep-seated distrust of Russian power, especially led by former KGB officer Putin, would be an understatement.
https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/the-history-of-the-holodomor/
The Holodomor killed not only many Ukrainians, but also Bulgarians from the Bessarabian region of Ukraine, as well as Cossacks and other nationalities.
Thanks for the great article!
You link to a debate snippet by Obama regarding the passive acceptance of Putin's election fraud and the beginning of animosity after banning homosexual propaganda. I think that is reading too much into Obama's rhetoric and was used as a post hoc justification to garner domestic support for US actions against Russia. US and post soviet Russia geopolitical antagonism predates Obama and homosexual worship in America.
I'm still making my through this article and enjoying it immensely.
I wanted to ask whether or not you are familiar with the theories of Fomenko regarding the true identity of the Mongols. He argues that there is no proof of an asiatic horde and that it was actually a civil war over succession between northern and southern princes, from what I can remember.
He further argues that significant parts of the chronicles are copies and retellings of the same tale told over again. So, for example, the Khazars and the Mongols are the same threat. In the same way that the Gaetae and the Goths are the same threat that Rome faced duplicated.
Thoughts?
There are serious problems with the chronicles, and different steppe groups could get confused with each other, but the problems are dynastic revisionism and inaccurate identifications rather than extensive duplications.
Have you heard about the Boris Gudonov revisions? Apparently, he reigns for 80 years, takes monastic vows several times, marries multiple times.
Probably one of the most convincing examples of duplication I came across.
I haven't heard of the revisions, but there are Swedish, English, and Polish records that corroborate his rule no?
I don't know. The main point is that it appears that Peter the Great's historians spliced together several rulers into one personality to hide away the existence of a rival dynasty and defeat their opponents' in the south's claim to rule over Russia.
it appears? from who/what? fomenko's gibberish?
the 'stitch in time' foldunders and -overs, combined with name tweakery and splitting is a specialty Ralph Ellis hunts down but he has focussed on the Levant and Nile Delta, not eurasia, as far as i know.
I am still reading the essay, but it fills in gaps I've been meaning to fill. Thanks for composing it.
I dont usually comment on these articles but I feel that this particular one merits a long response. In short, while the article seems to be written as an in-depth historical research piece it is actually a very skillfully produced Russian contemporary propaganda. As a laughable cherry on top the author posted a picture of Peter Wrangel (the last general of the russian imperialist forces during the russian civil war) as an avatar and pathetically tried to present himself as someone with a western last name (Nimitz) while it is actually russian (Nemets - Немец). Not today Vanya! Americans are not that stupid.
While the historical events listed here are mostly accurate, here is a list of blatantly misleading implications and frankly made-up assertions. The list is by no means exclusive - these are merely the most obvious ones:
- Its cute how the author described Igor Strelkov's forces as "80% Ukrainian citizens", conveniently avoiding the fact that the leadership of these forces (Strelkov, Borodai, etc) were Russian citizens with a background in Russian intelligence forces. Furthermore, the author implies that some branches of the Russian government acted independently and stoked the conflict, as to force Putins hand vis-a-vis Donbas. However, it is now proven beyond any doubt with the evidence presented by the dutch airplane tribunal that Putin himself was giving orders to these so called "separatists" as early as May 2014.
- The author blithely mentions the 1930s famine as "failures of collectivization". This, to put it mildly, is disputed. Suffice it to say Holodomor is now recognized by a growing number of countries, not to mention Ukraine itself, as a deliberate genocide aimed at breaking the back of Ukrainian nationalism and diluting the Ukrainian populace with more obedient Russians.
- How would the author know that majority of eastern Ukrainians felt sympathetic with the Russian regime in the 17th and 18th century? Are there any contemporary polls or records attesting to this hypothesis? Also, the author implies that there was very little difference between Russians and Ukrainians at that time. I should mention that at this point Ukrainians and Russians were sufficiently different to such a degree that, for example, Chmelnitzkiy needed a translator to talk to Moscow emissaries in 1654. Even older Ukrainians alive today can testify that Ukrainian, not Russian, was still the everyday language of Ukrainians of Eastern Ukrainian cities all the way into 1920s.
- The author barely mentions the Ukrainian Peoples Republic of Simon Petlyura during 1917-1921, as if it is a minor historical footnote. It was a major geopolitical establishment and theres plenty of evidence that Petlyura and his brand of nationalism were immensely popular among the Ukrainians at the time and served as a beacon for the nationalists of the 1980s and 1990s.
- There a repeat of the old Soviet trope about Crimean Tatars collaborating with the Nazis thats just presented as a fact. Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? In fact it is more likely that Stalin deported the Crimeans to repopulate the region with the military that he trusted more. Is it any wonder that Crimea today is essentially a giant military base and most Russians living there have or have had in the past some kind of a connection to the Russian military?
- Theres an implication that the Ukrainian state is overly centralized, squashing local wishes. How convenient - this happens to be one of the major demands of the Russian government during the Minsk negotiations! Except the transparent purpose of it is to make Ukraine sufficiently dysfunctional to be dominated by Russia.
- Im not sure what "pro-homosexual" politicians the author has in mind when hes describing the Maidan Uprising sympathizers in the West. Victoria Nuland? Barak Obama? Holland? Merkel? To blame the Western support of Maidan on some sort of a LGBT conspiracy is beyond absurd. But this happens to be another Russian talking point, about the LGBT lobby taking over the West and Russia being the bastion of traditional values. How clever.
- Theres a long discussion over establishment of the Orthodox Metropoly as a supposed natural consolidation of Orthodox Church in Moscow and not a single mention that this fact was opposed by the Orthodox authorities in Constantinople. I will not mention the key historical events of the 16th century but this was the main reason Ukrainian orthodox Church was given autocephalous status a few years ago by the current patriarch of Constantinople.
These are just off the top of my head. Im sure there are many more misleading allegations.
1) This piece is educational, not propaganda. If it was propaganda I'd hardly have mentioned Russia's historical failings. You should be more polite in the future - accusing people of being foreign agents is rude.
2) I'm an American with Mennonite ancestry, not a Russian. Again, be polite to strangers.
3) This article covers up to *April* 2014 - not May. The Dutch investigation has not confirmed that the Russian separatists in the Donbass were receiving orders from the beginning of the rebellion in April. Additionally, the separatists held referendums in the Donbass against the wishes of the Kremlin.
4) There were contemporary famines in non-Ukrainian regions such as the Volga, southern Urals, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus. It speaks to how awful communism was that its agricultural policy had the effects of a genocide without actually intending to cause a genocide. Also, Stalin was hardly a Great Russian nationalist - he condemned Russian chauvinism on numerous occasions. See "The Affirmative Action Empire" for a discussion in English.
5) People voted with their feet - they fled to Free Ukraine under Russian suzerainty rather than to the lands of the Polish magnates and joined the Russian army over the Swedish. Obviously relations weren't always pleasant, but a general pro-Russian tendency was there. In regards to the Donbass, "The Affirmative Action Empire" has relevant statistics for Ukrainian use - a mere 16.8% of government employees knew Ukrainian in 1928, and that was its peak that decade.
6) Petlyura was an irrelevant failure so I didn't bring him up. Even the WWI German puppet Skoropadsky did more to promote Ukrainian culture than he did.
7) Regarding Crimean Tatar collaboration with the Nazis, my source is Magocsi. He doesn't cite any specific sources for his claims, but his chapter notes cite John Armstrong, Alexander Dallin, and Timothy Snyder - all of whom look reputable. It's not an implausible claim - hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians collaborated with the Germans, why not 20,000 Tatars?
8) The Ukrainian state was already dysfunctional. I don't think any Ukrainians would dispute that. Federalism was popular in some regions, as you can read for yourself in the link in the text.
9) The propagation of homosexuality is one of the United States' great moral causes, comparable to the way that Christian missionary work was seen a century ago. There is no conspiracy - it is a widespread values system that is completely out in the open. When Putin rigged his spring 2012 election few in the United States cared. They cared a lot after Putin passed an anti-gay propaganda bill in the summer of 2013, strongly suggesting that it was homosexuality that drove USA's change of attitude towards Russia.
10) I did not suggest that the Orthodox Church's consolidation in Moscow was natural.
Stalin was clearly closer to russians than to others although he wasnt nationalist. We can check demoghraphical changes during soviet era. Russian percentage increased everywhere(baltic, ukraine,central asia). Russian language spread everywhere.
Sure you are, Mr Nemets. How did they come up with that cover story for you, did they figure most people will translate the word "nemets", realize it means "german" in Russian and go...hm, maybe hes Amish after all? You'd probably be better off naming yourself John Smith or something of the kind.
Im not going to comment on your sources but if you assert that Petlyura was an irrelevant figure of Ukrainian history then you obviously dont know anything about Ukraine and we have nothing else to discuss. And if you think that Americans cared more about a mostly obscure anti-homosexuality law of 2013 than the democratic protests on Bolotnaya square in 2011 then you obviously are not an American who was watching the news back then. Also, I will not re litigate the Holodomor with you. There are plenty of online resources that people can look up if they are interested regarding the matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech we have in this country
You seem intellectually disabled.
Let's take a glimpse at this poster's karyotype
That doesn't negate my point
I brought out several disagreements. Like I mentioned, the historical facts are more or less accurate on their face but some are twisted to mean something that they don't and the facts that disagree with the narrative were omitted. Thus, the general narrative is very transparently a Russian propaganda piece, touching on all the talking points it's trying to currently spread. Anyone interested can check out my previous long comment.
And Mr Nemets is obviously a Russian. It's very transparent to people who come from Eastern Europe and can spot the patterns. And the length of time he spent propagandizing on this site is irrelevant to his true nature. I find it hilarious that he's still denying it.
But I'm done feeding the trolls. A blessed day to you all
Good and thorough article. I read Magocsi's A history of Ukraine last year and I see book's influence on this.
Must also say that seldom anyone try analyze this conflict as objectively as you.
Well written, still waiting for the facedoxx.
You started so early in history that might as well start from when Adam and Eve graced the earth!
Good article but I wished you explained more on what happened in recent times, like between 2004 and 2014 or what happened after the storming in Slavyansk, how the government responded and how the first war proceeded and ended.
Excellent article
I don't understand the purpose of this article. Ukraine is a sovereign country, with clear borders, recognised internationally, including by Russia. We cannot invade other countries because of some historical "injustices", this would mean that the US would be able to the the whole Planet, since it is by far the strongest nation on the planet. And no nuclear war would stop that!
Ukraine's borders must be respected no matter what! Russia must leave Ukraine completely! And Moldova and Georgia! And close the frozen conflits they created internationally to have control of the fate of those countries.
The current government of Ukraine came into power by unlawfully removing President Yanukovych. Subsequent elections have not included the Eastern Ukrainians; this is true because the Western Ukrainians who seized power refused to abide by the Minsk agreements. As a result, the Western Ukrainians have no basis on which to claim popular sovereignty over Eastern Ukraine.
Unless you're arguing for rule by divine right you need to show me where the Eastern Ukrainians voted to be ruled by the government of Western Ukraine after the Western Ukrainians overthrew the lawfully elected government in 2014.
The American Republic came into power by unlawfully removing British administrators and judges. I'll take pro-Russian Americans like you seriously when you rejoin the British Crown.
Opposing the EU's diplomatic annexation of Ukraine does not make me pro-Russian. I will always support an independent and sovereign Ukraine which is why I call for a return to the Minsk agreements.
The Banderist regime in Kyiv is an EU puppet government which does not represent the people of Ukraine and, most importantly, does not seek Ukrainian independence from the EU.
Will you not join me in denouncing the Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera and his genocide of the Polish people of Ukraine?
Will you not join me in denouncing both the RF and EU for their attempts to subjugate the people of Ukraine and to annex their lands?
Will you not join me in calling for the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the restoration of Ukraine as a sovereign nation independent of both the EU and RF?
Diplomatic annexation? Pfui. A sovereign Ukraine has the right to join whatever alliances it wishes, including EU and NATO. But you seem to know better than the people of Ukraine what that people really wants, who does or does not represent it, and what sovereignty means, so I see no point continuing the discussion. I wouldn't join you in front of a row of urinals. Cheers!
why did igor girkin admit that the minsk agreements were a sham to let his forces rearm and that his troops intentionally broke ceasefires to provoke the Ukrainians ?
There's only ONE Ukraine, internationally recognised! Not 2 as you claims, just as there's one Russia. Even so, this doesn't give Russia the right to target civilian building and infrastructure with cruise missiles, and to level entire cities and kill hundre ld of thousend of civillians... ironically in Eastern Ukraine, where you claims the Russians are "loved".
This means Iran, N Korea and Russia should be invaded and divided by the victors just because there are illigal dictatorships in those countries? Lukashenko lost the fraudulent elections, this means Poland can take Western Belarus??
Your logic is very very very stupid!
In America if you try to storm the capital building and overthrow the government you get shot.
The regime in Kyiv came into power through a January 6 style rebellion. This behavior should not be condoned by civilized people.
There are 40 mil Turkic people in Iran which are mistreated by an illigal Allatoyah that came to power through a coup, this means Turkey and Azerbaijan are legitimate to attack Iran and take the territory where the turkic people live? Same with Tatarstan in Russia? Does Kazan belong to Turkey??
Germany is a sovereign country, with clear borders, recognised internationally, including by America. We cannot occupy other countries because of some historical "injustices". Germany's borders must be respected no matter what! America and American troops, all 35.221 of them, must leave Germany completely! And Italy and Poland! And end the artificial status of Europe they created internationally to have control of the fate of those countries.
Unfortunately “We live in a world that is governed by the use of force”. I don’t remember who said it, but try to argue with it. In my understanding international conflicts usually resolved in accordance with resources of the parties involved. China took Tibet because it could, US sends its aircraft carriers and troops everywhere it can, there are wars of aggression and conquest that are going on, primarily in Africa, for decades, but it’s somewhere there and no one cares.
Whether we like it or not Russia is a military and nuclear superpower. So Russia does what it thinks it can.
The adage from Mao is that power grows from the barrel of a gun. This is an extension of Clauswitz who held that war is merely politics by other means.
The EU attempted to enter into a trade deal with Ukraine which would have expelled Russia from their critical naval base in Crimea. Russia counter-offered with a superior trade deal including a $50b lease of the naval base. Yanukovych took the demonstrably better offer.
The EU and Obama administration, unable to beat the Russian trade offer, collaborated with the Banderists to overthrow the government of Ukraine. They EU installed a Banderist regime on exchange for the Banderists agreeing to the diplomatic annexation of Ukraine by the EU.
Neither side is fighting for an independent Ukraine. They are fighting over who should annex Ukraine. The independent and sovereign nation of Ukraine ceased to exist the moment Yanukovych was removed.
Didn't China take Tibet just days after the US invaded North Korea?
The purpose of the article is to show that intellectual shortcuts, intended to get the person making them to the conclusion they want to get to anyways, are not appropriate in this case
What are you talking about? The Russian "soldiers" were destroyed by Ukraine in the first 3 months of the war. Russia is fighing with CONVICTS that have no idea how to fight, they are thown in the Ukranian meat grinder.
Why didn't Russia, if it is a superpower, defetead Ukraine by now???
Russia barks a lot but cannot bite since it doesn't have the capability.
The US population is growing, many want to settle there but Russia's population is getting older and dripping, only the Muslim republics withing Russia are growin. Soon Russia will became an Islamic caliphate, already has 30 million muslims, more than the entiere Europe.
How can you vaporize America AWACS when you can't vaporize Ukranian planes? Hahaha Russia is a JOKE, people in Africa, Asia, S America, Europe etc are making fun of the Russian army. For the past 2-3 year you still treat everyone with nuclear war but you know very well that would be the end of Russia. That's the only thong Russia has left - treat countries with nuclear war hahaha soo pathetic.
"In 3 days we take Kyiv" - Putler before the war hahaha 2 years later Russia ia thowing convics into war and can't take Adviikva 🤣 😆 😅
A war with the US and NATO (almost 1 billion people and $42 trillion GDP) will be the end of Russia (142 million people and $1.8 trillion GDP 😄🤣). There will never ever be a country called Russia agin.
Still better than a sick murderer apologist who thinks killing children, men women, raping is acceptable. No, it is not, and people like you deserve to be destroyed!
Thank you for well researched and crafted article. I really appreciate the fact that you took a labor to go really deep into history of that entire region and brought it up to present. I also appreciate your objectivity in view of present events.
Thank you.
The quote is that power political power grows from the barrel of a gun and it is attributed to Mao.
This is an extension of Clauswitz argument that warfare is merely the continuation of political discourse by other means.
The EU failed to evict Russia from their military base in Crimea after the Russians counter-offered $50b. As the EU couldnt beat the Russian trade offer (which was clearly superior to the EU offer) the US State Department (i.e. Victoria Nuland) and EU officials collaborated with the Banderists to overthrew the government of Ukraine. They installed a Banderist regime by force in exchange for the political annexation of Ukraine into the EU.
a word of appreciation for the thought and effort you put into your account of ukrainian history, which i found very enlightening. i especially found your account of the legitimate reasons russian speakers in east ukraine had reason to resist kievan rule very enlightening - you usually only hear the pro-western ukrainian side. this doesn't excuse putin and it would be ironic if his invasion creates in a nationalist reaction the very unitary ukrainian state he hoped to prevent. still, your account makes me more understanding why in any future negotiation, the donbass and crimia might be given to russia in order to secure peace. that and russia giving up its imperialist goals for all the ukraine.
I got to the part where the author claims the Ukrainian language has origins in the 12th century before the invasion of the Mongols when I realized the author was not being truthful.
The Ukranian Constitution requires a 3/4 vote to remove a sitting President. The vote to remove the Eastern Ukrainian Yanukovych failed. The Western Ukrainians removed him anyway and replaced him with an unelected President. Subsequent elections have not included Eastern Ukrainians and therefore do not represent popular sovereignty.
The idea that the Ukrainian language existed before the late 18th century is garbage. The Ukrainians intentionally changed their language to distinguish themselves from Russians. This is no different than the Americans political decision to removed the 'u' from the British words labour and honour to distinguish themselves from the British.
The Ukrainians and Russians are not distinct people. Ukrainians are just Russians of a certain political persuasion who have intentionally modified their language. At what point do we decide the people using 'ze/zer' pronouns are distinct and therefore entitled to an independent country?
As someone from Ukraine I can tell you first hand that Ukrainians and Russians are distinct people. End of story
I understand completely: Those who support the Banderists are Ukrainians; those who oppose the Banderists are Russians.
The split between Ukrainian and Russian can directly traced to the late 18th century. These changes were made itentionally and for political reasons; just as Americans removed the 'u' from labour and honour in a public campaign to spite the British.
Doesn't Prigozhin teach you internet trolls to use words other than just Banderovtzi? Don't you know that it doesn't sound anywhere near as menacing to English speakers as it does to Russian speakers? You should watch Valeriy Solovey's lecture about it more closely. He used to work for your height-challenged czar in the past, you know.
PS, Nathaniel Talcott? Well, at least you're more creative with fake names than the author, I'll grant you that
English speakers are much less likely than Russian (or Polish) speakers to be familiar with Stepan Bandera: the Nazi collaborator who committed genocide against the Polish residents of Galicia and Volhynia to create lebensraum for the Ukrainian people.
The Nazi Stepan Bandera is a national hero to those who seized power in Ukraine during the 2014 coup. They have been erecting statues in honor of his genocidal acts with the dream that they exterminate the Russian population of Ukraine just as he exterminated the Polish population.
My name is Nathaniel Talcott and I live in Miami Beach. It takes a 5 second Google search to find my backstage profile complete with pictures and video. I am posting under my real name while you hide behind a pseudonym.
Will you not join me in denouncing the atrocities that Stepan Bandera committed against the Polish people? Will you not denounce those who erect statues to honor this genocidal monster?
Sure. You said it and that’s the end of the story. Because you’re from Ukraine. So you must know what you’re talking about. Who cares about History if the only thing that matters is your story? Because you said so! Because you’re from Ukraine!
Somebody comes up and tells you that people from your town and people from a neighboring town are the same people. Who would be the best person to ask if that assertion is true or not?
A biological male (with all of the evident masculine physical attributes) comes up and tells you that he is in fact a biological woman. Who would be the best person to ask if that assertion is true or not? A medical scientist or a gender-affirming psychiatrist?
what exactly are you implying, that you need a doctor to tell you if you're a man or not?
Something can have origins in a time without existing in that period.
As an example, the United States of America didn't exist in 1620, but has origins from that time.
Ruthenian was seen as distinct from russian as far back as the 15th century
Russia was never a superpower, the Soviet Union was a superpower ( which included Ukraine, the Baltic States, Kazakhstan, Georgia Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova etc). Russia will never be a superpower again without those countries, an Putler knows that.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, which was entitled to after the Soviet Union collapsed in exchange for security, with Russia agreeing not to invade Ukraine. Since 1990 Russia invaded Ukraine 2 times and stole Crimea, Dombas and Luhansk. If Ukraine had nukes capable of hitting Moscow and St Petersbourg, this would not have happened. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukranian lives were save, and those people would have enjoyed their lives, not rotting in a coffin as they do now, thanks to the Russian "brotherly" love.
Russia is an extremely aggressive nation, they have conflicts and unsolved issues with all their neighbours, even with China. Also they stole some Islands from Japan AFTER the end of WW2 . So Russia cannot be trusted and it is not trusted by its neighbours. The US never tried to steal Cuba's land, or Mexico's (lets talk about after WW2 when the UN was created and lets not go back to stone age). They promised Cuba that they will never invade Cuba if they remove the nukes from their territory, a promise that the US kept since 1960's. Russia on the other hand did not keep its promise to Ukraine. See the difference between these 2 nations, between these 2 people? Can you see who's not trust worthy here? And why the Eastern European nations do not trust Russia? This is just one small example, there are hundreds of examples. Another one is that Russia, everytime they have a disagreement with another nation, they send photos of their nuclear weapons, threatening them with a nuclear strike, or invade their air space even 30 times/day. You can do as much whataboutism as you wish, but there's no country on the face of the earth that does that!
So the Eastern European nations have 2 choices - 1 to build nuclear weapons capable of destroying Moscow and all the other major Russian cities or to join NATO. There's no other option! Russia made sure they have no other options. Germany for example could build the nuclear bomb in 6 months, Poland probably in 2-3 years, Romania the same. This won't be a big issue for them, but nobody will allow them to own nukes like Russia. Ain't that double standards?
Sweden and Finland are joining NATO Because of the Russian invasion, they don't trust Russia. They want NATO's protection against a dictator gone mad! The NATO' expension is Russia' fault 100%! Just look that is happening with 2 neutral countries, Finland and Sweden!
NATO has not forced any country to join. They joined on their free will because of Russia. If you want less NATO, then stop being a bully and respect the territorial integrity of tour neighbours! It is very easy and simple to do! As the US is doing in regards to its neighbours 😉