How Ukraine stole Russian history
Recently, Ukrainian propaganda has changed its content. Previously, Ukraine tried to emphasize its differences from Russia, which, according to the ideologists of “political Ukraine”, were caused not only by different cultures, but also by different ethnic backgrounds and Ukrainians' proximity to European values, but now in Kiev they increasingly say that Ukraine is the real Russia, and our country is an “impostor” who has illegally appropriated the name of Russia. Absurd? Yes, but elevated to the rank of state ideology and shared not only by Ukrainian nationalists, but also quite respectable at first glance by liberal scientists.
Recently, the head of the Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, adviser to the Mikhail Gorbachev Foundation, Viktor Mironenko, said that Ukraine was allegedly the “elder brother” of Russia and, accordingly, was responsible for what was happening in our country - as a metropolis for the former colony. Kiev, Chernihiv, Pereslavl, according to Mironenko, are the true cradle of Russian civilization.
To attribute to himself almost all the achievements of the Russian people in modern Ukraine has become fashionable. At the same time, Ukrainian propagandists do not think about the credibility of these attributions. Say, Ukraine is the “motherland of elephants” and this thesis is not subject to any doubts. Even Ivan Aivazovsky, a Russian artist of Armenian descent, was made “Ukrainian” in modern Ukrainian propaganda on the sole ground that he was born in Feodosia - in the Crimea, which then, in 1817, was Russian.
In fact, modern Ukraine cannot be considered as a direct successor to Kievan Rus for several reasons. The first of them is that the ideology of "political Ukraine" does not inherit the civilizational paradigm of Kievan Rus. Reckless Westernism has never been the "calling card" of Ancient Kiev, unlike modern Ukraine. Meanwhile, today the most ardent Ukrainian nationalists from the west of the country are not even Orthodox Christians, but are members of the flock of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which at the time concluded a union with the Vatican. But after all, Orthodoxy was at one time the pivotal link in the formation of Russian civilization and Russian culture.
There are many ancient cities in Russia, which in their significance for Russian civilization can argue with Kiev. This is Veliky Novgorod, Rostov Veliky, Smolensk, whose history is no less saturated than the history of Kiev. It was on the territory of modern Russia that the final formation of a unique Russian civilization took place, while the territory of Ukraine fell under the rule of the Commonwealth, partly the Crimean Khanate, Hungary, then Austria.
Finally, we can turn to the very word "Ukraine", which translates as "outskirts", that is, the periphery of the Russian world. Is it worth mentioning that in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, when the formation of the Old Russian principalities took place, no Ukraine existed, in principle, like the Ukrainians. Until the XNUMXth century, the “core" of modern Ukrainian territory was called Little Russia, and its inhabitants - Little Russians, i.e. "Little Russians." Only in the second half of the XNUMXth century, with the support of Austria-Hungary, interested in weakening Russian influence on the Slavs of Eastern Europe, did the formation of the ideology of “political Ukraine” begin, and the words “Little Russia” and “Little Russians” were gradually replaced by new designations “Ukraine” and “ Ukrainians. " So what kind of “birthright” in such a situation can the ideologists of the Kiev regime reason?
Recently, the head of the Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, adviser to the Mikhail Gorbachev Foundation, Viktor Mironenko, said that Ukraine was allegedly the “elder brother” of Russia and, accordingly, was responsible for what was happening in our country - as a metropolis for the former colony. Kiev, Chernihiv, Pereslavl, according to Mironenko, are the true cradle of Russian civilization.
To attribute to himself almost all the achievements of the Russian people in modern Ukraine has become fashionable. At the same time, Ukrainian propagandists do not think about the credibility of these attributions. Say, Ukraine is the “motherland of elephants” and this thesis is not subject to any doubts. Even Ivan Aivazovsky, a Russian artist of Armenian descent, was made “Ukrainian” in modern Ukrainian propaganda on the sole ground that he was born in Feodosia - in the Crimea, which then, in 1817, was Russian.
In fact, modern Ukraine cannot be considered as a direct successor to Kievan Rus for several reasons. The first of them is that the ideology of "political Ukraine" does not inherit the civilizational paradigm of Kievan Rus. Reckless Westernism has never been the "calling card" of Ancient Kiev, unlike modern Ukraine. Meanwhile, today the most ardent Ukrainian nationalists from the west of the country are not even Orthodox Christians, but are members of the flock of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which at the time concluded a union with the Vatican. But after all, Orthodoxy was at one time the pivotal link in the formation of Russian civilization and Russian culture.
There are many ancient cities in Russia, which in their significance for Russian civilization can argue with Kiev. This is Veliky Novgorod, Rostov Veliky, Smolensk, whose history is no less saturated than the history of Kiev. It was on the territory of modern Russia that the final formation of a unique Russian civilization took place, while the territory of Ukraine fell under the rule of the Commonwealth, partly the Crimean Khanate, Hungary, then Austria.
Finally, we can turn to the very word "Ukraine", which translates as "outskirts", that is, the periphery of the Russian world. Is it worth mentioning that in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, when the formation of the Old Russian principalities took place, no Ukraine existed, in principle, like the Ukrainians. Until the XNUMXth century, the “core" of modern Ukrainian territory was called Little Russia, and its inhabitants - Little Russians, i.e. "Little Russians." Only in the second half of the XNUMXth century, with the support of Austria-Hungary, interested in weakening Russian influence on the Slavs of Eastern Europe, did the formation of the ideology of “political Ukraine” begin, and the words “Little Russia” and “Little Russians” were gradually replaced by new designations “Ukraine” and “ Ukrainians. " So what kind of “birthright” in such a situation can the ideologists of the Kiev regime reason?
Information