How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus’

Kyivan Rus'

2014/05/14 • History

This essay was first published in a collection by Yaroslav Dashkevych, PhD. in “Learn to Speak the Truth with Non-Lying Lips” – K:Tempora, 2011, 828pp. Yaroslav Dashkevych was a prominent Ukrainian historian, who during his long academic career wrote more than 950 works on Ukrainian historiography, source studies and special historical disciplines, Eastern Studies, Ukrainian-Armenian, Ukrainian-Turkish, and Ukrainian-Jewish relations.

In creating their nation, Ukrainians need to examine and analyze their own history, based on truth, verified facts and historical events. For centuries under the rule of conquerors, Ukrainians were basically deprived of the opportunity to influence the formation of national awareness and the development of their history, with the result that Ukraine’s history was composed predominantly to the advantage of their conquerors. Especially troublesome is the question of the pretensions and demands of Moscow, and later Russia, concerning the historical legacy of Kyivan Rus.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Baptism of Rus-Ukraine 988 AD

In his historical work “The Land of Moksel or Moskovia” (Olena Teliha Publishing House, Kyiv 2008, 2009, 3 vol.) V. Bilinsky presents historical sources (predominantly Russian) which testify to the total misrepresentation of the history of the Russian Empire, which was geared to create a historical mythology about Moscow and Kyivan Rus sharing common common historical roots, and that Moscow possesses “succession rights” to Kyivan Rus.

Moscow’s outright fraud that appropriated the past of the Great Kyiv kingdom and its people dealt a severe blow to the Ukrainian ethos. Our obligation now is to utilize hard facts to uncover the lies and amorality of Moskovian mythology.

Let’s examine these problems.

The tsars of Moscow and, later, Russia understood that without an imposing past it was impossible to create a great nation and empire. Therefore it was necessary to glorify their historical roots and even to hijack the history of other nations. So, starting with Ivan the Terrible (1533-1584) the tsars of Moscow applied all their efforts to appropriate the history of Kyivan Rus, its glorious past, and to create an official mythology for the Russian Empire.

This might have been less consequential if their mythology had not affected the central concerns of Ukraine and if it had not aimed at the utter destruction of Ukraine: its history, language and culture. Over time, it became clear that Russian Imperial chauvinists did and continue to do everything possible to realize this aim.

Over hundreds of years and especially starting with the early XVI century, they brainwashed and continue to brainwash everyone, saying that the origins of the Russian nation and people are the Great Kyivan kingdom. They assert that Kyivan Rus was the cradle of three sibling nations – Russians, Ukrainians and Belarus; and that because the Russians are “older brothers”, they have the right to the legacy of Kyivan Rus. To this day, Russian historians and officials make use of this woeful lie, which is repeated by the ‘fifth column’ of communists and almost all Party of Regions deputies in our Parliament.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Myth of Three Brotherly Nations – in the place of modern Moscow, non-Slavic tribes reside while the territory of Ukraine and Belarus is inhabited by Slavic peoples

Here are the facts:

  • At the time of the Kyivan Empire there was no mention of a Moscow nation. It is well known that Moscow was created in 1277 as a subservient vassal region or ‘ulus’ to the Golden Horde, established by the Khan Mengu-Timur. By that time, Kyivan Rus had existed for more than 300 years.
  • There are no indications of any connection of Kyivan Rus with the Finnish ethnic groups in the land of ‘Moksel’ or later of the Moscow principality with the Principality of Kyivan Rus up until the XVI century. At the time when Kyivan Rus had officially accepted Christianity, the Finn tribes in ‘Moksel’ lived in a semi-primitive state.

How can anyone speak of ‘an older brother’ when that ‘older brother’ did not first appear until centuries after Rus-Ukrainians? He has no moral right to call himself an ‘older brother’, nor to dictate how people are to live, nor to force his culture, language, and world views. It is clear that until the end of the XV century, there was no Russian nation, there was no older brother ‘Great Russian’, nor were there any Russian people. Instead, there was the land of Suzdal: the land of Moksel, later the Moscow princedom, which entered into the role of the Golden Horde, the nation of Genghis Khan. From the end of the XIII to the beginning of the XVIII century, the people in this land were called Moskovites. And Moscow historians are silent about this question of their national origins.

Moskovites, ‘Great Russians’ – who are they?

During the IX to the XII cent. the large area of Tula, Riazan, and today’s Moscow region, including the tribes of Mer, Ves, Moksha, Chud, Mari and others – all this was inhabited by the people called ‘Moksel’. These tribes eventually became the foundation of the nation who now call themselves ‘Great Russians’.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Yuri Dolgoruky

In 1137, the younger son of the Kyivan prince Monomakh, Yuri Dolgoruky (who had been left without a princedom in the Kyivan empire) arrived in this land.

Yuri Dolgoruky began the rule of the ‘Riurykovyches’ in ‘Moksel’, becoming prince of Suzdal. To him and a local Finnish woman was born a son Andrey, called ‘Bogoliubsky’. Born and raised in the forest wilderness among the half savage Finnish tribes, prince Andrey cut all ties with his father’s entourage and with their old Kyivan customs.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Andrey Bogoliubsky

In 1169 Andrey Bogoliubsky sacked and destroyed Kyiv. He destroyed all the churches and religious artifacts, something unheard of in those times.

Andrey was a barbarian who did not feel any familial ties with Kyiv, the holy city of Slavs.

Within a brief time (50-80 years) every Finnish tribe was imposed with a prince of the Riurykovyches, whose mother was either a woman of Mer, Murom or Kokshan… Thus appeared the ‘Moksel’ princedoms: Vladimir, Riazan, Tver, and others. At this time, some missionaries appeared in the land of Moksel to spread Christianity. It is impossible to consider a mass ‘migration’ of Slavs from the Dnipro river region, as Russian historians insist. Why should the Slavs leave behind their fertile Dnipro lands and relocate more than a thousand kilometers through impassable undergrowth and swamps into an unknown semi-savage land?

Under the influence of Christianity, the land of ‘Moksel’ started to form their language, which in time became Russian. Up until the XII century, only Finn tribes lived in the land of ‘Moksel’. The archaeological findings of O.S. Uvarova (Meria and their everyday life from kurhan excavations, 1872 – p. 215) support this. Out of 7729  excavated kurhans, not a single Slavic burial was discovered.

And the anthropological investigations of human skulls by A. P. Bohdanov and F. K. Vovk support the differentiated characteristics of the Finnish and Slavic ethnoses.

56bfbba0acdb274d8f852f1dcc949561 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Moscow’s subservience to the Khan

In 1237 the Tatar-Mongols entered the lands of Suzdal. All who bowed, kissed the boots of the Khan and accepted subservience remained alive and unharmed, all others who did not submit were destroyed.

The princes of Vladimir, Yury and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich accepted subservience to Khan Batey. In this manner, the land of ‘Moksel’ entered the ranks of the Golden Horde Empire of Genghis Khan, and its fighting forces were combined with the army of the Empire. The commander of the Moksel division within Batey’s army was Yury Vsevolodovich, the prince of the city of Vladimir. In 1238, Finnish tribe divisions were formed and marched together under Batey in his invasions of Europe in 1240-1242. This is direct evidence of the establishment of the rule of the Khan in the lands of Rostov-Suzdal.

While Yuri Vsevolodovich was away taking part in Batey’s European invasion, his younger brother Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was placed at the head of the Vladimir princedom. Yaroslav left his eight year old son Alexander Yaroslavich as hostage with the Khan.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Alexander “Nevsky” blood brother with Khan Sartak of the Golden Horde

Living with the Horde of Batey from 1238 to 1252 Alexander, only much later named ‘Nevsky’, adopted all the customs and organizational ideas of the Golden Horde. He became a blood brother of Sartak, the son of the Khan, married the Khan’s daughter, and eventually became a loyal vassal of the Golden Horde and prince of Vladimir from 1252 to 1263. He never took part in any significant battles – all the ‘victories’ of Alexander Nevsky are transparent lies. Prince Alexander simply could never had taken part in the battles on the Neva in 1240 and on Chud or Peipus Lake in 1242 (fantasized in Eisenstein’s film) because he was still a child.

It is important to mention that the ruling powers of the local princes of Rostov-Suzdal were minimal. Khan Batey installed his own administrators in all the “ulus” princedoms: on top was the Great Baskak, and under him were the regional administrative baskaks.These were full-fledged rulers from the Golden Horde, who followed the laws of the Genghis Khans. Russian historians are lying when they state that the princes of Suzdal, and later Moscow, were independent from the Golden Horde. The Khan’s covenant named the primary rulers of the princedoms his baskak, or ‘daruha’, while the local princes were relegated to second and even third place importance.

The big lie was introduced: that Moscow was founded in 1147 by Yuri Dolgoruky. This is a myth with no supportive evidence. Moscow was established as a settlement in 1272. That same year the Golden Horde conducted their third census of the populations in their domain. Both in the first census (1237-1238) and in the second census (1254-1259) there is no mention of any Moscow at all.

Moscow appeared as a princedom in 1277 at the decree of the Tatar-Mongol Khan Mengu-Timur and it was an ordinary ‘ulus’ (subdivision) of the Golden Horde. The first Moscow prince was Daniel (1277-1303), younger son of Alexander, so-called ‘Nevsky’. The Riurykovich dynasty of Moscow princes starts from him. In 1319 Khan Uzbek (as stated in the afore-mentioned work by Bilinsky) named his brother Kulkhan the virtual Prince of Moscow, and in 1328 the Great Prince of Moscow. Khan Uzbek (named in Russian history as Kalita), after he converted to Islam, destroyed almost all the Riurykovich princes. In 1319-1328 the Riurykovich dynasty was replaced by the Genghis dynasty in the Moscow ‘ulus’ of the Golden Horde. In 1598 this Genghis dynasty in Moscow which began with Prince Ivan Kalita (Kulkhan) was finally broken. Thus for over 270 years, Moscow was ruled solely by the Khans of Genghis.

Still, the new dynasty of the Romanovs (Kobyla) promised to follow former traditions and  solemnly swore allegiance to the age-old dynasty of Genghis.

In 1613 the Moscow Orthodox Church became the stabilizing force to safeguard the sustainment of Tatar-Mongol government in Moscow, offering Masses for the Khan, and issuing anathemas on anyone who opposed this servitude.

Based on these facts, it becomes clear that Moscow is the direct inheritor of the Golden Horde Empire of Genghis and that actually the Tatar-Mongols were the ‘godfathers’ of Moscow statehood. The Moscow princedom (and tsardom from 1547) up until the XVI century had no ties or relationships with the princedoms of the lands of Kyivan Rus.

Great Russians

The tribe of Great Russians, or the Russian people as known today, appeared around the XV to XVII centuries from among the Finn tribes: Muroma, Mer, Ves and others. This was when their history started. There is no history of Great Russians on Kyivan lands! The history of Great Russians starts with the ‘Beyond the Forests Land’ in Moscow, which was never Kyivan Rus. The Tatar-Mongols who entered these lands were a big element in the formulation of ‘Great Russians’. The Great Russsian psychology absorbed many characteristics – the Tatar-Mongol instincts of a conqueror and despot, with the ultimate aim: world domination. Thus by the XVI cent. was established the type of a conqueror who was horrible in his lack of education, rage and cruelty. These people had no use for European culture and literacy. All such things like morality, honesty, shame, justice, human dignity and historical awareness were absolutely foreign to them. A significant amount of Tatar-Mongols entered the makeup of Great Russians from the XIII to XVI centuries and they accounted for the genealogy of over 25% of Russian nobility. Here are some Tatar names that brought fame to the Russian Empire: Arakcheev, Bunin, Derzhavin, Dostoyevsky, Kuprin, Plekhanov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Turgenev, Sheremetiev, Chadaev and many others.

turgenev1 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Ivan Turgenev

In order to appropriate the history of Kyiv lands and to immortalize this theft, the Great Russians had to squash the Ukrainian people, drive them into slavery, deprive them of their true name, exterminate them via famine, etc.

Ukrainians had emerged as a nation in the XI to XII centuries, and probably, even earlier. Later they were labeled ‘Little Russians’ when Russians began to brainwash the world with their ‘version’ of history. For the smallest deviation from this official version, people were tortured, killed, and sent off to the GULAG. The Soviet period was especially brutal and vicious. During that time, Ukraine lost over 25 million of her sons and daughters, who perished in wars for Russian interests, and during collectivization, tortures, and forced relocations.

This is the way the ‘older brother’ forced the ‘younger brother’, the ‘Little Russian’, to live in the savage ‘embraces of love’.

Creation of the Historical Myth of the Russian State

Back in the times of the princedom of Vasily III (1505 – 1533) Moscow gave birth to the idea of its greatness, articulated by the representative of Moscow orthodoxy, the monk Filofey: “Two Romes fell, a third still stands, and there will never be a fourth”.

1290520330 filofey How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Filofey of Moscow

From there, they created the idea of an all-powerful and ‘God chosen’ Moscow – the ‘third – and final Rome’. These ideas spread and were confirmed throughout Moskovia. And how much blood was spilt by the princes of Moscow, and later the tsars, over this fantasy-myth!

During the reign of Ivan IV (the Terrible) they grasped not only after the inheritance of Kyivan Rus, but now also the Byzantine Empire. Thus, according to accounts, the cap of Monomakh was believed to have been given the Kyivan prince Volodymyr Monomakh by his granddad, the basileus Constantine IX.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

“Cap of Volodymyr Monomakh”

This was considered the symbol of the transfer of power from Byzantium to Kyivan Rus. In addition, Yuri Dolgoruky, the sixth son of Volodymyr Monomakh, was the first prince of Suzdal, so the appearance of this cap in Moscow was a ‘proof’ of the legacy legitimacy of the Moscow rulers not only to the Kyiv Great Throne, but now also to the inheritance of the former Byzantine Empire. Furthermore, Moscow fabricated a deceptive last will of Volodymyr Monomakh about handing over ‘legacy rights’ to his son Yuri Dolgoruky, the conqueror of the so-called ‘Beyond the Forests Land’. This was all fiction. In reality, the cap of Monomakh was a gold ‘bukhar tubeteyka’, which Khan Uzbek presented to Ivan Kalyta (1319-1340) who maintained this cap in order to further his fame. (Логвин Ю. Кобила, Калита і тюбетейка «Мономаха» // Час. – Київ, 1997, 27 березня).

ivan kalita How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Ivan Kalyta

Ivan IV (the Terrible) in 1547 was anointed in the cathedral with the title of ‘Moscow Tsar’ as the ‘inheritor’ of the Greek and Roman emperors. Of the 39 signatures who affirmed this document sent from Constantinople, 35 were forgeries. Thus, Ivan the Terrible became the ‘inheritor of the Byzantine emperors’. Thus, the lie was made official.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Ivan IV, the Terrible

Peter I began the massive falsification of his people’s history. In 1701 he issued a decree to eliminate from all subjugated peoples all their recorded national historical artifacts: ancient chronicles, chronographs, old archives, church documents etc. This was especially directed at Ukraine-Rus.

In 1716, Peter I ‘changed the copy’ of the so-called Königsberg Chronicles to now show the ‘joining’ of the old chronicles of the Kyivan with the Moscow princedoms. The aim was to lay a foundation for the unity of Slavic and Finnish lands. However, both the false ‘copy’ as well as to the original were sealed.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Peter I, the Great

Peter’s falsification became the basis for further falsifications – the composition of the so-called ‘General Rus Chronicles Collections’ which purported to establish Moscow’s rights to the legacy of Kyivan Rus. On the basis of these falsifications, on October 22, 1721, Moscow proclaimed itself the Russian Empire, and all Moskovites were now to be – Russians. In this manner, they stole from the legitimate inheritors of Kyivan Rus the Ukrainians’ historical name of Rus.

Peter imported from Europe a large number of specialists, including professional historians, who were assigned the rewriting and falsification of the history of the Russian state.

In addition, every foreigner who entered government work, swore an oath not to reveal state secrets and to never betray the Moscow state. The question remains, what government secrets regarding the ‘formation of Russian history’ of ancient times could there be? In any civilized European country, after 30-50 years all archives are opened. The Russian Empire is very afraid about the truth in its past. Deathly afraid!

Following Peter I, who transformed Moscow into the Russian state, the Moscow elite began to consider the necessity of creating a comprehensive history of their own country. Empress Catherine II (1762-1796) intensively took on this task.

 How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus

Catherine II

She could not admit the idea that common Tatar-Mongol elements existed in the dynasty of the Tsars. Catherine was an intelligent and educated European woman and once she had examined the archival sources, she called attention to the fact that all the history of her country was based on oral traditions (‘bilyny’) and had no factual support.

Therefore on December 4, 1783, Catherine II issued a decree, creating a ‘Commision for the Collection and Organization of the Ancient Russian History’ under the leadership and oversight of Graf A. P. Shuvalov, with a staff of 10 renowned historians. The principal task before this commission was to ‘find’ new chronicles, rewrite others, and create new collections of archives and other similar falsifications. The aim was to lay the foundations for the ‘legitimacy’ of Moscow’s hijacking of the historical legacy of Kyivan Rus and to create an official historical myth about the origins of the Russian state. This commission labored for ten years. In 1792, ‘Catherine’s History’ saw the light of day. The commission worked in the following manner:

– the gathering of all written documents (archives, chronicles, etc). This effort had partly begun under Peter I. This collection of materials was conducted not only within the Empire, but also from other countries like Poland, Turkey etc.

– the analysis, falsification, rewritings or destruction of historical materials. Thus they rewrote the chronicles: ‘The Tale of Ihor’s Campaign’, ‘Tale of bygone years’, ‘Lavrentiivsky Chronicles’, and many others. Many chronicles were rewritten several times, and the originals either locked up or destroyed. Thus were also locked up: the ‘History of the Scythians’ by A. I. Lyzlov (published in 1776 and 1787), and the ‘Russian History from Ancient Times’ by V. M. Tatishchev (published in 1747). In his ‘Scythian History’ Lyzlov showed that the inhabitants of Moscow were a separate people, who had nothing in common with Kyivan Rus, Lithuania, Poland, etc.

– the writing of new ‘Rus Chronicles Collections’ which were now being composed in the XVIII cent., but purported to be from the XI to the XIV centuries. These collections all propagated the ‘General Rus’ idea. This was in reference to the times when Kyivan lands were inhabited by Slavic tribes (Poliany, Derevliany, Siveriany etc) who were Christians, while the ‘Beyond the Forests Land’ was populated by Finn tribes (Muroma, Mer, Ves, Moksha and others) who lived a semi-primitive existence, and these tribes had nothing historical in common up to the XVI century.

– the new composition of thousands of various collections to establish the ‘unity’ of Kyivan Rus with the Finn tribes. All these chronicles and collections, according to author Bilinsky, exist only in the form of copies, not one original. Not one! All this points to the almost unbelievable in scope and shameless, massive plundering and falsification of the creation of the history of the Russian state.

It is impossible to live a lie forever!

It is time for Ukrainian historians to write the actual true history of Ukraine, which would not be based on the lies of the ‘Catherine Chronicles’, the falsifications and newly written in the XVIII century ‘General Russian Chronicle Collections’, but rather based on historical reality, established in documents, especially those preserved in countries like Poland, Turkey, Greece, Iran and others. People deserve to know the truth.

By Yaroslav Dashkevych
Translated by Adrian Bryttan

Tags:

  • chornajuravka

    Reblogged this on Voices of Ukraine.

  • Pingback: How Moscow Hijacked the History of Kyivan Rus - Israel Foreign Affairs

  • Pingback: How Moscow Hijacked the History of Kyivan Rus - Israel Foreign Affairs

  • http://rovitothis201.wordpress.com rovitot

    Reblogged this on rovitothis201.

  • Freedom_for_all

    This is a great reading for those in the West who are willing to learn history and are also willing to know why many (almost all today, in fact) of the Ukrainian nationals now are willing to join the EU, destroying the “yoke” of the Russian Federation (so to speak), aka the Kremlin.

    If I may, I would also recommend those in the West, Asia, Africa and L-America, who are still willing to learn and read the history of the Russian Empire though belatedly, to read the horrible history of the so-called Serfdom of Russia here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia
    And they should judge whether it is a societal system of justice, civilization or what by themselves.

    Unfortunately, even after the fall of the Romanovs due to the Bolshevik Revolution about one century ago, the modern history of the post-Russian Empire countries was not different from the old Russian Serfdom.
    Unfortunately, even the so-called lofty Marxism-Leninism simply failed to abolish the medieval slavery in the former Russian Empire territories.

    Therefore, to those who are trying to rebuild the Russian Empire in Russia today, the autocratic rule by the Kremlin of the Russian Federation nowadays is the most traditional and favourable one, unfortunately.
    So, even in Ukraine until this year, there still existed the sociopathic people like Mr Yanukovich and his family who lived like the old Russian aristocrats and were basically doing nothing but stealing from their own population, abusing the state power all the time.

    The lofty Marxism-Leninism-Stalinsm of the Soviet times brought nothing but poverty, looting and famine to the population, especially to those in Ukraine, probably because of its misguided and primitive economic science.
    The modern history of the post-Russian Empire was not very different from the old Russian Serfdom which is still ruling the Russian Federation and some eastern regions of Ukraine today.

    Under the Russian Serfdom until the 19th century, the ordinary people had virtually no rights.
    So are the people of the Russian Federation today (and some eastern Ukrainian regions at the moment) and they are being left to the mercy of the lawless state power of the Kremlin (and the treacherous local armed gangs as we are already witnessing these days).

    Unfortunately, such a backward societal system of medieval slavery has been kept in place in the former Soviet Union countries until today and, then, the notoriously murderous people like Mr Putin and Mr Yanukovich appeared recently.
    And what did they do in Kyiv? — they allegedly massacred hundreds of innocent civilians (the appalling number will perhaps increase a lot in the near future once a more through investigation is launched in Ukraine) and are still trying to get away with the massacre even today, evading justice.

    The Euro Maidan movement in Ukraine today is the only legitimate successor of the ancient Christian civilization in the Principality of Kyiv or Kyivan Rus, I suspect.
    There are many people out there worldwide who are misled by weird state propaganda from the Kremlin and others, of course, but it is time for those misled people to try to learn the truth about Ukraine and the Euro Maidan movement now.

  • http://michal.pl Michal

    Great article! I am from Poland and I am sick of all that Pan-Slavism ideology that is being ‘sold’ in my country by pro-russian national movements. Russia is not any Slavic nation. Maybe partially, later – but their ‘soul’ is completely ASIAN! And asian in it’s worst version – version of Mongolian hordes. Just like for Mongolian hordes for Russia it is important to expand and conquer other lands. They never had anything to offer to the world – no science, technology, philosophy. All they do is to attack and dominate others. I hope they will finish exactly like old Mongolia did.

    Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania(baltic states) and later maybe Belarus should work together closely. As you can see Western world will not help us – they do not understand what Russia is. If we do not help ourselves nobody will. We have to stop this Mongolian horde from Moscow.

  • https://www.facebook.com/karel.machala.7 Karel Machala

    Interesting, never heard about it this way.
    Here is something related – predominant haplogroups in Europe – Ukraine being more Slavic predominant than Russia. The biggest Slavic share is in Poland (around 60 %), then Ukraine and Belarus. So definitely Ukraine is the older Slavic brother than Russia, especially than Russia further away from Ukraine. Russia near/around Ukraine is also predominantly Slavic R1a. (But for example Kuban in RU used to be Ukrainian speaking predominantly still some 200 years ago as far as I know.) I should add that R1a haplogroup being pre-Balto-Slavic, but also Indo-Iranian so just a rough measure to use R1a for Slavic share.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroups_europe.png

    • http://www.dablogfodder.blogspot.com The Blog Fodder

      Kuban peasants were also targeted during the Holodomor as they were predominantly Ukrainian, I understand.

      • Ihor

        You understanding of this is correct. The Kuban Cossacks lived there. They originate from the Zaporozhtsi in central Ukraine (Zaporizhjia) and migrated to Kuban.Russians invaded the Kuban Cossack ranks, as they were in the service of the russian empire and they were eventually russified and the Ukrainian element wasweeded out by rusian chauvinism. The military group ceased to be true cossacks and became an ordinary cavalry unit with a glimmer of cossack attributes. The Countryside remained Ukrainian and oppositional to communist rule and were disposed of by mass executions and of course the Holodomor

  • hec

    frankly whats all these nonsense about ‘glory to ukraine’. if your ancestors were slaves for most of their history, you should be ashamed of them & forget them. clearly Russian is the more prestigious, why not be cool & pretend you are Russian instead? if I were Ukrainian, I would be ashamed to even admit I am one

    • Artem

      @ hec

      That is fallacy! Cathrene II brought serfdom to Ukraine, people on those territories had been free kozaks before. By the way, guarding southern frontiers of the nascent Russain empire. Serfdom would not have happened in Ukraine if not for Russia.

      Another example for you. Minin and Pzharsky, the true legitimate nation leasders found nothing better after their victory than elect a new tsar, thus starting the Romanov dynasty. And do not say that they were historically not ready for democracy. They had an example of Great Novgorod Republic, just a couple of centuries before. Conversely some 80 years after Minin and Pozharsky, Ukrainian hetman Pylyp Orlyk wrote the first constitution of a republic in Europe (document was written in Ukrainian and Latin). Mind you, of a republic, not a federation.

      Yes, Ukraine was many times invaded falling under foreign rule, and Ukrainians had to reassirt their freedom time and again, also entering military unions with bigger and stronger countries around. But they never were WILLING slaves, like Russians who at times show dear love to their opressors and uphold their rule.

      Anyway, self-organisation and freedom is in our blood. We have things to be proud about. We do not care for being “cool” like the Russians.

      You are Russian? You are proud of it! So be it. But do not tell us, Ukrainians what to do and how to feel if you do not want your ass to be kicked.

    • Igor Z

      “Pretend” to be something you are not? Luckily I have no friends or family who think like that.

      The world hasen’t ended. Empires rise and fall. Ukraine is situated in a very strategic location. It is yet to be seen what the nation’s future holds.

      Haven’t you learned anything from this reading? It’s a shame to be Russian as long as they continue the farce. The world can do without your kind of backwards logic.

  • Fred

    Full of incorrect statements (e.g. Nevsky was at least 20 years old during the famous battles, so certainly not a child at that time).
    Apart from this, what is the purpose of looking at history this way? Every region can do this. What do we gain from this? Identity? I don’t think so. For example. What does it change for me, West-European, that our old nobility and kings were almost all descendants of William the conqueror, a brutal Viking descendant? Is their culture not mine? In a similar way part of the Russians are also descendants of the vikings (or Finns, as you call them). So what? we are one family.
    p.s. I fully support Ukraine, but this type of writings has no sense.

    • Adrian Bryttan

      if you carefully read even Russian historians, you will see that it was impossible for Nevsky to have been 20 years old, and that the ‘famous’ battles were completely mythologized by Catherine’s imperial historians… this is all documented with footnotes and page numbers in the cited Bilinsky book, referring to Klyuchevsky, Karamzin, Soloviev and many others…

      As to your other sweeping generalization, unlike Hilary Clinton’s infamous statement, all this does make a hell of a difference, because for centuries and especially now, Moscow brainwashes world history and media that somehow, Kyiv was the “Mother of Russia” and therefore all Moscow’s past and present imperial aggressions are justified….

      if we are one family like u say, tell Russians to stop making war on all their peaceful neighbors… if you “fully support Ukraine”, that is…

  • http://sonyanheaney.wordpress.com Sonya Heaney
  • Pingback: How Moscow Hijacked the History of Kyivan Rus | Roman in Ukraine

  • J.O.

    The article was interesting and some if it (the early pre-history), I’d read in well researched papers and books on the Kievan-Rus state. Unfortunately, for this document, there are no references to support most of the statements, so few historians would give much validity to this article, true or not. Perhaps the writer could re-look at it and insert references, so this can be distributed widely. Otherwise, it just looks like an opinion.

    • Skurvyn

      It would even be better if claims made by Russian historians could be substantiated, as anthropologically, what Russia claims, esp. older brother, etc., etc., could not have occurred.

    • Adrian Bryttan

      the references, with footnotes and page numbers, referring to works of Russian historians Klyuchevsky, Karamzin and many others are all cited in the Bilinsky book upon which the article is based

  • Skurvyn

    Please clarify the role of Ukrainians called ”перелетні птахи” in developing Russia’s intellectual and spiritual life.

  • LorCanada

    This is so very interesting to read! I will need to re-read it and absorb more thoroughly as there’s so much information. I would have liked to learn more about the origins of the Ukrainian language and their religious beliefs from earliest times. Maybe I’ll need to check and search the info online.

  • toggaUA

    The articles says: “On the basis of these falsifications, on October 22, 1721, Moscow proclaimed itself the Russian Empire, and all Moskovites were now to be – Russians. In this manner, they stole from the legitimate inheritors of Kyivan Rus the Ukrainians’ historical name of Rus.”

    So, what’s the problem? Ukrainians should start calling themselves Kievanrussians and then the Russian legacy will be restored, right? Why keep using the word “Ukraine”, which was a Polish word for the geographic location between Kiev and Poland (western Ukraine) in the 16th&17th and 18th century. By calling Ukrainians – Ukrainians, the Ukrainians deprived themselves of the legacy of Kievan RUS. Belorussians today are considered much closer to Russians than Ukrainians, its only because they never started calling themselves Venetes (Baltic word for Russian) but kept the Russians roots in their name.

    One thing is true about this article, history is full of lies. Ukraine and Ukrainians should restore their original roots and become one with the Russian people (Russians, Belorussians, Rusyns and Ukrainians)!

    • http://ukrainianpolicy.com/ UkrainianPolicy

      But who were the Rus’? Scandinavian conquerors. By associating with the land and its people’s, “Ukrainian” is a name applicable to the indigenous people of the land, not Rus’, and not Russians.

      Ukrainians referred to themselves as Ruthenians (Rusyny) while Russians referred to them as Little Russians (Malorossy). Ukrainians was an ethnonym that stood alone. While you are right in that it (Ukraine) was a term for Poland’s borderland, inhabitants adopted the identity of Ukrainian to distinguish their nationality from the Polish, and later to distinguish themselves from Russians.

      • sandy miller

        I am Ukrainian. My daughter had her genetics tested because she was an older mother. In her DNA They found Scandanavian and jewish Persian blood associated with certain diseases in those peoples. So Ukrainians are probably a mixture of Scandanavian and other nationalities from the mediterian. I know my ancestors go back in Ukraine for Centuries. They lived in southern and eastern Ukraine. I think all blood is pretty mixed today.

        • http://ukrainianpolicy.com/ UkrainianPolicy

          The Scythians were Iranic (‘persian’) so that may explain that.

      • Veronica Katsap

        Rusyn is the Hellenized (Greek) way to say citizen of Rus.
        Ruthenian is the Latinized (Roman) way to say citizen of Rus.
        Russian is the Muscovite (Mongol) way to say wannabe citizen of Rus.

    • sandy miller

      It’s obvious based on geography that Ukrainians were first in southern and eastern Ukraine. I think if there are enough original documents from other countries as the author of this article contends than he or she should write and document that history asap. Before Russia takes over Ukraine or the truth will never be known.

    • Alex Martiniouk

      The oldest mention of the term “Ukraine” (Ukraina) actually dates back to 1187 in the Hypatian Codex, stating that, after the death of Volodymyr Glebovych, the Prince of Pereyaslavl (located in central Ukraine near the Dnipro River), “Ukraine groaned for him.” It does not originate from the Polish language, the term’s first usages predate Polish rule over Ukraine significantly.

      Also, in present-day Polish, “kraj” means country, while words like edge, borderland, border, outskirts all have translations that differ significantly from any component of the term “Ukraine/Ukraina.”

    • notleftnotright

      The word Ukraine or borderland was first used in Ukrainian literary history in the 10th century to refer to a divide from the Vikings…stop your Russian lies….Russians are only the slime DNA that ran like dogs from Kyiv when the Tatars invaded…and it shows in Russian behaviour today…

  • Artur Safiulin

    Bull crap, very one-sided. So much disregard to non-Slavic peoples, whats up with that? Are you trying to imply that Ukrainians are in some way better than Finno-ugric and Turkic people? Untermensch?

    • SuperMENSA.org

      I dont think that was implied at all. Russians typically claim ‘purity’ in being the ‘true’ line of Rus’ and East Slavs – this just highlights that their claims are false, not that Ukrainians are in any way better.

      • Artur Safiulin

        So, who holds the purity now, the ukrainians?! Either way it’s ugly !

        • Dmitry Zhuk

          Actually, most pure slavs are Poles, Czechs and Slovaks.

          • Mat

            How do you figure? Bohemia/Czech/Slovakia part of Austro-German lands, Poland part of Lithuanian with a lot of other hands in the pot. By what metric are they more ‘purely Slavic’?

          • Artur Safiulin

            Exactly, because what they speak is very close to the old Slavonic language. Time to form the pure Slavic nation, without genetic litter as you call Russians and others.

        • Alex Martiniouk

          The article does not argue that Ukrainians are somehow “more pure,” but rather debunks the common Russian myth of purity or direct descendence from the Kyivan Rus. It seems you read this article, and the afore-posted comment, quite narrow-mindedly.

          • Artur Safiulin

            Sure, this is because I am a
            Kremlin zombie. Not that open minded and educated as you, hohol.

        • Mat

          Technically Ukrainians are more “purely” connected to Kyivan Rus’, since they are the indigenous population for much of it.

  • Igor Fazlyev

    I don’t understand this urge to keep rewriting history over and over again.
    It’s a completely futile exercise.
    Why not just try and act normally in the here and now because the here and now is the only thing we’ve got.
    History only matters to the extent that we allow it to.
    Does it really matter which year Moscow was founded in for the events transpiring now in eastern Ukraine?

    • Zoryana St

      Unfortunately, it does matter, since terrorists and separatists acting now in Eastern Ukraine justify their violence with the fact that Ukraine belongs to Russia, based on “history”.

  • eric42

    Turks could write an article: “How Greece stolen the legacy of Byzantine Empire” just because Istanbul (Constantinople) was the capital of Byzantine Empire and it would make as much sense.
    There is 500 years gap between alleged “Ukrainian state” of Rus and Cossack Hetmanate and almost no cultural and statehood continuity whatsoever, so how on earth Ukraine is supposed to be a succesor to Kievan Rus?
    To be honest, there is no real succesor state, but if I had to choose one I’d say it is Russia, because it was the country that united all the lands of former Rus.

  • Wasyl

    Історія Ураїни ніколи не давала спокою заздрісній Москві. Крали усі здобутки і навіть релігію привласнили підлими інтригами.

  • Mika Peltokorpi

    Actually that is quite a close with Finnish Lexicon from 30’s and 40’s; here’s some references from the book:

    According to this book Russia did not even extend to Black Sea before 1736. Catharine the Great went to wars against Turkey 1768-74 and 1787-92 and concured Crimean Khanate (Кримське ханство, 1478 – 1774) in first of those.

    Before The Romanovs even City of Moscow was under Poland rule and Polish were keenly offering their own prince as new tzar of Russians. Russians asked Sweden’s help and Finn-Swede troops sent to help Vasili Suiski penetrated all the way to Moscow. Brother of the King of Sweden, Gustav II Adolf, should of become new tzar of Russia, but national uprising in Russia prevented that. From that uprising “new Russia” was born and Romanovs took the crown in 1613. Russia did not even have another sea port than Argangeli in that very moment.

    However this book claims, that Ukraine is the cradle of Russia. (Somehow) the gravity of power trasferred to Moscow “to big brother Russians” in the Kievan Rus’. Later Poland concured the west of Ukraine and the east surrended to Moscow. Poland started to opress othodox christian kazaks in the areas it concured. This is almost the only remark about Russia (or Ukraine) before 16th century. So dispute about pre-Crimean Khanate situation in this area (e.g. about Kievan Rus’) stays open in this lexicon.

    Reference used in this book for Russia/Ukraine: Platonov: History of Russia (1933), so it was basically already written by the Soviets. It also does not make much difference on Muscovites and Russians (might be due Finnish language of referential ignorance of that factual difference).

  • Petro Rockefeller

    russian people are wild barbarians, who can only kill, steal and lie.

  • Guest

    Эээ… Друзья мои, я дико извиняюсь, но прочитайте про это хотя бы у Ключевского. Главка “Малороссийское племя”. Я, конечно, понимаю, что он был москаль и верить ему нельзя… Но все-таки дорогие вашему сердцу европейцы как-то склонны верить Ключевскому больше, чем некоему пану Дашкевичу. http://www.kulichki.com/inkwell/text/special/history/kluch/kluch16.htm

  • Guest

    Історія Ураїни ніколи не давала спокою заздрісній Москві…

  • garyoptica

    Putin is a politically dead animal at home and abroad and has no other option but to attempt reincarnating himself and the USSR car crash using Russians inferior weaponry to relight fascism the same way Hitler did in grace of the great fail of Kaisers empire….”Expect disaster soon.”

  • garyoptica

    As Russian leaders go of recent years that have killed and oppressed their own people. Putin is second only too Stalin and it is clear Vlad desires to raise his tally beyond the quarter of a million deaths mark before his dirty carcass expires probably fucking his ugly gymnast in bed as he ties himself politically into a great knot..

  • Fran

    Fascinating revision of Ukraine history.

  • Elena A Kozyreva

    This is a fascinating story that was interesting to read until I got to the part that most Rurikovich princes in Russia were replaced with Genghis princes, followed by a statement that, hence, this is where Russian nobility takes its roots.
    There is an American DNA testing company called Family Tree DNA that has massive data about genomes of many many people on this planet including Russian nobility and their our day descendants. So, the DNA testing, without a trace of a doubt, shows that majority of Russian noblemen trace their ancestry on the paternal side (this is called Y-DNA testing) to, guess who? To Rurik… Where history is concerned, genetics and DNA analysis is as reliable and correct source of information as you can get.
    So, if this part is misrepresented in the article, what else here is misrepresented in order to support the claim?
    By the way, for big claims like those in the article to be taken seriously, a credible author would provide a solid list of reference literature.

    So, all in all, all of the above may very well be true, however, after those two points, the information written here somewhat lost its credibility to me…

  • Elena A Kozyreva

    Sorry, duplicate post :)

  • Alexander Plassov

    why wouldn’t you link the original Ukrainian or Russian text? Please do it if you want to be trustworthy

    • http://www.info-news.eu/ Info-News

      The sources are everywhere, like in the Primary Chronicles. Just read it,

    • http://euromaidanpress.com Mat

      Are you saying this text was forged or made up? Not every essay is online, you know, maybe go check the book it was published in.

  • http://www.info-news.eu/ Info-News

    I’ve also written on this topic some time ago. http://info-news.eu/debunking-stereotypes-about-the-history-of-ukraine/

  • valuadder

    A lot of apologists hastily constructing a semblance of history to justify their existence.

    Find any mention of Ukraine in credible sources prior to the 19th century. A figment of imagination.

    • http://www.info-news.eu/ Info-News

      No problem, you open the Primary Chronicles, as early as 1180s there’s the word Ukraine mentioning the Ukrainian lands, the ancient maps also clearly put Ukraine on the place where modern-day Ukraine is.

      • valuadder

        Modern day Ukraine is the former Ukraine SSR, a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. There was no Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus in 1180, give us all a break.

        Look at the map in the Chronicle. See any ‘Ukrainians’ or ‘Russians’ over there? A figment of your imagination. Just a bunch of principalities warring with each other.

        Then comes Batu with the friendly Mongols. End of Kievan Rus.

        • pomahdmy .

          What do you know about the history of Slavs red neck? You will be better off investing some time in studying history of USA, which still is the colony of the crown.

    • Alex

      Easy to do with many sources, I have in my collection maps from the 17th and 18th century by Guillaume Levasseur de Beauplan and Johann Baptist Homann that depict Ukraine and its borders–it was also called Ucraina–Terra Cossacorum or Ukraine Land of the Cossacks.

      • valuadder

        No such independent country as Ukraine until 1991, sorry to burst your bubble. Just territories controlled by the Zaporozhie Sich cossacks, Poles, Lithuanians and Ottoman Turks.

        That is, until Catherine the Great showed up over there.

        • Alex

          You are missing the point of the article which explains that Ukrainians and Russians are two different people with distinct and separate histories. That’s what I was clarifying–that even in the 16th and 17th centuries mapmakers viewed Ukraine as a country and people independent from Muscovy Your statement that there was no independent country as Ukraine until 1991 is not the focus of this paper–the United States of America started as 13 colonies and that arguably was the early version of America, just as Kyivan Rus was the early beginning of Ukraine… And NOT of Muscovy (Russia).

        • pomahdmy .

          this is Putin’s petrodollar troll pretending to be educated Westerner. Admin, please block this nonsense

  • Danny Gallo

    Ukraine will eventually find its own authentic identity as it fights to inspire the free world, Go Ukraine.

  • http://euromaidanpress.com Mat

    Ukraine existed as an independent country in 1917, and the Ukrainian SSR was a founding nation of the United Nations, separate from the Soviet Union. “There is no disputing this simple fact.”

    As far as Kyivan Rus’ goes, it was a Ukrainian state and you’re just arguing semantics. Ukrainians referred to themselves as Ruthenians, and Ruthenia was historically the land of Kyivan Rus’, so you’re just splitting hairs.

    Those maps you reference regard internationally recognized states, no one has made the claim that Ukraine as a nation-state exists in the 16th century, so not sure where you’re even going on that tangent.

    I think you need to go re-read some history yourself and get your facts straight.

  • http://euromaidanpress.com Mat

    Medieval texts reference Ruthenians, however, and that is synonymous with Ukrainians.

    • Harald Forkbeard

      Modern day Rusyns do not agree with you. In fact, Transcarthapian Rusyns are clamoring for independence from Ukraine.

      Your lumping Transcarpathian Rusyns with Ukrainians is just as gross as calling Ukrainians little Russians (malorossy), as was done during the Russian Empire days.

      Rusyn languages such as Lemko, are very different from Ukrainian.

      The current concept of Ukraine as a single nation has serious flaws in it. West Ukrainians (Galicians) are NOT the same people as Donbas Easterners. Nor are they the same as the Transcarpathians.

      Major ethnic and cultural differences separating these people by centuries: Western Ukraine part of Austro-Hungary, Eastern Ukraine part of Russia.

      Read some history when not typing.

      • http://euromaidanpress.com Mat

        No, that’s simply not true, just because there are a dozen “separatists” with Sydor & co. doesn’t mean they represent all Rusyns.

        Lemko’s dont consider themselves Rusyn, but for all intents and purposes they are a branch of Ukrainians.

        Transcarpathians are very much Ukrainians, only what, 10,000 “Rusyns” exist there? They declared Carpatho-Ukraine as a state for a reason. Don’t take a fringe group with no statistical relevance and pretend they represent the millions of residents there who see themselves as Ukrainian. Fully Ukrainian.

  • http://euromaidanpress.com Mat

    a) Yes, but so what? It existed. Fully. As much of a state as France is a state that’s part of the EU.

    b) Kyivan Rus’ was entirely Ukrainian and the basis for Ukraine. Who lived there, aliens? No, Ukrainians, the same Ukrainians who populate Ukraine today.

    c) Novgorod Republic was way up north and had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine and was mostly populated by Finns, Chuvash, etc.

    d) Nobody said anything about supremacy, but if you interpret real history as making you feel like lesser of a person, that’s your own problem you need to sort out.

    e) Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Carpatho-Ukraine, etc all existed after 1917. Then came Soviet Ukraine. Period? You’re making yourself look stupid now.

    • Alex S.

      “Novgorod republic was populated by Chuvash”. Hahaha!
      Do you know where Chuvash live and where the Novgorod republic was located? Look at the map first. Novgorod republic was populated by Ilmen Slavs. Novgorod was the second largest and the second most important city of Rus. The first prince of the Rurikid dynasty – Rurik – ruled from Novgorod. And all princes of Rus were of Rurikid dynasty.
      Also, do you know that Northern Europeans which were trading with Novgorod in 13th-15th centuries thought that Novgorod was the main city of Rus? Such was their belief.