What is happening in the Donbass. A sober look at the world Wild field a sober look

The local militia almost completely fled. Mercenaries also run like cockroaches. Russian military personnel and Cossacks, who are one third of them specialists of the GRU, are at war with ours. Their task is not so much to fight as to destroy infrastructure. They enter combat clashes only with a serious quantitative advantage over our battalions, if there is no serious advantage, then they retreat. This does not mean that ours are there as at a resort. They are fighting really cool and beautiful.

Chances are that the main phase of the war will end in a few weeks, if Putin does not throw out some trick. But a guerrilla war can take a long time. Maybe 2-3 years. In order to stop the partisan movement in Donbass, it will be necessary to evict all the locals from there who will support this evil. The current Ukrainian elite is not capable of such measures, so in order to end the war in Donbass, it will have to be changed too.

Kurevo

One of the most important factors that led to the actual defeat of Luganda is the lack of smoking in the cities occupied by rebels and Russian militants. Of course, they don't like Ukraine there, but so that for the sake of a war with Ukraine, they are not ready for such feats. So if your plans include raising an uprising in some industrial zone, remember, in addition to weapons, you need a lot of smoke. Girkin did not seem to take this fact into account, for which he will be hanged.

Get up at 4 am and wait for the punishers

The main entertainment in the villages is to get up at 4 in the morning, sit on the heap and wait for the punishers. The people are very much shocked. They are very surprised when the punishers bring sausages instead of the gallows. The army of Luganda, God forbid, had it gotten to Kiev and Lvov, it would have put the gallows. And here is a break in the pattern of punishers with sausages. However, do not think that this somehow reduces the degree of hatred towards Ukraine. The old wisdom, about which it is useless to feed a wolf, works here and will work flawlessly.

A question worse than Hamlet's

- Why do they come to us?

This refers to the Ukrainian troops. Almost everyone is asking this question in one variation or another.
- We don't want Ukraine!
- Don't free us!
- Leave us alone! We don't want to go to Ukraine!

Aki small children, they do not understand why the Ukrainian army does not allow the activities of terrorist organizations in Donbass. They do not understand because the minds of children are in their heads. And not just children, but mentally retarded children. It’s cruel, but you cannot erase the words from the song. The main problem of Donbass is the absence of an elementary everyday mind.

It is necessary that someone from the leadership of Ukraine explained to these people that the Ukrainian army is going to liberate not them, but the Ukrainians and Ukrainian lands. They should also be explained that it is impossible to build Novorossiya on the territory of Ukraine and run around with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a Colorado ribbon on their ass. This behavior is dangerous to property and life. There is a beautiful city of Moscow, go there and build.

People's mood

I warn you right away that nobody measured the numbers, so they are purely conditional, in my subjective opinion. Moreover, Donbass is still different.

About 30 percent are ethnic Russians who don't give a damn about anything. They are ready to destroy the entire Donbass as long as Ukraine is not there. It is very simple to calculate ethnic Russians - they are the most aggressive, zombified and hatred against Ukraine is simply wild there.

Let me give you one example. I personally know one malacholny who terribly hates Ukraine. The hatred is such that she is frantically waiting for the militants' counterattack on Lutugino. And this is despite the fact that her daughter and sister live in Lutugino. Imagine yourself all the idiocy of this aunt, who even gave a damn about her own daughter and sister. And there are a lot of them. If someone tells you that the people there received their sight - do not believe it. Nothing of the kind is close.

They are only driven by hatred of Ukraine. Therefore, it is useless to appeal to logic. Ideally, they should be resettled from there to Russia, because they themselves do not live and will not give life to other people.

There is also another contingent, which can be conditionally called deceived fools. These have already realized that they were simply deceived and they no longer want to go to Luganda.

In general, I will give advice to those who care about who says or thinks something there, or calculates interest for Ukraine or against. My advice to you is to leave them alone. The winner of the war is Ukraine, and the winner sets the rules. As we say, it will be so. Whoever doesn't like it - go out with things.

How to understand these people

It's very simple - these are typical migrant workers. The main thing is sausage, and Homeland is in tenth place. In 1991, they betrayed Russia because there was more sausage in Ukraine. In 2014, they also betrayed Ukraine, because there is more pension in Russia. They will betray again and again. Such citizens are not needed by anyone, not even Putin. And Ukraine will be a complete fool if it warms these vipers on its chest again.

Many Ukrainians are perplexed why not do it simply: If you don’t love the country, just take it and leave it. Russia is big, there is a lot of space, there is also enough work.

But everything is not so simple here. For 20 years, the anti-Ukrainian bastard has hammered into their heads the thesis that there is no Ukraine and Donbass is a purely Russian land, and they are the masters there, and the Ukrainians are nobody there at all.

And I must say that Ukraine has been silent for all these 20 years and has never refuted these statements. The authorities most often turned a blind eye to such rhetoric. What was regarded there as consent. And now here's an unexpected turn. For 20 years, evil spirits ruled the ball there, and Ukraine turned a blind eye to it, and now the troops entered.

The local lumpen, who for the most part is not much different from the movie hero Sharikov, sincerely believes that Donbass is Russia, not Ukraine. And it is almost impossible to convince them, and it is not necessary.

The reason for hatred towards Ukraine

Ethnic Russians are sowing hatred towards Ukraine in Donbas. Although what kind of Russians are they? Katsap'e bast shoes. Actually, they hate everyone, everywhere. Having joined the Caucasus by force - they hate Caucasians and shout the slogan Russia - only for Russians. The mind really does not understand them. Such a people - nothing but hatred in it. It so happened that they live in our house and we are Ukrainians, they hate the legitimate owners of this house.

It is wrong to try to negotiate with them or try to somehow appease them. They will never change. They will continue to sow hatred towards Ukraine, wait for Putin, vote for anti-Ukrainian parties and do all possible nasty things for our country.

There is only one solution to this problem - to evict this brat from Ukraine. This is not difficult to do. At their core, they are all migrant workers. If there is no work, they will leave. There is work in Russia - that's where they will go.

Ukraine should deprive this entire public of citizenship, and stateless persons should not be given the right to work. Without a job, they will leave for their own Russia and everyone will be fine. And us and them.

Of course, there will be a lot of screaming and snot about human rights violations. But after what Russia has arranged in Donbass, I am sure that the entire civilized world will be happy if it is possible to separate the two warring parties in different apartments.

I am sure that this idea will be supported by the majority of Ukrainians. The only thing left to do was to get the authorities to fulfill this plan.

In my first article, I would first of all like to write about the look at the world... Studying psychology, a person begins to look differently at the world around him. Everything that previously seemed to him to be wrong or incomprehensible takes on completely different outlines. Many pre-existing stereotypes seem ridiculous and unfounded. And this is normal, since a person begins to acquire a sobriety of thinking. I will try to understand the language for most people, and as briefly as possible explain the picture of the world in which we live.

First of all, I want to draw your attention to the upbringing of a person from his very birth. What is typical for most parents who have small children? This is upbringing by means of prohibitions, it is not allowed, it is not allowed, and so on. The child develops restrictive thinking, which then haunts him throughout his life.

Further, these restrictions are imposed by all subsequent social institutions - kindergarten, school, institute and others, up to the place of work and your own family. Accordingly, such a person will subsequently drum into the same thing for his children, and those for his own, and so on ad infinitum. All this will continue until someone chops off this endless chain of moralizing which makes no sense.

I tell you that there are no restrictions and prohibitions in this life. They are only for those who accept them and no more. The word "no" is a relative statement that says that one is not allowed, but the other is allowed. Impossible, wrong, I can’t - these are all also limiters inserted into our heads by society so that we would be subordinate to this society. Throw these limitations out of your head, and you will see a completely different picture of the world, one in which everything is possible.

In the new picture of the world, you will see yourself as an omnipotent person who can do everything, who never makes mistakes, and for whom nothing is impossible. You cannot do wrong, you can do it with or without benefit for you, and nothing more. All those who tell you that you are doing wrong, thereby indicate that you are doing wrong regarding their understanding of the correctness, and therefore their benefits, but not yours. And all mistakes are nothing more than lessons to be learned.

There is such a thing as "goof", this is a person who pursues and indulges other people's interests, and not his own. We were taught to care for our neighbors, morality, morality of behavior, those qualities that make us weak. We have always cultivated the concept that good triumphs over evil. However, this is not so, and the world in which we have to live today is the world of disguised evil. But I would not call it evil, everything is quite fair and corresponds to the laws of nature, which has nothing to do with our beliefs. Therefore, in order to take a worthy place in this world, you must have a strong psyche, not bound by any restrictions and prohibitions.

The most interesting thing is that weaknesses are indulged in human society. Unreasonable parents nurse their already mentally weak children, interfering with their personal lives. All this makes us weaker. And there is no one to defend the weak but himself. All this illusion of security and stability, which is allegedly present in our supposedly civilized society, blinds us and does not allow us to see reality.

That is why people are sometimes surprised at the obvious things, and cannot understand why something happened that happened when it was not supposed to happen. I tell you, there is no stability, no security, no civilization. There is a wild society teetering on the brink of madness. This society is controlled only when it experiences fear, but as soon as it feels permissiveness, it begins to destroy everything in its path.

This world is merciless to the weak, in order to survive in it you just need to be strong, and psychology gives such strength. The correct psychological attitude will make you invincible and indestructible. This is called strength of mind, which is based on an internal mental state. Study psychology, it will open your eyes to reality, help you become stronger, help you become the captain of your ship, called life.

In the top front pocket of the backpack I have a small case for a small camera. At one time, just under the fire pribludy bought. And in it:

A piece of flint ... I must say that flint is extremely rare in nature in our area. They say you can find it on the dumps near the railway. Or in heaps of rubble ... I have never found, however. In other words, it is more correct to carry flint with you prepared in advance. So, flint. Forged armchair was for him. You can break the file of course. But the forged armchair is more aesthetically pleasing). Tinder in an airtight jar. I have a tinder fungus prepared using the technology) And a little jute cord in a zip bag. And to the heap the ferocerium rod from our narrow-eyed brothers fit into the same place.

Well, and a strategic reserve in case the grass is damp or wet, I make a nest from toilet paper. Then I inflate it.

A stock of tinder is stuck in a cupboard. When I cooked I did it with a reserve Lots of bonfires. If necessary, the stock in the backpack is replenished from the cabinet.
And the little case itself wanders through the pockets of the backpack, leaving it only for use or replenishment. Applied in practice, this is all for the sake of showing people. Show off with one word.

Point two: fire from the sun.

The essence of getting fire from the sun is to focus the sunbeam on the tinder. For example, melting a lens from ice, or fastening two bottle bottoms with resin and filling with water, or polishing the bottom of a beer can, or breaking off the reflector of a flashlight ... We also mined with a reflector from a car headlight. Three reflectors were stolen from us) In the forest hidden))
Or you can buy a magnifying glass. It is worth mere pennies. Or a solar lighter for Ali. It's even cheaper! Well, put it in your backpack. Suddenly cho.

Point three: what if everything is screwed up. There is no sun at all. It remains to produce fire by friction. Everything is simple and complicated at the same time!

Every year we perform a rite of renewal of fire. It is by friction that we get live fire. And so I have an appropriate set for such a case.
In natural conditions, you just need to take two planks, make a drill, a Luchok, an arm rest and cut) Just ...
In fact, whether an ember falls out or not depends on many conditions. Tested in practice. The first time, for example, I tried to make fire on the balcony for a month. I made a pine drill. For a month I tried almost daily until it came to the conclusion that resin was released when heated! and this resin keeps the charcoal busy. I had to try it in the snow on the street. The coal did not fall out. Apparently because of the humidity ... Well, all sorts of such nuances.
Moreover, the lining under the arm heats up and burns, excess smoke in the eyes and discomfort)
Therefore, another cheat to make life easier)

Bearing integrated into the lining. There is practically no friction and it is much more comfortable to hold.
As a string, you can use a lace or make a rope out of clothes. But it's more practical to put a skein in the paracord backpack just in case. The paracord does not stretch and wears out less.

Point four. For dessert)
The chemical method of making fire)
Well, I couldn’t have a game with pribludy for fire and not get the fire) Therefore, I dug manganese from my wife in the medicine cabinet.

We assume that in our forest conditions he lies in a first-aid kit. We take sticks for making fire by friction ... Or we simply cut a recess in any tree. Place some manganese in the recess. It is important that everything is dry !!!

Add some sugar. We have sugar in the grub set! The ratio is about 8 parts manganese to one part sugar.

We put in what should be on fire. I have the notorious jute.

Rub manganese with sugar with a "drill" or a sharpened stick. We hear a click and see how we have a fire.

As a result of a chemical reaction, a lot of heat is generated. This is enough to light cotton wool or jute bush. But the reaction is very fast! because the ignition must be put on immediately!

And, summing up all of the above, it should be noted that you set yourself difficult tasks. Getting fire in not the most traditional ways, for example. very interesting! Fun and useful! But it is more correct and more competent to be ready or prepare in advance!

PS: of all this, I personally most often use a lighter) Sometimes matches. And I also have a stock of them)

Well, some more knives)

In the forest, Vicks goes into his pocket, Leopard goes to his belt, and the machetina still rides on a backpack)

As any patriot of Ukraine knows, Ukrainians founded the Roman and Byzantine empire, built pyramids for the Egyptians, dug up the Black Sea, invented the Sanskrit language for the backward Indians and presented the teachers of Jesus and Buddha to mankind. Everything is so great ... Is there an exaggeration here? When did the first Ukrainians appear on Earth?
The article is written in order to throw a sobering glance at the antiquity of the Ukrainian nation, to enlighten those who do not know. First, let's give the floor to Oles Buzina:

“If you glance at the map of modern Ukraine, it turns out that it is replete with incomprehensible names. Below, the Crimea, a gift from the generous uncle Khrushchev, hangs out like a big pear. From north to south there are rivers with names that are unintelligible to the Slavic ear - Danube, Dniester, Don and Donets. In the west, there is a wooded ridge of the Carpathians with the mysterious Hoverla, where President Yushchenko loved to run for inspiration. In the east, beyond the Kuban, is the Caucasus, where, as in the time of Lermontov, "an evil Chechen crawls ashore, sharpens his dagger." And only in the north are understandable words - Pripyat, Stokhod, Goryn - small quiet rivers, making their way through the dull Polesie. It turns out that non-Slavic peoples lived before us in the south and west of Ukraine?
Yes, that's exactly what happens, gentlemen! ...

Writing among the Slavs appeared in the 9th century. It was invented by Cyril and Methodius, adapting the Greek alphabet for local needs. Since then, the Slavs began to keep their own chronicles. But the previous millennium was also well documented by the Romans and Byzantines. ….
From the Roman chronicles of the turn of the new era, we know that the Dacian tribe of carps lived in the Carpathians. Their contemporary closest relatives are the current Albanians. "Carpathians" - that is how the mountains were called in their language.
Ukraine itself was called Sarmatia, after the name of the most numerous and warlike tribe that lived here. Where in fifteen hundred years Taras Bulba would ride across the Wild Field with his sons, detachments of heavily armed Sarmatian horsemen in strong scaly shells roamed about. Judging by the language, the Sarmatians were Iranians. It was they who gave the name to the Ukrainian rivers - Don, Donets and Danube. “Don” in translation from Iranian means “water”.

“It has been noticed for a long time: as soon as our historian grasps at the events of the II – IV centuries in Ukraine, he immediately begins to carry wonderful nonsense.
Everything before the II century is clearer than clear. At first, the Cimmerians lived in our steppes. Then they were turned by the Scythians. Then the Sarmatians came and drove out ... the Scythians. But after the Sarmatians our "fatal" failure begins.

Having reached it, the orthodox Slavic mind falls into an inarticulate bleating about the "debatable belonging" of the so-called Chernyakhov culture. ... Of course, it was not possible to hide all the ends in the muddy academic water. Even in a school textbook on ancient history there is a mysterious episode. At the end of the 4th century, a Germanic tribe of Goths climbed over the Danube to the Roman Empire - straight from the Northern Black Sea region. On boats and rafts, tens of thousands of these barbarians overcame the border, which ran along this river, and flooded Dacia - present-day Romania. And even in 378, they defeated the army of the Roman emperor Valens near Adrianople ...
But beyond the Danube, where the Goths came from, in this very Northern Black Sea region - our present southern Ukraine. It turns out that the Germans lived here even before the Ukrainians? Yes, gentlemen, this is exactly what happened in the 2nd-4th centuries.
The Goths, carefully described in the Roman and Byzantine chronicles, originally lived in the north - in Scandinavia - Skandze. ... As the Gothic historian of the 6th century Jordan writes, from "Skandza, as from the womb that gave rise to tribes, the Goths came out with their king named Berig." Hunger drove them. ... "

The Gothic state reached its largest size in the second half of the 4th century, when it was ruled by Germanarich. According to Jordan, this brute "was compared by many ancient writers at his true worth to Alexander the Great." He managed to subjugate even those remote places where Moscow is now located, and in the early Middle Ages lived the Finno-Ugric tribes Mordens (Mordovians), Merens (Merya) and Vasinabronki (all white).
Describes Jordan and Germanarich's campaign against the Wends - early Slavs, who "although they were worthy of contempt because of the weakness of their weapons, were, however, powerful due to their numbers and tried to resist at first. But the great number of those unfit for war is worth nothing ... They all obeyed the power of Germanarich ".

An echo of those times remained in the Scandinavian sagas, which mention Danparstad - the capital is ready on the Dnieper. The hero of the “Song of Hled” preserved in the Elder Edda demands for himself “the famous forest, which is called Myurkvid, sacred graves on the Gothic land, a wonderful stone in the Danpa bends, half chain mail, former Heydrek, lands and people, and shiny rings”. Myurkvid means Black Forest. It still exists on the right bank of the Dnieper above Zaporozhye. Even today, it amazes with its size. You can pass it by car in at least an hour. The stone in the Danpa bends can be easily identified with the Dnieper rapids. As for Danparstad, some of the pre-revolutionary historians suggested that he predated present-day Kiev. Prince Kiy is the Gothic Rex Kniva, allegedly well-known from Yordan's Getika.
Be that as it may, it was from the Goths that words such as "prince" (from the Gothic "kuni" - the elder of the clan), "regiment" ("volk" - armed people, people), "helmet" (Gothic "Hilms") and even "penalties" - money ("pannings"). The last word is well known to both historians and those who remember the modern German "pfenig" - one hundredth mark.
And yet, at the end of the 4th century, the Goths were driven out of Ukraine by a new terrible enemy - the Huns, who appeared from the Don steppes. “Germanarich, aged and decrepit, suffered from a wound,” writes Jordan, “and, not enduring the Hunnic raids, he died at the one hundred and tenth year of his life. His death gave the Huns the opportunity to overpower those Goths who sat on the eastern side and were called Ostrogoths. " The Visigoths ("Western") crossed the Danube and, fleeing from the Huns, found a new homeland on the territory of the Roman Empire. They stopped only in Spain, where they formed the upper class of society and the royal dynasty.
But until the 15th century, a small Gothic principality existed in the Crimea, destroyed only by the Turks. It was there that those "Gothic red maidens ... on the shores of the blue sea" lived who rejoiced at the defeat of the Russians in "The Lay of Igor's Campaign."
The Italian Josaphat Barbaro, who traveled across the Crimea in the 15th century, wrote in his diary: “Behind Kaffa, along the bend of the coast on the great sea, is Gothia ... Goths speak German. I know this because my servant, a German, was with me. They talked to him and fully understood each other, just as a Furlander and a Florentine would agree. "
And even at the end of the 19th century, the professors of the Kiev University of St. Vladimir Yulian Kulakovsky will be amazed by the "Nordic" appearance of some mountain Tatars - apparently, the descendants of the Goths.
Forgotten the name of Germanarich. The name of the Hun Attila thundered. But who was he - a wild Asian nomad or a proud Slavic prince Bogdan Gatyl, as one witty Kiev writer wrote? ...
a cheerful picture of the "victory parade" of the Hunnic leader Attila was painted in the novel "The Sword of Areus" by the writer Ivan Bilyk. Released in 1972, the book caused a stir. The author portrayed the leader of a nomadic tribe of the 5th century known from historical chronicles ... as an Old Russian prince, renaming him Bogdan Gatyl.
With a fright, the ugly Kiev officials did not think of anything better than to see nationalism in this. Instead of introducing the "Sword of Ares" into school curriculumhaving tortured children like "Praporonosts" by Gonchar, he was removed from the libraries. … .In 1990, on the wave of perestroika, Dnipro republished “The Sword of Arey”, since then we have to hear over and over again: “Attila ... who is Gatylo?”
But what is it really?
“… His name can still be somehow changed into Gatylo, but how will we“ glorify ”his brother Bled? And what to do with Attila's dad, who was called the "typical" Ukrainian name Mundzuk? And with Uncles Oktar and Roas? And in the end, with a Mongolian cut of the eyes and thin, like facts about the ancient Ukrainian ancestry, beard?
The steppe spoke then in a wild, unimaginable surzhik, consisting of Hunnic, Germanic, Greek and, probably, Slavic words. ... But neither the appearance, nor the name of Attila Mundzukovich gives suspicion of even a drop of our blood in his veins. "

“By the 6th century, our ancestors had multiplied so much that the Gothic historian Jordan, for the sake of scientific accuracy, divided them into two giant branches.” He mentions the names: Wends, Antes, Slavs
“In the third year after the death of Emperor Justin,” states the author of the “Ecclesiastical History” John of Ephesus, “the accursed people of the Slavs moved, which passed through all Hellas ... He took many cities, fortresses; burned, robbed and conquered the country .... They learned to wage war better than the Romans ... "
Procopius of Kessaria, secretary of the Byzantine commander Belisarius, left a colorful description of the Slavic army.
Soon they flooded all of Central and Southern Europe. In the west, their border was the foothills of the Alps and the Spree River, where today is Berlin, and in the south - the warm resort Adriatic coast. “For the sins of our Antes and Slavs are raging everywhere,” the same poor Yordan remarked melancholy, hinting that there is no cure for this disease and is not expected in the near future.
Everything would be fine, do not adore the Slavic princes to fight among themselves. Having captured half of Europe, they did not bother to create a single power and, merrily lived through the loot, harassing each other in internecine clashes.
The retribution followed immediately. Gradually, the western tribes of the Slavs fell under the influence of the empire of Charlemagne, and the eastern ones began to pay tribute to Khazaria, a predatory trading state on the Volga. ...
And then the Vikings appeared - the same stubborn fellows who mastered the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks." The Eastern Slavs had a state without them. But the Varangians were the first to bring the idea of \u200b\u200ban empire - a superpower that welded all these Drevlyans, glades and Krivichi into mighty Russia from the Carpathians in the West to the upper Volga in the East. They also gave the name - Russians, Rusyns, Russians - that is how the ancestors of the modern East Slavic peoples were called up to the 17th century. " ...

Note: there were no Ukrainians. There were small tribes of the Russian people

“To determine the boundaries of an ethnos, there is a simple principle, based on the opposition“ friends and foes. ”Every Frenchman knows that he is not a German, not an Englishman, or a Spaniard, although he does not even think about the reasons for this difference. And every Ukrainian is sure that he is not a Pole or a Tatar.
Before mongol invasion all the Eastern Slavs were "their own" for each other, despite the numerous princely feuds. All of them were ruled by the princes of the new Varangian dynasty of Rurikovich. All professed Orthodoxy with strong remnants of paganism. Everyone sang the same epics of the Kiev cycle about Ilya Muromets and Dobryna Nikitich.
Enumerating the princes, the author of "The Lay of Igor's Host" refers to Vsevolod the Great Nest of Suzdal, Vseslav of Polotsk, Glebovich of Ryazan, and Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galician. He calls on all of them to stand up for the Russian land, by which he understood both the Kiev region and the distant Suzdal region with barely hatched little Moscow.
And this was not just an ideological declaration! In 1223, the son of Vsevolod the Great Nest, Yuri, to help the Chernigov, Kiev and Galician princes who went against the Mongols, sent a detachment led by his vassal, the Rostov prince, and the same Mstislav the Udaly, starting a career in distant northern Novgorod, calmly moved to reign on south - to Galich. And the local population did not at all consider him a "Muscovite" ".

"Be that as it may, the founder of the first princely dynasty in Russia was a Viking from the Skjeldung clan - Rurik, who laid the traditions of the national great power. Ladoga was its first capital. ... It is also known that in 873 he managed to get a district in Friesland and return to the West. But even before that, he managed to give birth to his son Igor, who inherited the newly acquired lands in Russia. Together with Oleg, he will have to capture Kiev, expanding the possession to the Slavic south. "
"The Novgorod Chronicle says:" And Igor grew up ... And he had a voivode named Oleg ... And they began to fight - and climbed the Dnieper River and Smolensk City. And from there they went down the Dnieper ... and saw Kiev and asked who was in he reigns, and said to them: "Two brothers - Askold and Dir" (...) And Igor said to Askold: "You are not princes, and not a princely family, but I am a prince and I should reign." And they killed Askold and Dir ""
“But if someone called the territories under their control Kievan Rus, they would be incredibly surprised - albeit less than at the sight of Hrushevsky, who persistently called these Vikings by his own invented title“ old Ukrainian princes ”.
“Svyatoslav is the first of the Rurik dynasty that came to Kiev, who called himself not in the Varangian, but in the Slavic manner. Consequently, by the time of his birth, the Vikings had already decently become famous on the local soil. Overgrown with children, women and relatives.
But despite this, in Svyatoslav himself there was not a drop of Slavic blood. His father was the Varangian king Ingvar, his mother was the Varangian Olga. Leo the Deacon describes the prince's bright northern appearance - blue eyes, blond hair, an upturned nose. For southern Kiev, such an anthropological type was then as rare as it is now. But in terms of culture, Svyatoslav was clearly “ours”. And he even wore his hair in the steppe manner - in the form of a hanging curl on a shaved skull.
This hairstyle has aroused great "raunchy dumb patriots". Since there is a "sedentary", it means that the Zaporozhye Cossacks were already at the time of Svyatoslav! But the sedentary is not yet proof of existence in Kievan Rus Cossacks. In fact, this is an ancient nomadic hairstyle found throughout the Great Steppe from Mongolia to Hungary. The Turks, by the way, will wear it in the same way in the 16th century, as the Zaporozhye Cossacks. And on the head of Svyatoslav the "oseledets" testifies primarily to his ties with the steppe inhabitants. For a long time, the Kiev prince raged precisely in alliance with the Pechenegs - those who in the end made a cup out of his head ”

Published in Lviv in 1934 and reprinted several times in Canada, "History for children of the school" has a charming picture "Moskal ruynut Kiev". On it, bearded goblins in pointed helmets are picturesquely cutting, grabbing and raping the unfortunate people of Kiev. Heart bleeds.
But after reading the text under the picture, you start laughing sincerely - it turns out that they were "running out" in 1169, when no "Muscovites" still existed in nature, and Moscow itself barely entered the pages of history. It is mentioned for the first time in the chronicles only twenty-two years earlier as a tiny town suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky. In terms of meaning, it was something like the current regional center. Therefore, to write that in 1169 "Muscovite ruinut Kiev" is the same as to assume that a gang of pig-thieves from Kobelyak is dangerous for the capital of today's Ukraine.
But somehow it was forgotten that in fact it was the Galicians who destroyed Kievan Rus - the very famous Roman and Danilo Galitsky and several more colorful personalities who preceded them. “Ale Ukrainian state didn’t disappear through those of Kiev with the knowledge,” writes the already mentioned “History for children…” “Vona said more later from two litas. Tilki ії the core was pushed to the west. "
What an impudent Bandera nonsense! It is clear that the state cores are not moving for no reason. They are driven by historical figures. And usually with separatist manners. In the XII century Galich was just such a nucleus of local separatism.

Since we have already started talking about this, we will note that
“The Galicians differed from the real Russians in everything - psychology, anthropological type and (most importantly!) Non-Slavic origin.
Yes Yes! Precisely non-Slavic! Subconsciously, the natives of Western Ukraine are still aware of this ...
Anyone who communicated with the inhabitants of Lvov or Ivano Frankivsk regions knows the local expression - "racial Galician". "Yogo squad is a racial Galician!" - will proudly tell you. Or: "Pan Zenik is a fair racial Galician." And they will point to a fidgety "kurdupel" (short-legged subchik in our opinion) with ideological hysteria in his eyes ...
The answer can be found in any monograph on Slavic ethnogenesis.
At the turn of the old and new eras, there were no Slavs in Galicia yet. It was inhabited by the carriers of the so-called "culture of the Carpathian mounds" - the Dacian tribe of carps. Ancient Dacians are the ancestors of today's Romanians and Moldavians. In the II century, under Emperor Trajan, the Romans conquered them, establishing the province of Dacia on the territory of present-day Romania.
But the conquerors did not reach the Carpathians and Upper Transnistria themselves. The poor local territories inhabited by backward savages simply did not interest the natives of Italy.
This continued until the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, when the Slavs began to infiltrate here from Volyn. In the 5th-6th centuries, this part of the Dacians, falling under their rule, lost their language and switched to the Slavic dialect, naturally, distorting it. From the Dacians, who submitted to the Romans, the Romanians and Moldavians emerged. And of those remnants of them who recognized the superiority of the Slavs, are the present Galicians. Thus, it will not be an exaggeration to say that Galicians are essentially Slavicized Moldovans. "
“Looking at how the Hutsuls with their national tomahawks gallop around the vatra, I have no doubt about the reasons for this“ freakishness. ”The same Romanian-Moldavian (Geto Dacian!) Melodies, the same humped-nosed non-Slavic faces, exactly the same embroidered with Carpathian tsatski keptari with wool in. While they are silent - in general, you cannot distinguish from Moldovans!
The Carpathian lands came under the rule of Russia late. At first, Kiev competed with Poland for them. He competed with varying degrees of success, until at the end of the 10th century Vladimir the Saint selected them as part of the so-called "Cherven cities". Hence another name for Galicia - Chervonnaya Rus. Its capital, by the way, was not Galich at first, but Przemysl. "

In general, while the Galician nationalists are composing ideas about the fact that Russians are not Slavs, or Mongolo-Tatars, or Finno-Ugric, in fact, we observe non-Slavic origins among the Galicians. It is true in their writings only that the Galicians are not Russians. But, as we can see, they are neither Ukrainians nor Slavs at all.
We do not draw any chauvinistic conclusions from the non-Slavic origin of the Galicians, only a statement of fact. It's just that the delusional ideological dogmas of Ukrainian, Galician, nationalism are becoming more obvious. By the way, if the Carpathian gtsuls - Dacians-Neslayans - are Ukrainians, then why shouldn't the Ukrainian Slavs be Russians?

As already mentioned, "in the XII century Galich was the core of local separatism."

But let's omit the details of the history of Galician separatism - you can read about them in the book by Oles Buzina (1). The overall final picture is important:

“In fact, Russia was just a cluster of demoralized people, who were divided by the princes from the proliferating clan of Rurikovich. After all, all these Vladimirka, Vsevolod, Ivana Berladniki - though distant, but relatives. All of them are descendants of the Grand Duke Vladimir the Saint. But there is not enough land for them, since each leaves numerous heirs. Permanent civil War between the princes it becomes simply a fact of everyday life - the same as rain, slush and death of livestock. The pans are beating - the men's forelocks are cracking.
But this murky chaos does not fit into the scheme "Ukrainians against Muscovites"! It does not fit, if only because the best ally of the Galician Vladimirka in the fight against Kiev is the Suzdal Yuri Dolgoruky. Yes Yes! The same “founder of Moscow” thrice damned by the authors of countless stories for children.
Their partnership is so strong that Yuri Dolgoruky even gives up his daughter for Vladimirka's son, Yaroslav Osmomysl. Two provincial princelings by family ties seal the villainous alliance against Kiev! "

And one more detail

Now, when we, Ukrainians, are taken out almost "from Adam", when, following the "History of Ukraine Rus", they are ready to write the history of "Ukraine of Sarmatia", "Ukraine of Scythia" and, probably, "Ukraine of Vandalia", they forget that on top ancient Kiev, burned in 1240 by the Mongols of Batu, lies a thick layer of ash. " Most of people of Russia, - writes Giovanni del Plano Carpini, who visited these places after the defeat, - killed or taken prisoner. " There are almost no descendants of the Kievites of that time - until the middle of the 16th century, an abyss of political emptiness gapes. No, Ukraine is not Rus! It differs from it in the same way as France is from Gaul, and modern Italy is from the Roman Empire. Or as a Budennovsky stallion from the Don. Of course, a descendant in a straight line - but how much fresh blood has been poured in ... "

When did the name Ukraine appear in general, and since when can we speak of Ukrainians as a special community?

“When Lithuania united with Poland, the most violent ones began to flee to the border of the Wild Steppe, where the Zaporozhye Sich appeared. It was real wandering. Hotheads from everywhere gathered here, even from the Crimean Khanate - Kochubei, known from Pushkin's "Poltava", for example. At the end of the 16th century, unable to accommodate and feed the new Cossack elite, voracious and arrogant, Zaporozhye exploded in a series of uprisings that lasted a whole century and laid the foundation for a new state - Ukraine.
What is curious: even in the time of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, Ukraine was the name of a tiny strip of land on the border with the Wild Field - Zaporozhye, Kiev region, Cherkasskoye and Kanevskoye elders. Lviv region, Podolia, even Volhynia were not included in it. Talking about the reasons for the uprising of 1648, the author of the Cossack Chronicle of the Samovid writes in a language that is already slightly different from Old Russian, but not yet very similar to Ukrainian: “The Russian vira had a fiddly velikaya from the Uniates and priests, since the union in Lytv is no longer , in Volhynia, Ala and in Ukraine, the mountain of brothers has fallen. Consequently, Volyn is not Ukraine for him!
But gradually the name of the steppe zone spread up to the Carpathians, and the local population instead of Rusyns began to call themselves Ukrainians.
Having found themselves, thanks to Bohdan Khmelnitsky, a part of the same state, Ukrainians and Russians, who were often called Muscovites, felt that they were damn similar, but, on the other hand, they were subtly different in some way, and immediately gave each other funny nicknames of Ukrainians and Katsap. Some wore beards. Others are settlers. Some of the shirt was released over the trousers. Others tucked her into wide trousers. Some are accustomed to bawling at the councils, choosing the hetman. Others unquestioningly carried out all the orders of the tsar father. 500 years have passed since the times of Kievan Rus - a huge period. In the south, hot Polovtsian and phlegmatic Lithuanian were mixed with the blood of the ancient Russians. In the north, the population of Kievan Rus dissolved in itself the Finnish tribes, who in the XII century inhabited the territory of even present-day Moscow. But common faith (Orthodoxy) and common enemies (Tatars, Turks and Poles) helped them get along under the Romanov scepter and push the boundaries of the Slavic superpower up to the Danube and the Black Sea. "

So, now there are some differences in the Russian people. Which is not surprising - the people were settled over a large territory and divided by the borders of different states. The term "Ukraine" appeared.
"The geographic term 'Ukraine' is really quite ancient, it is found not only in Ipatiev, but also in many other chronicles. But one must understand that the medieval term 'kraina', like 'okolie', 'okolica', is exclusively geographic (not ethnic) term, and this term was applied far not only to the territory of southern Russia. There were many outskirts (Ukraine), and not only in Russian or Polish history. For example, in the medieval Roman Empire (Byzantium) there were so-called akrites - a subculture of peasants. soldiers who guarded the borders of the Roman Empire from the Arabs (as they then called Byzantium.) If you translate the Greek word ;;;;;;; (akritas) into Russian, you get 'Ukrainian' (a resident of the outskirts - border guard). Moreover, these warriors -acrites from the everyday and ethnocultural point of view differed from the inhabitants of Constantinople no less than a Cossack with a forelock from a Muscovite in uniform, but both called themselves Romans (Romans in Greek) "(3)
But even then (during the reunification of Ukraine with Russia) - Oles Buzina admits that the similarities between the reunited parts of the people were "damn" obvious, and the differences were "elusive."
In any case, it was possible to get along, as Oles Buzina writes.
To get along is too carefully said.
Were there any problems with this?

Does this mean that Ukrainians dreamed of their own statehood, independence? Does this mean that the Ukrainians in the Russian Empire were oppressed on a national basis? In the USSR, the Ukrainians Khrushchev and Chernenko headed the state. In Russian-language schools in Ukraine, the Ukrainian language was taught, and there were also schools with the Ukrainian language of instruction. Ukrainian songs were played in the media. "Kobzar" by Taras Shevchenko in Soviet Ukraine was published in a larger circulation than in all the years of Ukrainian independence. This can hardly be called national oppression. And in the Russian Empire?

“The Ukrainians managed to play an outstanding role in the fate of the Russian Empire. In fact, the idea was invented by the Kiev monk Feofan Prokopovich, who was unusually liked by Peter I for his wit and efficiency.
And then the "friendship of peoples" was fastened by the daughter of Peter Elizabeth and a simple Cossack from Chernigov region Alexei Razumovsky, playing a story about a princess from a fairy tale right in bed. Razumovsky's nickname - "night emperor" - speaks for itself. His brother Kirill, the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, will be reporting on the duty of Lomonosov, in whose works a new outlandish word will appear for the first time - Ukrainians. "
Success in St. Petersburg for a long time distracted us from problems local government... A Poltava resident Field Marshal Paskevich takes Warsaw at the head of the Russian army and is friends with Nicholas I. Gogol goes to Italy at the tsar's expense, where he makes tens of thousands for pasta on a grand scale. Bezborodko, the Chancellor of the Empire, dying, says goodbye to the assembled public with a phrase that has not yet reached the level of modern political thought: “I don’t know how it will be with you young people, but with us not a single cannon in Europe can be fired without our permission dare! "
Yes, is it to Ukraine here, when the whole empire is in your hands! Even Pushkin, annoyed by the success of the Zaporozhian descendants in the "northern Palmyra", will angrily notice that his ancestor "did not jump into princes from the Ukrainians," forgetting that he jumped into russian nobility straight from the African palm.
When the empire was not enough for all Ukrainians, the idea of \u200b\u200bindependence was born. Although, I am sure, in fact, we are not very opposed to the new version of Kievan Rus. Up to Vladivostok. With us at the head. With free transfer of Siberian oil to the joint stock company of Mirgorod pensioners. And with Zhirinovsky marching to the Indian Ocean with the rank of corporal ukrainian army... Well, the most junior sergeant. For we are unusually generous in spirit. We don't feel sorry for anything. For yourself".

That is, in the Russian Empire, the elite was made up of Ukrainians along with Russians.
Because no one divided anyone along ethnic lines into Ukrainians and Russians, no one oppressed anyone along ethnic lines.
And the idea of \u200b\u200bseparatism and independence arose among those representatives of the elite who did not get warm places at the trough ... But such dodgers have always been, in any nation. The fact that the people kept their values \u200b\u200band hoped to break out of the grip of national oppression, from alien values, was never discussed

The Ukrainians have never been oppressed by the Russians, these are not different cultures, there are more in common than differences, it is a single people, different parts of which acquired some local characteristics due to the fact that the people were settled over a large territory and divided by state borders (Russia, Austria- Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic)

So what about the jealousy of the Ukrainian nation? Oh, yes: "Trypillian culture". A few words about this myth. It is curious that now Russophobes are rushing about with this argument, proving the antiquity of the "Ukrainian nation" in comparison with the Muscovites. But for the first time this argument was put forward by a Czech-Russophile to prove the antiquity of the Russian people, including the Ukrainians. But it's not that. And the fact that
“… The origins of the Trypillian culture were discovered… on the territory of Romania. Moreover: in Transylvania - in the homeland of the notorious prince Dracula! From here it spread out in concentric circles, first crossing the Danube, then the Dniester, and finally, approaching the Dnieper.
Actually, the settlement excavated ... near Tripillya is just its extreme eastern outpost. ...
Trypillian culture died out in the III millennium BC. e. The first historical evidence of the Slavs refers only to the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. e. The historical gap between them is twenty centuries! In addition, the ancestral home of the Slavs ... is located on the territory of Polesie. Byzantine historians describe them as typical forest dwellers. But Trypillians never settled in the forest zone at all. Their culture fully fits into the forest-steppe zone, which Ukrainians will begin to develop only in the 17th century A.D. e., and fully populated only under Catherine II. What kind of identity between Ukrainians and Trypillians can we talk about after that? "

But what about the great ancient ukrov? Have they never been?
I hasten to reassure the patriots: there were!
There was more ancient than the Russians, the Ukrov tribe, who lived near the Ucker river in Germany (2), from which they got their name (3). They had nothing to do with Ukraine and the Ukrainians, they didn't found Rome, they didn't build the Egyptian pyramids.
But to deduce from only the similarity of the names "the antiquity of the Ukrainian nation" ... Why such insanity? .. Or ... there is no smoke without fire? But our nationalists are not original even here
“Appearing on the political arena… [any state] will certainly invent a brilliant pedigree for itself. Nobody cares about its reliability. The main thing is crackling, fireworks, fun.
The ancient Swedes derived themselves directly from the god Odin. The Poles of the XIII century, when they were not beaten only by the lazy, attributed to their ancestors the victory over Alexander the Great. The Jews came up with a fairy tale about their God-chosenness. As for the Ukrainians, in the opinion of the majority of our historians, they have always existed. This theory is called "autochthonous" - in translation from the obscure ancient Greek "autochthon" - "self-generated", "root". That is, according to the logic of her followers, a certain Pithecanthropus, emerging from a monkey in Africa, came to the banks of the Dnieper, and then slowly reborn into a Ukrainian, from whom the Russians, Belarusians and other peoples descended, up to the Indians. ...
It seems to me that nothing can be done with such a theory: everything has already been done for you by the talented ancestor of Pithecanthropus. And you lie on the couch, spit on the floor and contemptuously watch as someone on TV receives the Nobel Prize ... "

“I’m wondering: and modern Mongols, sitting in yurts in the middle of the bare steppe, also say,“ And we are ancient, we had Genghis Khan and we conquered half of the world? ”Or are they still not as stupid as the Svidomites and Zmagars?

Yes, I don't care who was there once someone! The Greeks were also an ancient and powerful civilization, and today it is one of the poorest countries in the EU, with huge debts, with a rapidly falling GDP and under the external control of Berlin and Brussels.

On the other hand, there was a virgin forest on the site of modern New York four hundred years ago, and today the United States is the world hegemon (albeit rapidly moving into retirement, but still).

Whom did antiquity and old achievements help when? If today you are beggars and powerless lackeys and bastards under external control, then this absolutely does not bother anyone. In this case, the presence of glorious ancestors only emphasizes your modern insignificance "(4)

In general, patriots of Ukraine still cannot find themselves a more worthy occupation than measuring lengths. But even if measuring the length of body parts is stupidity (despite the fact that after all, this is your body, besides, they say, you can influence this parameter deliberately; another question is why), then measuring the length of a historical pedigree is absolute stupidity. Because no matter what heroic our ancestors did, your merit in this is absolutely zero. And for everything that happens to you now, you are primarily responsible.

Is it because the patriots of Ukraine are trying to be proud of their mythical antiquity, because they understand that in real life, in themselves, in their actions, in their results, they have absolutely nothing to be proud of?

Sources (default - 1)

1) Oles Buzina. Secret history of Ukraine-Rus
2) https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Or in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uecker
3) https://www.elpiadis.com/russia
4) Alexander Rogers: The Pride of the Limitrophes and the Terror of Reality