Comments by "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus" (@marcusaureliusantoninus2597) on "Serbian War Veterans Operating in Crimea: Russian Roulette in Ukraine" video.

  1. First, "Kievan Rus" is a modern historical term. There wasn't any "Kievan Rus" in the Middle Ages, there were only Russian principalities without a centralised state. The word "Rus" appeared in the Northern Russian town called Ladoga, which became the first capital of Rus. Anyway, there isn't another successor state of Rus besides Russia.
    3
  2. Юрій Пономаренко, what propaganda are YOU a victim of then? In my case this "propaganda" is called education and "The Cambridge History of Russia". Muscovites can not protest against anything, just because there are no "Muscovites" since 1721. That is not true about "all European maps". Only some maps from France and Southern Europe have the name "Muscovy", English, German and other Northern European ones have "Russia Muscovitica", "Rusia Moscovia", "Russia" and so long so forth. "Tartaria" (Tataria) is an absolutely different term. This word was used as a general term for all the Turkic peoples, so using it for the territories different from the lands of today's Russian Turkic peoples (Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir, etc.) is plainly a mistake of the mapmaker. Before Russian Empire Russia was called "Russian Tsardom". Still, it was Russia. "Muscovy" is a Polish word, used for Russia for political reasons. Russian Tsar's claims on the Russian land inside the Commonwealth concerned the Krul, so he decided to name himself the only true Russian monarch, and Russian tsar - a ruler of some "Muscovy". Truth is, by the XVII century, most ancient Russian lands were within the borders of Russia. The term "Rus" (not "Russ") was used for the territories that constitute today's Byelorussia, parts of European Russia and about a half of today's Ukraine, so no, what you write about Rus is not true. "Litvin" (not "Lytvyn") is a general term for the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It included Lithuanians themselves, some Jewish, Tatar and Polish minorities, and the ancestors of today's Byelorussians, part of Ukrainians and part of Russians. Slavic Orthodox population of the GDL was mostly called "ruska kurwa" - said but true. Since the Union of Krewo the Orthodox were an Untermensch minority in the GDL. I had no intention to mention "three countries", that's some Soviet nationalistic bullshit. I'm just correcting your mistakes in regard of history. Ukrainians are not so much mixed with Finno-Ugric peoples, approximately to the same extent as Russians. Turkic part in the genome of today's Ukrainians is greater, but still not really prominent. In general, all three Eastern Slavic ethnic groups - Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians - are "very" Slavic, only Polish people are more Slavic. Also, Ukrainian and Russian languages have some Turkic influence, but not Finno-Ugric. "Historical justice" is a Marxist myth. There are only people and their will.
    3
  3. The Rus began in the Northern Russia, and later it took Kiev. Today we don't have a state named "Kiev" or "Kievan Rus", so nowhere to return Russia. Quite the opposite, the glorious Russian city Kiev should be returned to Russia.
    3
  4. My dear friend, what I write is based on the historical sources, such as the aforementioned "Cambridge History of Russia" and the Primary Chronicle. There we can read about the group of Vikings called "the Rus" that were invited by the Slavs of Novgorod, made their 1st capital in Ladoga, and thus the state of Rus appeared. I repeat, this is how they teach in the universities of the entire Europe and the USA. In order to contradict it, you have to supply some VERY solid evidence. So far, it is "Юрій Пономаренко" vs the Cambridge University. "Moscow brothers"? Mate, in the XIV century Moscow was most insignificant somewhere on the borders of the territories of princes of Tver and Vladimir, then the capital of Rus. Kiev (not "Kyiv") was a Tatar vassal until the 1362, when it became a Lithuanian vassal. IX century. Novgorod to the north, Kiev to the South, what would later become Smolensk and Chernigov somewhere in the middle. This is Rus. So what? Who cares whether there are Slavic tribes, Turkic or Finnish, as long as they pay? "King of Kiev"? Friend, after this I should probably stop talking to you about history. This is pure 100% fantasy. Still, I believe in people and their ratio. Now after the "elimination of Novgorodian Slovens" I see why you make these wild statements. You seem to confuse the "blood" and the ethnicity. There were no "Slovens" in the XVI century. There were Russian people who lived in Sir Novgorod the Great. Ivan Grozny is of the Varangian-Slavic dynasty of the Rurikid.
    3
  5. Who cares "whose" was Crimea? Territories belong to states, not people. The last country to capture Crimea is Russia, so it is Russian. It was "Ukrainian" for 23 years only because some bureaucrates in 1991 wanted it to be. In fact, the Ukraine never fought for it.
    2
  6. Gwynnfevar12, "historically" there wasn't any "Ukraine".
    2
  7. Юрій Пономаренко, the problem with your concept is that Russia is not a successor of the Golden Horde. It's the same as to say Poland is a successor of the Third Reich.
    2
  8. Is the Vladimir-Suzdal principality not a part of medieval Rus? And when does the former come from, if not from the Rurikid princes? Again, what "Muscovites" do you keep referring to? There are no "Muscovites" anymore, it's now but a Russian nickname for the dwellers of Moscow, and Moscow does not equal the entire Russia. Vladimir-Suzdal principality was as the "quasi state" as any Russian principality, be it Novgorod or Kiev. First, the Grand Principality of Moscow became the Tsardom of Russia with Ivan the Great, when it managed to liberate great many Russian lands and became the first Tsar. Please stop spreading the nonsensical conspiracy theory bullshit about "Moscow ambassadors bribing cartographers". This is not even funny. What are you, an apprentice of Dmitry Kiselev? There were no other "Russia" in 1721 than the Russian Empire. Under a "protectorate"? Friend, Kiev was captured by the Lithuanians. Taken by force. Unlike Mongols, Lithuanians removed all the Russian Rurikid princes and replaced them with loyal Gediminovich. The Commonwealth was formed between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown of Poland. What "Ruthenians" to mention? Orthodox Russian princes were oppressed even since the Union of Krewo in 1385. And up to the moment of the forming of the Commonwealth they were mentioned as "ruska kurwa", nothing more. Russian princes under the Mongols were vassals, OK. But Russian Rurikid princes were removed by the Lithuanians and we're nothing at all in the GDL, not even vassals. Russian princes NEVER paid any tribute to the Crimean khan. Unlike the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that DID pay tribute to the Crimean Khanate. It was exactly the Russian princes who thought about the legacy of Rus, and who later managed to force themselves free of the Mongols and unite all the Russian lands first as the Tsardom of Russia and then in the form of the Russian Empire and until 1917, when Russia vanished from the world map (and "The Ukraine" was drawn by the Bolshevik). _But here is lies in ruins porich bled dry country with European culture and glorious history ... So it was "Russia", which you tell_ Sorry, friend, I didn't understand that. I see you're not a fluent English speaker, so could you please explain it?
    2
  9. _since official Ukrainian historiography became available recently and a narrow public_ Mate, you'd better not mention the "official Ukrainian historiography". Ukraine is a brand new nation-state. And the historiography of new nation-states is pure fantasy. By default. That's why I use the sources from the Old Europe. Preferably British, French or Spanish. There's never been a story of "three countries". It was a Soviet fairy tale of "three brotherly Eastern Slavic peoples". In fact, there's only one - Russian.
    2
  10. Matei Alexandru, it's not. The only vile part here is the Bolshevik fake nation of "the Ukraine".
    1
  11. Matei Alexandru, traitor named Boris Yeltsin. Who fooled the Russian people into believing we will have "three Russian states". In fact, they started spreading Ukrainian nationalism since the day 1 they had gained independence.
    1
  12. miden zero, not all Ukrainians are Orthodox. A lot of those who are nationalistic enough to volunteer into the war action are Greek Catholics, and among the rest the majority belong to the schismatic so-called "Kiev patriarchy".
    1
  13. Giorgi Ruxadze, no, Russia historically does NOT belong to Mongolia. Not only did Russia set its land free with the power of steel and valour, but it also captured the lands of the Horde itself. Yours faithfully, Captain Obvious.
    1
  14. Юрій Пономаренко, first - neither is Muscovy, second - there's no Muscovy anymore, and there haven't been for three centuries.
    1
  15. I didn't know they study by "the Cambridge History of Russia" there.
    1
  16. It was. So what?
    1