-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 14625)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 514 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Ukraine & Belarus (Belorussia) and their mythical nationalisms Historian 15/06/06(Sat)06:11 No. 14625

File 143356391557.jpg - (153.98KB , 733x480 , BRFPB.jpg )

Both Belarussian and Ukrainian nationalism are so misguided. They side with the Western, Latin occupiers (Poland, Lithuanian, Austria-Hungary) and ignore the fact that Belarussians and Ukrainians are part of Rus. They have more in common with the so called "Great Russians" of the Russian Federation than with Westerners.

Why is this? Why do they love their myths so much?

Nationalists lie, and one would be remiss to think that Russian nationalists are immune. But through a purely historical analysis, one can see the holes in the nationalist movements of Ukraine and Belarus. The departure from Rus which is present in both is not only a betrayal of ancestors but a change of identity. Ukrainian and Belarussian nationalism are far more Polish, far more Lithuanian, far more Austrian, than they are Ukrainian and Belarussian.

Ukrainians and Bealrussians are in fact Russians who lived under Western European rule. That is the only difference between them and Muscovy. Why embrace the foreign chains? Why deny one's identity in favor of a foreign force? Why seek to create weak, poor states continually begging for alms from the West? Why not re-unite with the Russian Federation to restore Rus?

1 post omitted. Last 50 shown.
Historian 15/06/07(Sun)06:20 No. 14627


>Out of the top of my head, it's probably because those in power and those who make the propaganda benefit greater under the sphere of the west, instead of the east, so they forge their national identity as seperate from "Great Russians".

That is plausible, and I've often thought the same thing. It would explain a lot, but it's circumstantial at best. It appears that there is a separate ring of oligarchs for Belarus and Ukraine.

>Besides, these people got screwed over the last time they joined the Russians (especially Ukraine with the Holodomor business).

While most of your post seems fair and agreeable, this part could use some correction. The point is, from a purely objective, historical perspective, Ukraine is as Russian as Moscow. It was once the center of Rus. Ukraine didn't "join the Russians", they always were Russian. But because of the overlordship of the Poles and others, they experienced some anthropological mutations as well as a heavy does of mythology. It was in the best interest of the Poles et al to divide those in "the Ukraine" from Moscow, in order to mitigate popular uprisings. They did this through "Polonization" of he upper classes and clergy, and by encouraging their subjects to view themselves as apart from their Eastern brethren. But in fact, Ukrainians (as well as Belorussians) shared blood, culture, and spirituality with the Muscovites. They shared none of these - save distant blood lines - with the Poles.

Furthermore, the Holodomor was not exclusive to the Ukraine, and it was not genocidal in nature (contrary to the Banderist false narrative). It was the result of Socialist economics.

Historian 15/06/08(Mon)19:37 No. 14631


But as I see it, the Holodomor was felt most intensely in Ukraine, or perhaps, it is most deeply etched into their national identity/history, etc.

Comparing it to the potato famine in Ireland; certainly people didn't deliberately create a famine to finish off the population of a country to subjugate them; but they certainly didn't do anything to stop it either.
And indeed, the USSR rejected foreign aid to the region.
This, and the attitude within the USSR (banned subject until the Perestroika & Glasnost era) is bound to draw animosity towards the subject, no matter what the truth is.

On the subject of Polonization, this is a natural phenomenon that happens to nations. Let me give an example:
The Dutch used to be a Germanic populace which settled in the Netherlands. Over centuries, they got mixed with the Franks. While northern France (and bits of Belgium) became French, they became Dutch (you could argue, remained more-or-less Germanic). Then, they were ruled under the Habsburgs - a German dynasty- but they didn't really become Germans again. Etc, etc.
Nowadays, when you look at the Netherlands, indeed they are Germanic, and they have quite a lot in common with Germans. But they are not Germans. Not anymore. And not since for a long time. Their national identity started to form at least as early as 16th century.

Similar to the Ukrainians - they are different, because their culture has changed somewhat.
But more importantly - they are different, because they want to be.

Historian 15/06/10(Wed)03:30 No. 14634

>Similar to the Ukrainians - they are different, because their culture has changed somewhat.
But more importantly - they are different, because they want to be.

One thing I've noticed about Ukrainians, is that they are in the perpetual act of rationalizing their "nation" into existence. They can't just reference history like Great Russians do. The Ukrainians have to keep telling themselves "We have to be different. We can't appear to have any similarities with Russians. We need to embrace the forces that tore Rus apart."

Historian 15/06/10(Wed)06:03 No. 14635

On Holodomor:

The Holodomor was significant in Ukraine because of the proportion of the population lost in that region. The famine, however, was by no means restricted to Ukraine, nor was it a genocide of "Russians versus Ukrainians." The Ukraine was impacted so terribly mainly because of its highly agrarian economy.

Did the Soviet government care about the victims? No, I don't think so. In fact it was politically advantageous to subdue people (especially those resisting collectivization) and make them dependent on the government.

On Polonization:

There is a world of difference between the Dutch and the Ukrainians. (I use the word "Ukrainian" to signify those people indigenous to the region, not as a national name.) Polonization was a forced process by a foreign people. After the Mongol invasion, Rus was divided into at least 3 domains, 2 of which were controlled by Poland and Lithuania respectively. Poland and Lithuania were not homogeneous as a result, any historian of any nationality will attest to that. There was a separate identity of the Rus within the political boundaries of Poland and Lithuania. Later, a commonwealth between Poland and Lithuania was formed. Despite this powerful union, there remained the constant threat to the Poles, Lithuanians, and lower level Russian nobles who were the local government, of a reunion with the free Rus in the state of Muscovy. The Rus who lived in occupation experienced different cultural developments and were pressured to join the Roman Catholic Church. They also were exposed to Western European culture. After the overlords organized the Union of Brest, there were popular uprisings in some places. Eventually, the Russian Empire annexed the territory and reunited Rus in one nation-state. After this, it became apparent that there were local differences because of the isolation of Belarus and the Ukraine. But for the most part, these parts of Rus came together. There were the rumblings of nationalist movements in Ukraine within the Russian Empire which were also supported in the part of Ukraine controlled by the Austrian Hungarian Empire. The Austrian Hungarians were brutal toward Russophilic Ukrainians on their territory and suppressed them while promoting a newly invented nationalism so as to divide Lvov from St. Petersburg. Then, during the revolution, the Ukrainian nationalists decided to start their own short-lived state, thinking that the Soviets would enslave only the "Great Russians." But they were soon absorbed. During the entirety of Soviet history, Ukrainian nationalism incubated. There was no Russophilia to counter it, as Communism was the state ideology, not Russian nationalism (or Rus nationalism, if you like). After Holodomor and collectivization there was much resistance and Ukrainian nationalism was seen as a struggle against the Soviet state. It was a vehicle for rebellion, that ended up finding fruit with the invading Nazi forces. For another short period, Ukrainians were separated from Moscow and thought that they would have their own state free from the Soviets. But of course, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets would allow that. After the war and the hardships that occurred in the "bloodlands" of the Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalism became a vehicle of resistance again. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian nationalists went back to preferring Westerners to their brethren and permitting the West to shape and alter them.

The history of Ukraine in a history of a region of Rus continually torn away by the West. First, as a Roman Catholic, Latin hegemony, then as a Liberal, Post-Christian, decadent civilization. Ukrainians were do better to be true to themselves. They can love Baroque architecture and speak the literary language pieced together from Surzhik languages and called Ukrainian, that's fine. But they are part of a wider civilization, and they have a proud heritage that surpasses the West in its resistance to degeneracy and fidelity to the Christian Faith. It is part of a wider civilization that is not Western European, and it has a part to contribute to that civilization. Rus is not just the property of Muscovites. This diatribe of mine is mostly about the choice of the Ukrainians to abandon their heritage and embrace the foreigners who seek to possess the bread basket of Europe.

Historian 15/06/11(Thu)07:38 No. 14638

>The Ukraine was impacted so terribly mainly because of its highly agrarian economy.
Not entirely true. It was impacted terribly because instead of keeping the food inside the Ukraine it was exported to Russia, so Russia wouldn't suffer the effects of the crop failure as deeply as Ukraine did. This is why it's called the Holodomor. Widespread famine would be one thing, but Russia used force of arms to keep the Ukrainian starvation at extreme levels.

The most logical reason for doing this is because, for the time prior to the Holodomor, Ukrainians had been pushing for independence from Russia. Now, all these years later, Ukrainians started pushing for independence from Russia again and look what happened. Invasion.

The question we should be asking is why can't Russia handle having equals on their borders? Why must they keep using the barrel of the gun to keep them puppets? It's never been acceptable when the US has done it, why is it acceptable when Russia does it? Russia has invaded both Ukraine and Georgia in the past 10 years alone.

Historian 15/06/11(Thu)10:27 No. 14641

The primary reason Russia doesn't like the idea of the Ukraine splitting away now is because they wouldn't be able to keep offloading all their criminal activity into the border region.

Instead of being able to shrug their shoulders because the activity isn't taking place within their country (even though most of gains are sent to Russia), the activity would all be taking place within their borders. The last vestiges of plausible deniability would disappear.

>CIA coup detat
Yeah, Russians do love their shadow puppets, don't they? The CIA hasn't been capable of toppling anything stronger than a wet paper bag for decades.

It's telling that nobody fears the CIA except Russian nationalists and other political groups (including, since you brought them up, Iranian nationalists) who need a paper tiger to scare them into working against their own self interest.

I guess I shouldn't say nobody though. Conspiracy theorists fear them. But they also fear sunlight and water sprinklers.

Historian 15/06/12(Fri)04:17 No. 14643

>The question we should be asking is why can't Russia handle having equals on their borders?

The point made in previous posts is that this shouldn't be an "us vs them" situation with the Russian Federation and Ukraine, respectively. The Russian Federation and Ukraine are part of a single nation which the West has tried to divide for centuries. Previously it was the Latin civilization emanating from Rome. Now it is a decadent, Post-Modern West.

The reason why Ukraine exists today as a state is because of Western overlordship. Now, spreading Roman Catholicism (Poland, Teutons, and Lithuania) and subjugating Slavs (Austria-Hungary) are no longer the objectives of the West. Today, the objective is to prevent Russian civilization from being a world power. The EU and US want to be overlords of the Ukraine, just like their cultural ancestors.

>Why must they keep using the barrel of the gun to keep them puppets? It's never been acceptable when the US has done it, why is it acceptable when Russia does it?

Really, it was acceptable in Kosovo. And Libya. And Iraq. It was acceptable when Western governments took sides in elections in Ukraine and Georgia.

Historian 15/06/12(Fri)05:57 No. 14644

>but Russia used force of arms to keep the Ukrainian starvation at extreme levels.

>Ukrainians had been pushing for independence from Russia

>Now, all these years later, Ukrainians started pushing for independence from Russia again and look what happened. Invasion.

You're perpetuating the false narrative, sir. Not sure whether it's on purpose or not.

You use the words "Soviet" and "Russian" interchangeably.

Historian 15/06/13(Sat)16:40 No. 14647

Well, surely you wouldn't suggest that the Soviet Union was an equal union of Soviets, would you? It was the proper name for Russia's sphere of influence and puppet states.

Historian 15/06/16(Tue)07:34 No. 14648

It doesn't matter whether it was equal or not. The Soviet Union was predicated upon a Western, Materialism ideology (Marxism) that was imported in the 19th century. The Soviet Union was not the continuation of the Russian Empire, it was a rebellion from Russianness.

Soviet atrocities and failed policies are not the fault of "Russia." They were the fault of Communists, an ideological group, not an ethnic or national group. The biggest killer of all Soviet history, and the progenitor of the Holodomor was a Georgian named Iosif Jughashvili. Protip: he goes by another name.

There were Communists in every republic, and the Ukrainian SSR was no exception. While most Soviets were Great Russians, and the capital was in Moscow, it was not exclusively a Great Russian-ran show.

Historian 15/06/17(Wed)05:03 No. 14650

Communism is absolutely a Materialist ideology.

If you don't understand what that means (emphasis on capitalized "M" in Materialist) go look it up.

Historian 15/06/18(Thu)07:23 No. 14652

It's because they know what they're in for with Russia, and they'd rather take a chance being an eastern european burg of little import than be part of Russia as it is under Putin.

So any shred of myth they can grab on to & claim as their own will do.

Basically, get rid of Putin, toss out the oligarchs, the old world romance, clean up russia, modernize it, lift Russias scattered people out of poverty and ruin, and show you can sustain that for a while, (like, at least a generation) and maybe Russia will start to appeal again. But man Russia has a long way to go. It's as resented as USA. Funny how the Cold War made both countries what they were, then made them what they are now, a crumbling shell of their former glory.

Historian 15/06/18(Thu)07:24 No. 14653

Capitalism isn't?

Historian 15/06/18(Thu)07:31 No. 14654

The natural progression of your idea leads to the things I have stated before.

Historian 15/06/20(Sat)05:39 No. 14657

>It's because they know what they're in for with Russia, and they'd rather take a chance being an eastern european burg of little import than be part of Russia as it is under Putin.

Much of that anti-Putinism is generated in the West, where a whole variety of political ideologues hate that man. But this really isn't about Putin. Yes you heard me right.

Putin and the United Russia Party did not create these movements (Ukrainian and Belorussian nationalisms). Today these movements dwell on Putin and his party, yes, but they are actually directed at a different target, and Vlad is in between them and the target. These nationalist movements are ultimately destroying Rus, a move that the West has had wet dreams about for centuries. These movements threaten the stability of the region and the unity of a civilization. Unity means strength, and the West cannot tolerate a strong Russia.

Putin is a Russian nationalist and so are his party compatriots. So are Dugin, Zhirinovsky and others. All who are patriotic about Rus and about Russianess as opposed to Western cultural and political dynamics are targeted by Ukrainian and Belorussian nationalists because they reject the key tenet of Ukrainian and Belorussian nationalisms: That the Russians (Rus if you prefer) who were controlled by Poland, Lithuanian and Austria were helped by their Latin overlords and have become separate nations because they have received something better, and that they should continue to generate divergence from Great Russians versus fostering unity.

Of course Russian nationalists (and this Belorussian who's writing this) oppose this view. This view seeks to mitigate cultural links between the 3 states by means of blocking ears and shouting "la la la." More is to gained from unity than dismantling Russky Mir and selling out to the West.

>Basically, get rid of Putin, toss out the oligarchs, the old world romance, clean up russia, modernize it, lift Russias scattered people out of poverty and ruin, and show you can sustain that for a while, (like, at least a generation) and maybe Russia will start to appeal again. But man Russia has a long way to go.

This right here is the real point of divergence. This segment of your post shows the clear difference between Rus and the West.

First of all, good luck tossing out oligarchs, they exist in every country.

Second, the "old world romance" is inherently good. We want it. We don't want your immorality, your godlessness, your decadence. The West has lost its way, mostly because it adheres to a tradition of continual, unrelenting change. We want our traditional culture and reject the new values which have gained popularity in the West. On a religious basis, both in the past and even now there is great controversy. In the past it was over theology, now it is over the public influence and the very existence of Christianity itself.

Russians don't want to be like the West, and Belorussian and Ukrainian nationalists are making a grave mistake in forsaking their heritage and embracing a West that is clearly rotting. By not identifying as Russian, by trying to negate the existence of Rus, by welcoming Western "innovations" these people are destroying something precious and superior to what the Latin overlords offer.

Historian 15/07/03(Fri)10:38 No. 14664

>Putin is a Russian nationalist and so are his party compatriots.
Putin is about putting money in Putin's pocket, and so are his compatriots. (though to call that bunch of oligarchs a "party" is a bit of a stretch)

If you're not being paid by Putin to write this tripe here, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Historian 15/07/05(Sun)17:48 No. 14672

On one hand, it is easy to understand why neighboring countries such as Belarus, Georgia, and the Ukraine (not to mention the Baltic States and Finland) are not terribly fond of Russian culture. All these countries were an integral part of one of the most brutally oppressive regimes in human history (the Soviet Union) and a pretty oppressive Czarist Russia before that. The Russians (like the Germans and the French) have never enjoyed a reputation as an enlightened, benign occupying force.

But look at the current situation from the Russian perspective for a second. Your most powerful, influential enemy has expanded right to your former western borders, with former allies joining a western alliance (NATO) that was formed for the sole purpose of destroying you. Poland as a NATO member has to be a terrifying prospect to Ivan. Couple this with the fact that the Russian people are the most paranoid bunch of folks in the world...with good reason, remember...and the attitude of the Russian nationalists is perfectly logical. So, the Russians use force to get what they want...this is hardly new behavior on their part, is it? It's not new behavior on the part of the United States and our western allies, either.

As for Putin, I am frankly surprised by his restraint. Were I President of the Russian Federation, I'd take a long, hard look at the current leadership of the NATO nations, especially the President of the United States, and my tanks would be rolling for Kiev before you could say 'borscht'; it is obvious that nobody could or would stop them.

Guess I just don't have that devious, subtle old KGB mind-set; I tend to think more in terms of 'WWGZD'...what would Georgy Zhukov do?


I don't really believe that Vladimir is that interested in money; he already has to have more wealth than he could ever spend. No, Putin is far more in love with wielding the kind of direct, despotic power that no western leader can ever do more than daydream about. Forget comparing him to Stalin or Hitler, as so many folks do...think more along the line of Queen Elizabeth (Off-With-Their-Heads) Tudor or Ivan the Terrible. That's where Vladimir Vladimirovich truly lives.

Historian 15/07/08(Wed)06:07 No. 14674


What I find scary is the thought of a Sino-Russian alliance, especially if they succeed in wooing the mainstream Muslin nations into joining them. That could easily leave the UN in general and NATO in particular in dire straits. It doesn't seem too likely a possibility to me, but it is a frightening prospect.

Historian 15/07/11(Sat)19:22 No. 14678


For decades now, the People's Republic of China has been investing HEAVILY in sub-Saharan Africa. What happens to the world when one day the African nations wake up and find that the Chinese hold the pink-slips to their countries...and all their vital natural resources? I fear that China is determined on Empire, on world Hegemony, and they are doing it very cleverly, very subtly, and thus far without anyone paying any real attention. I doubt if Putin minds; the Soviet Union got a bellyful of Africa in places like Angola and came out of it with nothing to show for it but flag-draped boxes; I doubt if Russia has any slightest ambitions there (which history may judge to have been fatally short-sighted someday). Also, from Vlad's POV, as long as the Chinese are investing so heavily in Africa he doesn't have to worry too much about WWIII kicking off because China wants to gobble up the Russian natural resources in Siberia. Thus, cooperation between the world's two largest nations makes sense, at least in the short-to-middle term.

Historian 15/08/17(Mon)05:02 No. 14726


Bear with me, this is going to be a long post, but it will be worth reading to anyone remotely interested in the region.

>On one hand, it is easy to understand why neighboring countries such as Belarus, Georgia, and the Ukraine (not to mention the Baltic States and Finland) are not terribly fond of Russian culture. All these countries were an integral part of one of the most brutally oppressive regimes in human history (the Soviet Union) and a pretty oppressive Czarist Russia before that. The Russians (like the Germans and the French) have never enjoyed a reputation as an enlightened, benign occupying force.

Look, I'm pretty sure that you're not trolling, I think you're authentic. But your post really shows a level of ignorance on the subject that is all too typical of the West. You confuse places like Georgia and Belarus, Latvia and Ukraine. Each of these states has it's own issues, identity and history.

Belarus and Ukraine are as Russian as the Russian Federation. It is a myth of modernity that they are not. The difference is that western control of the former two regions during the medieval through Enlightenment periods caused cultural and linguistic shifts. The west would like to imagine that Ukraine and Belarus are separate nations from Russia. And guess what? That fable has been peddled in Ukraine and Belarus by the west to this day.

It was always the traitors to Rus (and Orthodox Christianity) that worked to advance those nationalist ideologies. They picked a region and directly declared it a nation, a scenario similar to California saying "We're Californian, not American." It was mainly the Uniates and those who thought that the traits they had adopted from Poland were superior. They shit on their own heritage and betrayed the governance of the Free-Russian state: The Tsardom. They kissed the chains that the Latins had put on them and spit on their brethren in the east instead of embracing them.

Ukrainian nationalism (and Belarussian nationalism is behind it a few steps) is probably the most deleterious movement in all of the history of Rus. In the past, for example in the Kievan period, there was discord and rivalries between cities. But now you have a chunk of people standing up and inventing a new nation. They are perpetually rationalizing themselves into existence, perpetually inventing their "nationhood." One who studies history will understand that Ukrainian nationalism is driven by two main influences:

1. The west encouraging disunity and trying to dismantle and pacify Russia.
2. A reactionary movement trying to foster a more localized central government, whose capital and sovereign/president/premier is nearby versus a capital farther away within a larger empire. Furthermore, it's also a reactionary movement against Bolshevism; it was a shelter from Marxist oppression during the Soviet Period (which I understand and even sympathize with).

This subject has bothered me for years, and I've relentless sought out some objective understanding, free of biases. The key conclusion that I've come to, is that Ukrainian nationalism is fundamentally dishonest. It betrays not only history itself, but it betrays the common culture of the people.

Ukraine (and Belarus to a lesser extent) is at a crossroads today. Some would say (particularly westerners with their Liberalism) that the view of Russky Mir is "living in the past." They would say that Russian nationalists, those who seek a united Rus are "living in the past." But this is patently false, and is a nauseatingly dishonest strawman attack. The fact of the matter is that problems imposed by Ukrainian nationalism are real and present. There is a choice, a choice between a guiding heritage with real continuity that embraces the worth of European Christendom, a heritage that grants a people the attributes that make a nation great; and then there's the Western View. The Western View is the choice to separate the past from the present in such a way that continuity and the relationship of cause and effect is psychotically denied. It is to criticize, demoralize and deconstruct the value system of a people, and replace it with something new. The Western View is the degenerate view. In it, tradition is dismissed and anything that deviates, anything that rebels, is praised by virtue of its own rebelliousness.

The west is dying. Because institutions like the family unit have been deconstructed, birth rates are dropping and children lack the nurturing environment of that "evil age of misogyny and domestic oppression" known as the 1950s. The shear Nihilism of the west, the materialism, the hedonism has made it decadent. The obsession with tearing down the old order and installing a renovated system of new hierarchies has led to a system in which true authority is negated and replaced with the constant, mindless pursuit of instant gratification.

That's what Rus faces. A choice. The Ukrainians are not choosing wisely. In the end, the Ukrainians are the real losers, not Moscow. I don't want to see them fall for it, I don't want to see Ukraine harmed. It belongs as part of the same civilization as the Muscovites, and it is best for it to be within the same state. That view might not be locally accepted in say Volhynia or Lvov, but that is only because of the pernicious and dishonest mythology of Ukrainian nationalists.

Historian 15/08/20(Thu)11:07 No. 14728

>it will be worth reading to anyone remotely interested in the region
Translation: It will be worth reading to anyone remotely interested in how Russia is spindoctoring their history and current events to the xenophobic ultranationalists who currently inhabit Russia (since everyone else long since packed their bags and left).

Still not an explanation for why a group of people can't act in their own interest and must, instead, be forced at the barrel of the gun to jump through the hoops for another group of people. You don't think it's in their best self interest to make their own decisions? Oh how fucking noble of you to force your decision on them.

Brings to mind a similarly noble decision made by Russia before WW2, when Russia made a pact with Germany to divide Europe between them. Too fucking bad that decision blew up in its face and they've spent decades trying to spin doctor the fuck out of that one. Russia didn't have to lay formal plans to annex territory that wasn't theirs in order to sign a nonaggression pact, yet Russia still did it.

Ukrainians only need to remember their history to see just how much Russia believes Ukrainians are Russians. Export all the food out of the Ukraine to Russia so Russians don't starve and Ukrainians do. By the millions. Until Ukranians are starving to death in the streets of major cities, their corpses littering the sidewalks like so much human trash. Ukraine's food harvest failed, yes (in no small part due to Russia fucking up the farms with collectivization - similar to Zimbabwe not all that long ago, taking farms out of the hands of Ukrainians who know how to run them and handed them over to incompetent Russians who don't), but the harvest that was collected was exported to Russia, not kept in Ukraine to feed Ukrainians. How interesting that Russia starved Ukraine to death right after it started trying to act in it's own self interest too. Interesting parallels to the current crisis. Yet again history repeats itself. It must tie Putin up in knots that he can't starve countless millions of Ukrainians to death because they dare think for themselves and act in their own self interest.

The West doesn't need to divide Russia and Ukraine. Russia does it all by their fucking self every time they try to murder (or succeed at murdering) Ukrainians when they start acting in their own self interest. Your boogeyman is your own toxic behavior coming around to bite you in the ass, century after century.

It's not part of Russia. Give it up. They left because Russia's full of xenophobic asssholes who would rather murder Ukrainians than admit that Russia isn't absolutely perfect in every way.

Historian 15/08/21(Fri)02:52 No. 14730

Russia and Ukraine are like an abusive boyfriend and his mentally fucked up girlfriend.

The boyfriend blames the girlfriend every time he beats her up, saying it's her fault he keeps hitting her. Yet his girlfriend just keeps going back to him, even though it's obvious to everyone else that he will eventually end up killing her.

Can we get Ukraine to the womens shelter in time?

Historian 15/09/11(Fri)07:58 No. 14747

>Still not an explanation for why a group of people can't act in their own interest and must, instead, be forced at the barrel of the gun to jump through the hoops for another group of people.

Oh, you mean like how the West has been trying to steal Ukraine and force it to deny its own heritage for centuries? You mean the Polish/Lithuanian occupation?

>Oh how fucking noble of you to force your decision on them.
When there's a lie being told and your friend believes it, are you just going to sit idly by and not try to talk to him? How noble of you.

>the rest
Your conflation of "Russia" with the "Soviet Union" shows your ignorance and imprecision. The opposing view doesn't even have to issue an official rebuttal. You've defeated the core of your own argument by simply opening your mouth. You sound like a 9th grade public school student in the U.S. who read half of one book on the History of Ukraine.

Historian 15/09/11(Fri)08:21 No. 14748

No it's rather like this:

Russia and Ukraine are two brothers. (We won't mention their other brother Belarus.) Ukraine, the older brother is beaten and taken captive by Poland, the local bully. The same happens to Russia, but Mongolia is the bully that beats him. Ukraine is brainwashed by Poland. All day every day Poland controls Ukraine's decisions and forces Ukraine to accept his cultural norms. He tells Ukraine, "I'm protecting you. You need to stay in my basement because there's a war out there. Without me, you will die. I am your protection, I am your source of wealth." Occasionally, Russia manages to slip secret notes into the locked basement where Ukraine is being held.

The younger but bigger and tougher brother, Russia (Great Russia/Muscovy), eventually gangs up on Poland with the help of Prussia and Austria. They pull Ukraine out of Poland's basement and bring him home. Ukraine has Stockholm syndrome and misses being controlled by Poland. Ukraine develops a split personality.

Some days Ukraine hugs Russia and remembers the old times. Other days he spits in Russia's face. Ultimately Ukraine begins to think that Russia is not his brother. Voices in Ukraine's head convince him of this. Russia and Ukraine are then attacked and thrown in a gulag by the new bully: the Soviet Union. They are put in different cells.

Ukraine is starved and Russia is beaten. Ukraine convinces itself that Russia is holding it hostage. Eventually the Soviet Union dies of congenital heart failure. After Ukraine and Russia are released from the gulag, Ukraine looks at Russia with his sunken, emaciated face. He then looks at the Western countries which are beckoning to him. Ukraine walks away and sits in between the Western countries and Russia. He looks at Poland and Lithuania and thinks, "These are my buddies." As illogical as that sounds, that is what Ukraine does.

Then Ukraine decides to get even with Russia. It begins to act hostile and prefers the Westerners who are holding Slut Pride and Gay Pride parades. It sees a new club called the EU Club and wants in. Ukraine burns his journals and writes new journals pretending that he was an only child. He forces himself to forget his past, and asks Poland to tell him bedtime stories as he falls asleep in his padded cell.

That's far more accurate.

Historian 15/09/11(Fri)08:34 No. 14749

>That's far more accurate
Only if you're choking on Putin's cock.

Historian 15/09/12(Sat)17:29 No. 14750


Here's a different perspective: If what Ukrainian nationalism espouses is true, that Ukraine has become a separate nation/civilization/culture, then this status would also apply to Belarus and the western tip of the Russian Federation -- Smolensk and the region around it. The thing is, if you talk to Belarussians-even the nationalists-they consider themselves part of Rus, and look to the Russian Federation in a completely different way from the Ukrainians. They see themselves as a type of Russian.

So what's the difference between Ukraine and these other places? How is Ukraine somehow different if in fact--and it's an historical fact--that Ukraine contains Kiev, the "mother of all Russian cities?"

Historian 15/09/14(Mon)07:55 No. 14751

What kind of fucked up family do you have where one brother cuts off pieces of other family members and tries to attach them to himself?

Historian 15/09/21(Mon)05:08 No. 14752

You pretty much have people in Ukraine doing mental back-flips and re-writing history textbooks in order to rationalize this modern identity that they've invented. They can't accept history or even their own culture, these nationalists have to keep pushing for their little Uniate realm.

Ukraine is a case of regional Stockholm Syndrome like related in that story a few posts prior. It's pretty sad when your people birth a civilization (Rus') and then deny it, claiming that only Muscovites are Russian.

Ukraine is a part of Russia, similar to how Texas is a part of the USA, or Bavaria is a part of Germany.

Historian 15/09/22(Tue)02:22 No. 14753

Too bad Ukraine is labeled Ukraine and not Russia. And that Ukrainians think of themselves as Ukrainians and not Russians.

Sounds to me like all those Russians whose great grandparents invaded Ukrainian territory and now self-identify as Russian should move back to Russia, leaving Ukraine for the Ukrainians.

Russia's having a population crisis, since most of the non-Russians and even Russians have left in droves over the past couple decades, so an influx of "Russian" people should get them back on track. Get that sub-Brazil economic output up to Brazil-level output.

Historian 15/09/30(Wed)03:59 No. 14765

You're missing the point. The very invention of Ukraine nationhood, the existence of the Ukrainian state, the delineation of Ukraine and the Russian Federation is a mistake that the Ukrainians are paying for now. This whole Donbas War and Crimean secession was very predictable, everyone in the region knew it was coming. A Rusyn secession is likely in the next decade. Hostilities could even boil over in Kharkov, Odessa, Kiev and other cities within the next couple of years.

It isn't a case of "Russians going to Russia and Ukrainians staying in Ukraine." That's a completely twisted concept tantamount to "Brittons leaving Whales to the Welch." It's a false narrative. It's a false premise. Ultimately, your talking points as well as those of Ukrainian nationalists present a false dichotomy.

>Sounds to me like all those Russians whose great grandparents invaded Ukrainian territory and now self-identify as Russian should move back to Russia, leaving Ukraine for the Ukrainians.

I am an American of Russian descent. My family lived in ethnic enclaves for 3 generations. Their neighbors were Russian and they were active in the local Russian Orthodox Church as well as the local Russian cultural center. The Russian immigrants stuck together. These people typically immigrated from 1905-1925.

The thing that most Americans don't understand about the Russian immigrants in America, is that the vast majority of them were not from what is today the Russian Federation. The vast majority of them were from what is today Ukraine and Belarus. My family and the other Russians they were around were almost exclusively from what is now the western tip of Ukraine and the western half of Belarus. They were not "Great Russians." Very few Great Russians were present in their community. You need to study the history of Russian immigrants in America, that would help. These people (who were from what are now the most active regions of anti-Russian propaganda, the most chauvinistic nationalistic regions of Ukraine and Belarus) identified as Russian when they immigrated to America. They were not "Ukrainian" or "Belarussian" in nationality. They identified as "Russian", pure and simple.

So in other words, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not just another westerner trying to discern the conflicts in Ukraine from a western standpoint by glancing at a globe from 1992.

So what happened? Back then the people in these particular regions identified as "Russian" but now they call themselves "Ukrainian" and "Belarussian." This is a clear and objective sign that some sort of transformation took place. Some change in talking points, some shifting of narratives took place between 1930 and 2000. These are facts, plain and simple. You can't deny them and remain honest.

The fact of the matter is that these local nationalisms took root as a response to Soviet governance. They gained traction because of the Holodomor and the demonization of the Tsars by the Soviet education system. Furthermore, the Soviets were focused on establishing International Socialism. No longer would nations erect individual governmental systems, but instead nations would be brought together in socialist union. They would have a common governance, and that was what the Soviet Union sought to achieve. So what happened was: the Soviet delineated Ukraine as a brotherly "nation" within the Soviet Union. They divided the territory and claimed that an international socialist government had been successfully established. They latched onto the Uniate myths of centuries past, the first inklings of Ukrainian nationalism and amplified them. The ideas of Ukrainian nationhood began in intellectual circles of anti-Tsarists in the 18th and 19th centuries. These ideas were not widespread until the Soviet times. The contrived and short statehood of a Ukrainian state immediately after the Boshevik Revolution was an attempt by such elements to capitalize on that catastrophe for Russian civilization. They took advantage of the political disintegration and formed a state with the shelf-life of a cabbage. Then the Holodomor happened and Ukrainian nationalists latched onto that communist catastrophe like Zionists latch onto the Holocaust.

You need to get your facts straight before you go supporting these lying faggots from Lvov.

Historian 15/09/30(Wed)22:51 No. 14768


>>>That's a completely twisted concept tantamount to "Brittons leaving Whales to the Welch."

Who did you quote that said the British are surrendering humpbacks to a Grape juice company?

"So in other words, I know what I'm talking about."

Shit NEGRO that's all you had to say. Case closed you Slavic motherfuckers YOU ARE ALL RUSSIAN, now stop trying to have an independent democracy and start felching Putin's ass in forgiveness.

Historian 15/10/01(Thu)05:06 No. 14769


Historian 15/10/01(Thu)12:02 No. 14771

>the delineation of Ukraine and the Russian Federation is a mistake that the Ukrainians are paying for now
It's always the bitch's fault when I hit her. She never should have delineated our relationship into her and me, it's always us, and if she ever puts herself before me ever again, I'll put her back in the hospital.

Victim blaming 101: Wannabe russian style.

Historian 15/10/13(Tue)04:36 No. 14779

That whole "girlfriend getting beaten and then blamed" narrative does not apply to Ukraine. It's apples and oranges.

Sometimes people choose to live in shit. They prefer to have struggle and controversy. The whole point that's being made in this thread is that Ukrainian nationalism is an activist movement, it's like a big, raucous protest. It's a lot like the hippie movement, where people begin to identify themselves in relation to a protest.

That's what people in the west miss about this whole Ukraine deal. Compare Ukrainian cultural centers with other cultural centers. The Ukrainians are always in the process of issuing an argument, an excuse for why they are allegedly not part of Russia.

The problem is, that when you actually study history, you begin to see that their claims are suicidal and fratricidal.

Historian 15/10/14(Wed)04:09 No. 14783

"Kievan Rus"

"Kiev", "Rus"

"A city in present day Ukraine which was the capital of Rus at one time", "The name of the Russian Federation, the state of Rus"

"A region held captive by the west for centuries", "The region of Muscovy, the free Russian state"

Regor 15/10/14(Wed)19:00 No. 14785

I understand OP's points and sympathize with his cause.

But the only way I can see Ukrainians embracing their heritage and joining forces with Russia voluntarily is if Russia becomes a serious contender to German (EU) and US power and influence.

By rejecting "modernity" and "globalism" (as defined by the current power blocs), while succeeding economically, Russia will increasingly become an alternative model for those nations that perceive something ominous going on in the West and are reluctant to fully embrace it. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are examples of countries with friendly relations with Russia despite having neighbours hostile to it.

But Russia still has a long, long way to go before they can hope to consistently compete with the formidable power of the US and Germany. So far Russians have been counting on superior diplomacy, decisive use of force and their rivals' own stupidity. Those things can only take you so far though.

Not just for Ukrainians but for the West's own sake I hope Russia succeeds.

Historian 15/10/14(Wed)22:34 No. 14786

Yes, if only Ukrainians would go back to that abusive boyfriend, who beats them up and kicks them down the stairs whenever they feel like, who steals their money whenever they feel like, then, and only then, will Ukrainians truly embrace their history and heritage.

Sorry kids, but Ukrainians can determine their own fate. They don't need someone in another country telling them what to do. The sooner Russia wakes up and realizes that Ukraine is for Ukrainians and not Russians, the sooner Russia will stop being viewed as the antichrist.

Historian 15/10/15(Thu)08:09 No. 14788

I find it ironic that the people claiming that everyone outside the small area of eastern Ukraine is corrupt aren't simultaneously calling for Putin's head on a stick for bombing all those apartment buildings in 1999.

Why is Ukrainian "corruption" - "corruption" that calls for Ukraine to be led by Ukrainians and not by Russians - not okay while Putin's corruption - which directly lead to thousands of pointless deaths - perfectly acceptable? Why is it that opening any kind of independent investigation into those apartment bombings ended up being grounds for imprisonment?

Why is it that Russian corruption is perfectly A-OK, while Ukrainian corruption - tainted at every turn by the shoddiest trumped up evidence seen in the modern world - grounds for invasion and widespread murder?

Hypocrisy on this level is not a moral high ground you can use to write paragraphs and paragraphs of specious and contradictory statements. For christ's sake you write about the CIA with baited breath, almost as if you're Putin himself, who gets scared of his own shadow the moment those three letters get mentioned.

Historian 15/10/24(Sat)06:07 No. 14793

That's a completely false narrative. The whole point is that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people. They are both "Rus." The west has worked hard and is still working hard to convince the Ukrainians that they are a separate nation and share nothing with Russia proper.

We're talking about a region of Russia that was taken over and ruled by the Poles & Austrians for centuries, a place where the Russian vassals were instructed not to unite with their cousins in Moscow and overthrow he foreign rule. We're talking about a "nation" invented by liberal and Catholic malcontents, a "nation" invented by people who sought disunity and fragmentation.

How has the Ukrainian national experiment worked out so far, honestly? It's a disaster!!! Ukrainians suffer, and their land and asses are western property again! That was the whole point of that farcical nationalism.

Historian 15/10/26(Mon)06:12 No. 14796

Its a false narrative that both groups are Russian. If they were both Russian then Russians wouldn't treat Ukrainians different than Russians. That's a fact that has not only been historically accurate countless times, but is currently relevant. Since Russians don't treat them as Russian, therefore they aren't Russian.

Either treat them as Russian and let them do what they want, or treat them different and admit they're not Russian. You cannot have it both ways.

Similarly, if you want to complain about corruption, either deal with your own massively corrupt officials (try starting with the $40 billion Putin embezzled), or shut the hell up about some supposed corruption that doesn't nearly rise to the level of corruption present in your government.

Historian 15/10/31(Sat)11:44 No. 14797

>Ukrainians and Bealrussians are in fact Russians who lived under Western European rule. That is the only difference between them and Muscovy.
What's then the difference between Ukrainians and Belarussians? Why do Ukrainian nationalists not pretend to include Belarus in their nation (or vice versa)?
And if Kievan Rus needs to be reunited so badly, why shall it be around Moscow and not old capital? Could it be because it were northeastern principalities who broke off from Kyiv's rule first?

Historian 15/12/02(Wed)04:17 No. 14811

More like the superior rus broke off from the inferior rus, the inferior rus then collapsed, a bunch of criminals acquired its assets, sold them off to furriners (thereby bankrupting future generations), then started attacking superior rus to try and distract the few non-drunk inferior rus citizens from seeing what they've done.

Its like when the US invaded Iraq, to distract the biscuits and gravy eating citizens from realizing what Cheney was doing. That worked so well they still haven't figured it out.

Historian 16/03/31(Thu)03:50 No. 14846

File 145938902973.jpg - (49.12KB , 911x683 , DN2012-polsko1.jpg )



Historian 16/04/04(Mon)00:18 No. 14848

Ukrainians were under Poland and Belarusians were under Lithuania. That is the only reason why two separate dialects and identities developed.
They should unify, and it should happen around Moscow, because Russia is the legitimate successor to the Kievan Rus' and not Ukraine. Russians kept their identity and national name. Also, if we're going for the original capital, it's Novgorod, which is in Russia as well.

Historian 16/04/21(Thu)09:57 No. 14849


Historian 16/05/13(Fri)22:38 No. 14855

File 146317192819.jpg - (85.67KB , 457x640 , ucranianos.jpg )

Historian 16/05/13(Fri)22:40 No. 14856

File 146317200837.jpg - (28.84KB , 453x604 , ukr_master_race.jpg )

Historian 16/07/26(Tue)06:54 No. 14895

File 146950886477.png - (651.12KB , 1244x1144 , 33.png )

ur saying baltic through balkans isnt latin anglo? lewwwl

Historian 18/06/18(Mon)16:01 No. 15086

OP is dimwit faggot

Historian 23/06/03(Sat)08:37 No. 15657

File 168577426836.jpg - (479.63KB , 2048x1536 , 20230603.jpg )

Himars stands with Ukraine


Delete post []
Report post