Comments by "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus" (@marcusaureliusantoninus2597) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
3
-
Alek Shukhevych, my good man, you can well be Ukrainian or Martian for all I care, but I am a bloody LINGUIST, so now I'm gonna correct your somewhat skewed views on language itself and phonology as its part, as well as history.
1) Nobody cares what "Ukraina" or "Okolycja" means in the modern Ukrainian language. The word was around for more than bloody 500 years when the language first came into being as a separate entity.
2) I never bloody mentioned "ou" was anything different from "oo" in the aspect of pronunciation, so save sweat, man.
And that was not "in medievil slavic". Eastern Slavic medieval chronicles were either in Old Russian or in Church Slavonic. Ever heard that?
3) "Ruthenian" is but a latinized version of "Russian". The word "Rusyn" is not used in the historical context of the middle ages. The more correct way is to say "Old East Slavic chronicles".
Muscovy in the Middle Ages?! Are you out of your mind? The word "Muscovy" is sometimes used to name the Russian state from the late Great Principality of Moscow (Vasily III and later) till the formation of the Russian Empire. It's the early XVI - early XVIII centuries.
4) The entire territory of the Kievan Rus was... Kievan Rus. The word "Rus" was often used in a narrow sense for the Kiev region (as now we sometimes say "real America" for Midwest and the South, which of course doesn't mean that coastal regions are not America).
The Ukraine is not the centre of the Kievan Rus. Check the map, mate https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/44/3844-004-95704863.jpg
You can see that the centre is roughly Smolensk, which today is in... surprise-surprise.. RUSSIA! While today's Southern and Eastern parts of the Ukraine were not even parts of the Rus.
Don't forget also the origins of the word Rus. It was originally the name of a union of local Slavic and Finnish peoples of today's northern European Russia formed by a Viking lord named Rurik, hence early Russian Rurikid ruling dynasty.
5) The words you mention is a butchered quote from the Hypatian Chronicle. The correct quote is "about him the Oukraina wept a lot". "He" is a prince named Vladimir Glebovich, who was a hero of a certain BORDERLINE called the Sula defensive line (Posulskaya oboronitelnaya liniya). So the "Oukraina" mentioned is still a borderline.
Again, as I said, Kiev wasn't the centre of the Kievan Rus. At least, not geographically.
6) The shtick you invent up with U-krajina or V-krajina is a typical example of folk etymology. Have you ever heard a single country name that meant not a noun or an adjective, but an adverbial modifier of place?! O_o.
I quoted you the Ukrainian etymological dictionary which says that "the Ukraine" means borderline. This is mainstream version among all the linguistic historians, no matter whether Ukrainian, Russian, American or whatever.
Funny thing is, there are some similar moronic groups in Russia, Russian neopagans. They too like to invent up some fake etymology to countries' names. Say, they claim that the word Russia is a skewed version of the "real" word "Rasseya", which means "spread around" ("rasseyannoe"), that describes "the vastness of the Russian soil". It sounds as yoklish as "in the country".
3
-
1
-
1
-
Alek Shukhevych, that's just what I was saying. Same meaningless bullcrap about "sovereign nation" and of course you just had to bring up Russian "guarantees" (Budapest memo). You see, this is clueless precisely because it's too general. What do you even mean with this "sovereign nation" stuff? Were other countries that were invaded, occupied and annexed throughout human history not "sovereign"? So what? Who said that 1991 state borders are forever?
You see, what I meant by being well-versed in politics is that - who could be naïve and lofty enough to think Russia would EVER agree with the 1991 borders? Germany only reconciled with the loss of its core territory after the bloodiest war in human history. France and Germany fought for Alsace for centuries. The UK didn't hesitate a second before going to war for the Falklands. So if the Western powers caught Russia off guard when it was painfully restoring after 70 years of brutish totalitarian regime and created some limitrophes on its core land - what fool could think Russians would ever agree with that? For Christ's sake, there wasn't even a war in which Russia could have lost all this territory!
One thing is historically non-Russian semi-colonial territories like Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Middle Asian countries or the Caucasus. Russians never really considered it "their" country anyway. And something absolutely different is Byelorussia and the Ukraine, the latter being the bedrock of Russian statehood and symbolically very important point of interest.
Even though right now Russia is not much to look at, with corrupt authoritarian Putin's regime strangling it, this situation is not forever, and the world must prepare borders in Eastern Europe will shift.
1
-
15) Russians neveer ceased to call themselves "Russkije". "Russkiy" or "Rusak" was a Russian endoethnonym since the beginning of the Rus. According to a French mercenary in XVI century's Russia, Jacques Margeret:
These Russians for some time (and after having shaken off the Tatar yoke and having some knowledge of Christianity) have been called Muscovites, which comes from the capital city Moscow, which carries the title of Duchy. But this duchy is not the first of the country, for the prince formerly called himself grand duke of Vladimir, and continues to do so at present, styling himself duke of Vladimir and Moscow. Therefore, it may be said to be an error not only on our part, who are faraway, but also among their nearest neighbours to call them Muscovites and not Russians. They themselves, when asked what people they are, respond "rusak", which means Russians. If one asks them from what place they are, they respond "iz Moskvy", from Moscow, Vologda, Riazan, or other towns. It is also necessary to understand that there are two Russias — that is to say, this one which has the title of Empire (which the Poles call White Russia) and another called Black Russia, which is a dependency of the kingdom of Poland and is adjacent to Podolia. It is this Black Russia of which the king of Poland styles himself lord in his titles when he says "Grand Duke of Lithuania, Russia, Prussia," etc. I wished to inform the reader of this so that he may know that the Russians in questions are those formerly called Scythians and since then Muscovites by error, inasmuch as Moscow is only a single town whose inhabitants are called Muscovites. It is as if one wished to call all Frenchmen Parisians because Paris is the capital of the kingdom of France (and with more reason, since Paris is the capital from earliest times, and Moscow has been only for one or two hundred years)
16) "Russkiy" (русский) is an adjective (which? of what kind?) and a noun (who?). Such words are called substantivized adjectives, i.e. adjectives gone nouns. E.g., "russkiy khleb" (Russian bread) - adjective, "Ya vizhu dvukh russkikh" (I see two Russians) - noun. The same can be said for many Russian words - stolovaya, pozharnyiy, ryadovoy, uchenyiy, etc. Russians tend to use nouns (like "nemets" or "anglichanin") for other people and substantivized adjectives for themselves. The same is true for religions in Russia - "foreign" religion group members are referred to with nouns (who?): mulumanin, katolik, buddist, etc., while "local" Russian Orthodox Christians are (what kind?) "pravoslavnyiy", i.e. substantivized adjective.
In many European languages noun and adjectives are the same words, so nothing unusual about that.
17) Oh, now WHO accuses me of using "ideological bullshit falsehoods"? A UKRAINIAN? Awwwww, come on maaaaaaan. You come from a BRAND NEW NATION-STATE. You know that history books of brand new nation-states may as well be in a "fantasy" department of a bookstore? Imagine what "history" they can study in the schools of Estonia, Montenegro or South Sudan (the Ukraine is from the same list). There were little to know mentions of these "countries" in the world historical sources, so 80-90% of their "history" is a pure fantasy. Their goal is to "show" how they were opressed and silenced throughout centuries by their evil "imperialistic" overlords, so there's also a big heap of Marxist bullshit mixed in their textbooks. So they have the same structure, and Ukrainian version of the "true history" (which is somehow contrary to all the major historical reliable sources, not only Russian ones) is not so different from the Sudanese or Eritrean one (save for details and common nouns).
Of course, in every powerful country there's a core historical myth around which the entire history and ideology of the country is built. Such myths of the UK, France, Russia, the USA, Italy, Spain and so on were carefully formed and elaborated for centuries by the most gifted historians, and also film directors, autors and journalists. It is very subtle and it doesn't "lie".
But the creation of such a myth takes centuries. You can't just write "Ukrainian elves were opressed by Russian orcs, stripped of their land and their history". It just doesn't work this way.
18) Country in most Slavic languages according to you is "krajina", not "oukraina". I already cited the Hypatian chronicle twice, so I'm not going to lose any more time on that. Also, in Old Russian "country" is "zemlya", "kraj", "storona/strana" or "vlast'/volost'". Cf: "Otkudu yest' poshla rous'skaya zemlya?" (Primary Chronicle). The word "kraina" in Old Russian (or Old East Slavic as you call it) means "lying on the edge or border".
19) My friend, you know what's my №1 source on Russian history (which I also used to answer you)? It's the "Cambridge History of Russia", three volumes. The official textbook of the Cambridge University on Russian history. I highly advise you to download and read it, and say goodbye to your romantic nationalistic bullcrap. I see you're not stupid or hopelessly brainwashed, so if you value the Truth more than petty interest of your state or your nationalistic beliefs, take a look on what the whole world thinks of the history of Russia and the Ukraine.
1
-
Alek Shukhevych, my ancestors come from pre-revolutionary Russian Kuban Cossacks, they were mostly clergymen, some of them fought in the White Guard against both Bolsheviks and Ukrainian separatists. Russian is my native language, and I also understand some Ukrainian (heard a lot of it as a child), and speak it to some extent. I've been to both Russia and the Ukraine.
Yes, history is written by victors. But that does NOT mean that every version of history that is contrary to the victor's version is true. Usually its not. Again, I say, victors don't lie. They just present the truth in the way most useful to them.
Judging by you not having answered all my points, I see you are not quite ready to answer to the facts. You keep hurling at me some emotional stuff: "Oh, we are so poor! Oh, have mercy, cruel Russians OPRESSED us! And so you must not believe them, you must believe US!". And zero valid arguments. "I'm right, you're wrong!" is not one.
I remind you that historical textbooks are written by HISTORIANS. Do you think you, a simple Ukrainian, know more about the history of East Slavs than a professional historian from England or France whose major is Slavic history? I assure you, they all read both modern and dead Slavic languages. For the love of God, Cambridge is in top 5 world universities! Do you think they would publish a book written by "some ignorant Westerners" without fact-checking? Do you think they would allow to put the name of the University in its title if it was less than perfect?
I already wrote you a whole article about "Moscowians", Finno-Ugric and Tatar peoples. Haven't you read my post? Then why are you not responding? Behaviour of this kind reminds me one of an old superstitious hag.
In short: no, they were never any "Moscovians" outside of Moscow and its vicinity; no, Russians are not and have never been Finno-Ugric; the same goes for Tatars. Arguments are in the previous post.
There were people of RUS, the plural was "Rus" or "lyudi rous'skie" (люди роусьские). The singulars were Rusyn, Rusich or Rusak.
Neither Russians nor Ukrainians are not fully formed nations yet. No wonder — most nations were "finalized" in mid XIX - early XX century, while Russia was occupied by a savage totalitarian regime (which is a creator and a bedrock of the Ukrainian state) for 70 years, its entire elite either fled or was killed. But the process of forming a solid Russian nation was unrelenting in thу beginning of the XX century. There was a nation, Russians, and three subethnic groups, White Russians, Little Russians and Great Russians. After the revolution, the very idea of Russian unity was banned, its adepts were forced to leave Russia, those who left were later killed. It was not some "Russian occupant ideology". Many of its adepts were in fact Little Russians and came from Malorossiyan Cossack nobility. Kiev was considered "the capital of Russian nationalism". It took over a century of prosecution, opression, torture and murders to turn Kiev into the capital of anti-Russian nationalism. Even now there are a lot of Russian nationalists in this great Russian city, but they certainly do not profess their views openly.
If you call modern "Maidan" activities in the Ukraine "a creation of a nation", then I must disappoint you — if this will become a core myth of the Ukrainian state, it will be no better than some Algeria or Bolivia.
Become a nation within Kievan Rus? So, you're trying to tell me in the times of the Kievan Rus there were "Ukrainians" or "Byelorussians"? You seem to misunderstand what is a "nation". It is a state and a group of people associating themselves with that state. It's not the same as "natsionalnost".This is an ethnic group. In fact, Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians together have their roots in ancient Rus.
Again, this whining: "We were opressed!". You do the same pathetic thing I described in point 17 of my previous post.
Your link is a bullcrap. The only two lines that can be described as "Moscow opressed" (i.e., before 1721) are 1622 and 1690. And they tell about the "opression" of the Kiev recension of the Church Slavonic, not Ukrainian language (it was not around yet). Oh, and the 1720 ukase by Peter the Great. Again, it regarded church books in Church Slavonic. What is so "Ukrainian" about that? Purely a competition within the Church.
My friend, yours truly is a professional. If you have something to tell me, so tell me. This "you are wrong on so many levels but I won't argue with you" of yours looks pathetic. Btw, I've never seen any source, Western or other, which would call Poland Russia. The Ukraine was "Russia" for a much longer time than it was "non-Russia". Who cares how ordinary people call you, if we are speaking historical books and sources?
In English it's "chronicles", not "lytopysy". I read chronicles too, my friend. Have you read Primary Chronicle (Povest' Vremennykh Let)? It says: "The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichians and the Ves then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus' and migrated. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sineus, in Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. From these Varangians, the Russian land received its name". You see, the very foundation of Rus was in Russia. It was on the Russian soil. Ryurik's people first landed on East Slavic soil not far away from today's glorious Saint-Petersburg, the true capital of Russia.
Saying "obviously" doesn't make anything obvious. The fact is, only nothern Russian principalities, though most of them were occupied by the Mongols, preserved both Rurikid dynasty and the idea of the unified state of Rus. Also, as I mentioned, Novgorodian land was the only part of ancient Rus that stayed independent from both Lithuanians and Mongols.
What's so special about the "Kingdom" of Galicia-Volhynia? Just like most Russian principalities it was a Mongolian vassal state, later in was conquered by Lithuania and Poland, and the Rurikid dynasty there was lost. It had therefore no rights as a heir of the Rus.
Ok, so you want to present a list of words written by a foreigner that didn't speak Russian as a proof of the "non-Slavicness" of the Russian language before XVIII century? Ok, show me the list, please.
Russian language is NOT a Moscow dialect. It's a very important point. The spoken dialects of Moscow, Novgorod, Tver, Vladimir, Pskov and other northern Russian lands are not exactly "Russian language" of today. I described to you how modern Russian language was formed, so don't make me repeat myself.
"Rusnak" is as Ukrainian as it is Bulgarian. But the term was Rusak, not RusNak.
OF COURSE northern Russian land were "slavified" by other Russian principalities. It's perfectly logical that Kiev, a military, political and economical centre was the centre of coloniztion process. Who argues that? Finno-Ugric people were much less dominant than the Slavs, so they were mostly driven eastwards, part of them were assimilated. Though most of them are still Finno-Ugric even today. They merged into modern Finno-Ugric ethnic groups of Russia: Veps, Karels, Mordva, Mari, Komi, Udmurts, Izhora, as well as Estonians. They were also spread into today's Latvia and Lithuania when they were assimilated by Latvians and Lithuanians.
90% of European Russia IS UGRO-FINNIC NATIVE LANDS - not 90%, but certainly more than a half. Although, I wouldn't call it "native lands". So what? 100% of the UK are Celtic native lands. Does it make English people Celtic? 100% of the USA are Indian native lands. How much Indian blood is there in modern Americans? So see previous paragraph.
Moscow means black water in one of their languages - bullshit. What language exactly? It's commonly agreed by slavists that "Moscow" originates from "mosk-" or "mozg-" that means wet (e.g. Russian "promozglyi"). There are other rivers called "Moskava" or "Mozgava" in Poland and then-Slavic lands of Germany.
That is why today most Russians share the majority Ugro-Finnic genetics along with Tatar and Turkic and minimal slavic genes - I already answered that. Are you being an old hag again? It looks stupid. Look up any genetic study of Russians.
Ruthenian was a WRITTEN language. "Old East Slavic" on the scheme is another name for Old Russian.
Oh, the USSR let Ukrainians do A LOT of things. I will remind you, my good man, that within the Communist Party there were much more Ukrainians than Russians proportionally to the numbers of respected ethnic groups. There were more Ukrainian heads of the USSR than there were Russians: 4 against 3. And one of the main architects of Ukrainian nationalism and folk history, Mikhail Grushevsky, enjoyed himself in the Soviet Ukraine as a prominent state-supported historian and sociologist. At the same time Russian nationalism was banned, Russian elites and the Russian Church were opressed and were being killed until the death of Stalin. Up until 1940s all Russian history was being depicted as one big colonization, occupation and torture chamber. USSR was a clearly anti-Russian state, at the same time it was mostly pro-Ukrainian.
If the Russian "version" is falsified, prove it. I take it, if you know the truth, you can show me the sources.
Your quote from the letter is ungooglable. It looks like a fake. Not to mention the term "Kievan Rus" first appeared in the XIX century, much later than the times Friedrich the II or Catherine the Great were in charge.
1