tankies at 23:59: "Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds!!!11!"
tankies at 00:00: the most unapologetically Russocentric fascist take you'll ever see
also ngl, it feels funny seeing idiots like these claiming that somehow it's all thanks to Russian that non-Russian people are civilized and with technologies when right now Russia is making sure that any region full with people of non-Russian ethnicity is a comically horrible shithole. Just look at those "republics" inside Russia (like Tuva, Kalmykia, Chechnya, Buryatia, etc.), and not only how much poverty and corruption ends up being there even compared to other Russian regions, and how the cunts will even invite a mid ass 2000s UFC fighter from the US just to make sure the non-Russians won't have anything beyond token representation, but how the media there will keep pushing bullshit narratives on how the Russian population is being persecuted by non-Russians. It's shit like this that make me feel like these "republics" are the closest thing to a modern bantustan
and that's of course not touching at how they've been treating Ukrainian people and how they're making sure to erase any proper living in the territories they occupy. it's the biggest proof yet of how the Russian governing class will gladly burn everything they come across just to make sure no one else can be equals to them
Realistically, the only way the Bolsheviks could have lost the war was if Ukraine had been separated from their control past the november of 1918; this would necessarily have meant that the Western Front ended in some kind of ceasefire or that the Kaiserschlacht succeeded, Paris fell, and France was knocked out of the war. Germany would thus have kept Ukraine under its control, and the Reds would have thwrefore lacked the grain and other resources needed for their war effort. All the disadvantages of the Whites would thereby have been negated in every respect. Bolsheviks would starve – IRL they took from Ukraine so much grain that it caused famine.
Hm, I would say probably. The White Army was much more divided than the Reds, and probably wouldn’t be able to mount an invasion of Ukraine. Any White government would be too focused on trying to keep Russia proper together.
There were already talks about cooperation between Poland and Ukrainians so quite possibly, especially if whites would be in weaker state than bolsheviks
This map should be also including the Western territorues because of the Reunification act (Akt Zluky). But yeah, UPR was peak. Unfortunately we had an idealistic government (Vynnychenko) that did not prevent the conquest by the bolsheviks
Yep, Kyvian Rus' was an entire span of states which differed heavily from today's Russia by being solidly anchored in Europe. Ukrainians and Belarusians are the direct descendants of the western Kyivan Rus', Russians of the northern and eastern. History is complicated and cultures literally do share roots but ultimately go down very different paths.
I was talking more in terms of multinational Empires. Kievan Rus was the ancestor of all East Slavs not just Russia or Ukraine, Rome was the ancestor of many people not just Italy or Spain, Carolingians werethe ancestors of almost all of Western Europe not just France or Germany etc.
Can we not repeat any propaganda of ,,Kievan rus is a legacy of single X country"? It is not just russian, it is not just belarusian, it is not just ukrainian.
Eh, I mean you're claiming that Kyivan Rus' here leads straight to modern Ukraine when the Hetmanate would be a better direct connection. Today's Ukraine is split between the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, the Grand Principality of Kyiv, the Principality of Pereislvavl, and parts of the Principality of Chernhiv. There were quite a few intermediate steps between western Kyivan Rus' and today's Belarusians and Ukrainians, much as there were from Veliki Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal to modern Russians.
This would be like posting a map of the Carolingian Empire and claiming Italy is France.
I'm anti-communist & anti-Putin but Keivan Rus was a Russian state. Ukraine & Russia had always been part of the same empires. There was no solid Ukrainian identity back then.
Lmao. Thanks for your opinion. Snyder recorded a long series of lectures, available for free at Yale's YouTube channel, to educate people on this very matter. Please watch that if you want to learn.
There is no such thing as the "Kievan Rus." The "state" (it was barely a state, just a bunch of cities united by Kiev for the purpose of trade) was simply known as Kiev, the "rus" part was tacked on by revisionists to tie Ukrainian identity with the Russian identity, in order to justify Russian control of Ukraine because it's their "ancient homeland." In reality, modern Russia stems from Moscow, a city that didn't even exist until after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, meaning that Russia has no historical ties to it.
It also stems from Veliki Novgorod, which not only has a tie to it but is given equal precedence in the intermixture of Rus' states to Kyiv itself. Oversimplified narratives are the bane of history.
It was not a Russian state because the Russian identity wouldn't exist until after the Mongol conquest and spun out of the duality of Vladimir-Suzdal and Veliki Novgorod. Beloozoro and Minsk became Belarus, Kyiv, Galicia-Volhynia, and Pereislavl became Ukraine. And there are quite a few intermediate steps between the Rus' principalities and their modern descendants and skipping over one of them in particular is inconvenient to nationalist narratives but history dos that to everyone.
My man you're so wrong on this. How Ukraine was not part of the west if:
Anna of Kyiv, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise of Kyivan Rus', became Queen of France in 1051 by marrying King Henry I
King Danylo Romanovych - the king of the Halych-Volyn Principality, founded the town of Lviv, named in honor of his son Lev - received his crown from Pope Innocent IV
And so on, Ukraine always had deep ties with so called "west"
It is russians who chipped off from Kyiv Rus, precursor country to today's Ukraine with Kyiv as a capital.
The word "Ukraine" is first mentioned in 1187 in the Hypatian Codex describing the death of the Prince of Pereyaslav Volodymyr Hlibovych: "Ukraina groaned for him". The same codex in 1189 mentions that "Prince Rostyslav arrived to Halych Ukraine and from there went to Halych". There were also "Chernihiv Ukraine",
"Kyiv Ukraine",
', "Volyn Ukraine" etc. Since the 14th
century territories of modern Ukraine came under Polish and Lithuanian rule, so we got also "Polish Ukraine" and "Lithuanian Ukraine". In various chronicles until the 16th century the word "Ukraine" was used meaning a county.
Ottoman sultans also had multiple Serbian, Greek & Georgian wives. Would you consider Serbia, Greece & Georgia part of the Islamic world? Ofc not. Ukraine is an Eastern Orthodox country which makes it fundamentally separate from the Western civilization that comprises of Catholic & Protestant countries. Also, before the Russo-Ukrainian war, most Ukrainian nationalists hated Poland more than Russia.
Lol, dude, you're now trying to explain me my history, how are you different from westplainers?
Ofc I don't consider Serbia or Greece as part of islamic world, that's not what I said. I said Ukraine had close ties with western europe long ago not it was a part of western Europe. Just like Greece, Georgia had ties and contacts with oslamic world. But it doesn't make them islamic.
Ukraine has far stronger cultural ties with Russia than Western Europe. As I already said that I support Ukraine 💯 & oppose Russia/Putin but I won't buy EU/NATO propaganda that Ukraine is a Western country that has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. Ukraine should be independent but they can't deny their cultural ties with Russia.
This is like saying that Austrians are completely distinct people from Germans. Culturally speaking, both have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Ofc Ukraine is sovereign & distinct from Russia but culturally, they have always been tied with Russian empires,way before Soviets.
tankies at 23:59: "Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds!!!11!"
tankies at 00:00: the most unapologetically Russocentric fascist take you'll ever see
also ngl, it feels funny seeing idiots like these claiming that somehow it's all thanks to Russian that non-Russian people are civilized and with technologies when right now Russia is making sure that any region full with people of non-Russian ethnicity is a comically horrible shithole. Just look at those "republics" inside Russia (like Tuva, Kalmykia, Chechnya, Buryatia, etc.), and not only how much poverty and corruption ends up being there even compared to other Russian regions, and how the cunts will even invite a mid ass 2000s UFC fighter from the US just to make sure the non-Russians won't have anything beyond token representation, but how the media there will keep pushing bullshit narratives on how the Russian population is being persecuted by non-Russians. It's shit like this that make me feel like these "republics" are the closest thing to a modern bantustan
and that's of course not touching at how they've been treating Ukrainian people and how they're making sure to erase any proper living in the territories they occupy. it's the biggest proof yet of how the Russian governing class will gladly burn everything they come across just to make sure no one else can be equals to them
Those republics are indigenous lands, and Russia is no less a colonizer than the US from the indigenous perspective.
Tankies are so funny ;)
https://preview.redd.it/u9ov37ux5r8g1.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=43311cae51129ae6974e800aa1c5f9b2a72cee75
Would Ukraine exist as an independent country if the White Army defeated the Bolsheviks?.
Realistically, the only way the Bolsheviks could have lost the war was if Ukraine had been separated from their control past the november of 1918; this would necessarily have meant that the Western Front ended in some kind of ceasefire or that the Kaiserschlacht succeeded, Paris fell, and France was knocked out of the war. Germany would thus have kept Ukraine under its control, and the Reds would have thwrefore lacked the grain and other resources needed for their war effort. All the disadvantages of the Whites would thereby have been negated in every respect. Bolsheviks would starve – IRL they took from Ukraine so much grain that it caused famine.
Hm, I would say probably. The White Army was much more divided than the Reds, and probably wouldn’t be able to mount an invasion of Ukraine. Any White government would be too focused on trying to keep Russia proper together.
There were already talks about cooperation between Poland and Ukrainians so quite possibly, especially if whites would be in weaker state than bolsheviks
Eh I'd say this one is better:
https://preview.redd.it/ol653jhknp8g1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=328e47f9fdd2c5d42d0875f72b2a9036f9d32ec4
Calling Kievan Rus Ukraine is like calling the Roman Empire Italy or the Carolingian Empire Germany
That was peak
This map should be also including the Western territorues because of the Reunification act (Akt Zluky). But yeah, UPR was peak. Unfortunately we had an idealistic government (Vynnychenko) that did not prevent the conquest by the bolsheviks
Yep, Kyvian Rus' was an entire span of states which differed heavily from today's Russia by being solidly anchored in Europe. Ukrainians and Belarusians are the direct descendants of the western Kyivan Rus', Russians of the northern and eastern. History is complicated and cultures literally do share roots but ultimately go down very different paths.
or Wessex England.
I was talking more in terms of multinational Empires. Kievan Rus was the ancestor of all East Slavs not just Russia or Ukraine, Rome was the ancestor of many people not just Italy or Spain, Carolingians werethe ancestors of almost all of Western Europe not just France or Germany etc.
You don't show respect to invaders.
I find calling pro-Russian tankies “imperialists” online always has hilarious results. They can’t really refute it, just insult or lie.
The first historical mention of Ukraine is from the 5th century.
The first historical mention of Muscovy is from the 12th century.
Can we not repeat any propaganda of ,,Kievan rus is a legacy of single X country"? It is not just russian, it is not just belarusian, it is not just ukrainian.
Eh, I mean you're claiming that Kyivan Rus' here leads straight to modern Ukraine when the Hetmanate would be a better direct connection. Today's Ukraine is split between the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, the Grand Principality of Kyiv, the Principality of Pereislvavl, and parts of the Principality of Chernhiv. There were quite a few intermediate steps between western Kyivan Rus' and today's Belarusians and Ukrainians, much as there were from Veliki Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal to modern Russians.
This would be like posting a map of the Carolingian Empire and claiming Italy is France.
[removed]
No far right.
I'm anti-communist & anti-Putin but Keivan Rus was a Russian state. Ukraine & Russia had always been part of the same empires. There was no solid Ukrainian identity back then.
Lmao. Thanks for your opinion. Snyder recorded a long series of lectures, available for free at Yale's YouTube channel, to educate people on this very matter. Please watch that if you want to learn.
There is no such thing as the "Kievan Rus." The "state" (it was barely a state, just a bunch of cities united by Kiev for the purpose of trade) was simply known as Kiev, the "rus" part was tacked on by revisionists to tie Ukrainian identity with the Russian identity, in order to justify Russian control of Ukraine because it's their "ancient homeland." In reality, modern Russia stems from Moscow, a city that didn't even exist until after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, meaning that Russia has no historical ties to it.
It also stems from Veliki Novgorod, which not only has a tie to it but is given equal precedence in the intermixture of Rus' states to Kyiv itself. Oversimplified narratives are the bane of history.
It was not a Russian state because the Russian identity wouldn't exist until after the Mongol conquest and spun out of the duality of Vladimir-Suzdal and Veliki Novgorod. Beloozoro and Minsk became Belarus, Kyiv, Galicia-Volhynia, and Pereislavl became Ukraine. And there are quite a few intermediate steps between the Rus' principalities and their modern descendants and skipping over one of them in particular is inconvenient to nationalist narratives but history dos that to everyone.
[removed]
My man you're so wrong on this. How Ukraine was not part of the west if:
Anna of Kyiv, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise of Kyivan Rus', became Queen of France in 1051 by marrying King Henry I
King Danylo Romanovych - the king of the Halych-Volyn Principality, founded the town of Lviv, named in honor of his son Lev - received his crown from Pope Innocent IV
And so on, Ukraine always had deep ties with so called "west"
It is russians who chipped off from Kyiv Rus, precursor country to today's Ukraine with Kyiv as a capital.
The word "Ukraine" is first mentioned in 1187 in the Hypatian Codex describing the death of the Prince of Pereyaslav Volodymyr Hlibovych: "Ukraina groaned for him". The same codex in 1189 mentions that "Prince Rostyslav arrived to Halych Ukraine and from there went to Halych". There were also "Chernihiv Ukraine", "Kyiv Ukraine", ', "Volyn Ukraine" etc. Since the 14th century territories of modern Ukraine came under Polish and Lithuanian rule, so we got also "Polish Ukraine" and "Lithuanian Ukraine". In various chronicles until the 16th century the word "Ukraine" was used meaning a county.
Ottoman sultans also had multiple Serbian, Greek & Georgian wives. Would you consider Serbia, Greece & Georgia part of the Islamic world? Ofc not. Ukraine is an Eastern Orthodox country which makes it fundamentally separate from the Western civilization that comprises of Catholic & Protestant countries. Also, before the Russo-Ukrainian war, most Ukrainian nationalists hated Poland more than Russia.
Lol, dude, you're now trying to explain me my history, how are you different from westplainers? Ofc I don't consider Serbia or Greece as part of islamic world, that's not what I said. I said Ukraine had close ties with western europe long ago not it was a part of western Europe. Just like Greece, Georgia had ties and contacts with oslamic world. But it doesn't make them islamic.
Ukraine has far stronger cultural ties with Russia than Western Europe. As I already said that I support Ukraine 💯 & oppose Russia/Putin but I won't buy EU/NATO propaganda that Ukraine is a Western country that has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. Ukraine should be independent but they can't deny their cultural ties with Russia.
It's not about Ukraine being eastern or western, it's about Ukrainians being a distinct, sovereign people from Russians, which they absolutely are.
This is like saying that Austrians are completely distinct people from Germans. Culturally speaking, both have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Ofc Ukraine is sovereign & distinct from Russia but culturally, they have always been tied with Russian empires,way before Soviets.
No far right.