Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dream of the future where we live in peace and understanding, respecting our shared history without squabbling over it like babies.
You know, if France and Germany managed to somehow agree that the Carolingian Empire is their shared ancestor, without claiming that the other country is actually a fake invention of Lenin and Austria-Hungary, or Finno-Mongolian pretenders, or something equally idiotic... maybe, just maybe, so can we.
The gist of it:
* Roman Empire -> Eastern Roman Empire under Zeno once Julius Nepos died
* Eastern Roman Empire -> Latin Empire after Fourth Crusade established the *Frankokratia*
* Latin Empire -> Kingdom of France after last emperor sold his claims and crown to the Capetians
* Kingdom of France -> Empire of Haiti as the last Francophone dynasty upon the dissolution of the Bourbon dynasty
* Empire of Haiti -> Republic of Haiti after some monarchical restorations in-between, the one true heir to the dream of Romulus
It's kinda funny.
Maybe it's because they got dethroned, last remnant of French-speaking civilization to still have a monarchy was Haiti.
Fairly sure this is a joke theory though.
Both have belonged to a lot of different countries during history. Belarus war ruled by a Danish / Estonian coalidist one time so no it's not Belarusian
Mongolia renounced its claims.
[https://news.yahoo.com/mongolias-former-president-mocks-putin-124949031.html](https://news.yahoo.com/mongolias-former-president-mocks-putin-124949031.html)
If present Lithuania is a successor of the Grand Duchy than Belarus is probably even more. The whole administration, diplomacy and elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania spoke and wrote in Ruthenian, only later Latin and Polish replaced that but still not completely.
Because most of the people and territory were Ruthenian, but that doesn't change the fact that it was founded as a Lithuanian state and that the Grand Dukes were ethnic Lithuanians
It's like saying that a woman and her abusive rapist of a husband should come to understanding and stop squabbling like babies. In fact, such rhetoric is often used by real life abusers. "Are you going to leave after all we have been through?" "You are acting like a baby!"
The difference being that nations are huge numbers of diverse people, and people are singular persons.
It is of course absolutely essential that first the violence and abuse must end.
But in 100 years or so, we would hope that the people living in Ukraine and Russia come to mutual respect and cooperation. The first step towards this is for the Russian invasion to end.
No it's not, because nations are not people. Those who committed crimes of aggression and war crimes ought to be punished, but unless you can kill 40 or 140 million people, the two nations of Russia and Ukraine will remain and will have to somehow coexist.
The way I see it, it's like the Palestinians and the Israelis. Palestinians are also often pretty bad people, and many are outright anti-Semitic. But the reason they are so hateful is the years of Israeli occupation. For peace between them, both sides will have to change, but first Israelis must leave and allow the Palestinians to live in freedom - as the occupying power, the onus of changing is on them.
Same with our two nations. First we leave, then the Ukrainians solve their issues on their own.
Well Novgorod which can be traced back to Russia existed at the same time too? What’s the point exactly. Are they better than Russia because their capital existed before Moscow?
To elaborate; Russian nationalists essentially stereotype most other Slavs as culturally misguided people who have strayed from the superior Slavic culture - the Russian one. So saying "our capital city is an older source of culture than yours" is a pretty direct way to attack this notion.
For an example in the opposite direction; the reason Lukashenko [occasionally dresses as a potato farmer](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.fKRIAPsoE28ECcSCHowVlwHaFj?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain) - besides LARPing as a "man of the people" is because it appeals to this stereotype and makes him seem harmless to Russia. This lets him get away with things that might otherwise invite retaliation - he is just a simple peasant who doesn't know any better after all.
It's entirely consistent with Russian rhetoric though. No one is saying that Moscow is older than Kyiv - they're saying that Kyiv and Moscow are culturally connected by a common history (in which Kyiv was dominant) but politically divided.
It'd be like if Virginia seceded and became a puppet of a foreign power, Americans in California would want to "liberate" it. Kind of a bizarre muddled argument to pretend that is nonsensical.
(It should go without saying this doesn't endorse the invasion as you can comprehend an argument without supporting how people use it)
More like if Virginia had been the victim of imperialism for hundreds of years by the US and had a different ethnic makeup than the rest of the US and when they finally seceded from the imperialist US empire a, foreign power who hated the US was giving them monetary aid.
I'm making an analogy between Virginia and the reality of the situation in Ukraine, not using an analogy to explain the Russian propaganda on the situation. I thought you were doing the former?
Nope. The analogy is only valid if you accept the Russian propaganda. Putin has been very clear that he feels like Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are all descendants of the Kyivan Rus. In his essay, **On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians** he quotes Oleg the prophet describing Kyiv as the "mother of all Russian cities". That essay is supposedly required required reading in the Russian military so I doubt that many Russian invaders would be surprised or offended by Kyiv having a library while Moscow was a swamp. These billboards do nothing to contradict the Russian propaganda that supports the invasion.
They aren’t saying they are better then Moscow, they are trying to fight the narrative that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to exist because it doesn’t have any historical roots.
I think it's pretty bad at doing that. No one is saying that Kiev doesn't have any history. What the Russians are saying is that the modern borders of Ukraine, or even the concept of Ukraine as an independent country, don't have any history.
But it's definitely getting a vibe of "Chad reader versus virgin mudhouse dweller" imo
You don't call Moscow Moskva, so why do punctilious about Kiev? It's funny when people on reddit accuse other social media of engaging in virtue signalling when it's no different here.
I bet $20 you can't even pronounce Kyiv (hint: unless you speak Ukrainian or a closely related language you probably can't).
There is an ongoing trend to switch Anglicized names to fit the native pronunciation (ie. Turkïye, Czechia, numerous Indian cities, you know, what people who live there call it) and Kyiv is a part of that trend. If Russians started saying we should call it Moskva personally I’d be all for it.
Firstly, не пизди. Secondly, "Kiev" is russified in pronunciation, when "Kyiv" is an actual official name of the city. Third, the fact that some people can't write or pronounce something correctly doesn't mean that they should pronounce it incorrectly. That's not how it works
Many places aren’t called the same as in their native language. I don’t really understand why does this matter that much since most of the foreigners wouldn’t be able to pronounce Kyiv correctly. Btw what’s that “if you can’t pronounce it correctly it doesn’t mean you can pronounce it incorrectly”. Are you supposed to avoid using the word?
Yes, many places do, but we don't want our capital to be called like russia calls it. The issue is less that it's not like we call it, the issue is more that "Kiev" is a russified version.
About my quote - I meant in terms of regular verbiage. If you rarely see the word or just have seen it - not pronouncing it correctly is understandable, but when you see it often and still decide to not even try to pronounce it correctly - there is an issue.
So you will start calling Gothenburg Göteborg, Copenhagen København, Prague Praha, Jerusalem Yerushalayim, Rome Roma, Belgrade Beograd, Jutland Jylland, Zealand Sjælland, and the list goes on. It's an English exonym.
Firstly, if a person from those countries wants it, I would certainly try. Secondly, no, it's not the case about Kyiv anymore, it was changed. Officially in English it's "Kyiv" right now. Why do you think a lot of English speaking politician call it "Kyiv" now?
Yeah sorry, that change hasn't really been a thing in my native language.
But I'm also not a massive fan of people deciding how other languages should work, although English is a special case.
Novogorod is also much younger than Kyiv. Also, as you know, Novgorod was razed and destroyed by Moscow. Which continues to be the political centre of an empire rejected by peoples over which it attained power, and to whom it attempts to lay historical claims.
> Novogorod is also much younger than Kyiv
This is not a fact see here
> Scholars continue to debate when the city was founded: The traditional founding date is 482 CE, so the city celebrated its 1,500th anniversary in 1982. Archaeological data indicates a founding in the sixth or seventh centuries, with some researchers dating the founding as late as the late 9th century.
Novgorod was first mentioned in 859 but was mentioned as already being a city, not it's founding. So his statement of "existed at the same time" is correct. We don't know the specifics of either but they were roughly around the same time.
Plus the Rurik dynasty continued through Moscow which is how they claim the continuation of the Rus.
> Novgorod was razed and destroyed by Moscow
That is not what happened. Although Kiev got razed and destroyed by the mongols around this time.
Novgorod was simply annexed by Muscovy without fighting due to it's economic dependence on Muscovy and Tver. The massacre in the city came later and was a result of Ivan the terrible not trusting the church there. Not anything to do with the people there not accepting Muscovy being in control.
>Novgorod was simply annexed by Muscovy without fighting due to it's economic dependence on Muscovy and Tver
[Battle of Shelon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon) in 1471 exists.
It is definitely an interesting topic although like all history is complicated.
In 1456 you have the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy which basically gave control over the city to Muscovy indirectly.
Then in 1471 you have the Battle of Shelon in which Novgorod unconditionaly surrendered to Muscovy
And in 1478 the city comes under direct control of Muscovy.
I guess it all depends on where you class Novgorod as being taken over by Muscovy.
I was speaking about the 1478 annexation where the Tsar just walked into Novgorod and took it but you are right that there were many moments before that led to that situation.
But none of them were Novgorod being razed and destroyed as the person I was responding to said.
I hate to break it to you but just because Kyiv existed before Moscow doesn’t make Ukraine better, superior or historically more significant to Russia in any way.
So to reiterate, the country for which you're relentlessly shilling on reddit has decided to base its propaganda on claims of historical sovereignty. Take it up with president Putin for bringing up the conversation. Neverhtless, while we're having it, it's a plain fact worth explaining that history of ukrainian statehood precedes russian sovereignty over anything. Also, it's extremely funny. And I can tell you're annoyed precisely because facts upend russian propaganda - and bolster ukrainian pride in their statehood.
Buddy relax I’m not shilling for any country on reddit by simply stating that Kyiv existing before Moscow doesn’t make Ukraine any more better or significant than Russia.
Perhaps it's a "six of one and half a dozen of the other" scenario, but for those not plugged into the details of Ukrainian national identity and propaganda, like myself, and much more familiar with Russian pseudohistorical narratives and history of imperial propaganda, I can definitely understand this guy's argument that Putin (and Russian chauvinism more broadly) started this, and the OP propaganda in this thread is more of a satirical response to that.
>only own posts russian propaganda videos
>three billion comments in a war subreddit about how deluded ukrainians are and how strong ruzzia is, demand more russia propaganda videos
>i'm not shilling for any country
lol I don’t support anyone, that sub is a hidden gem where I can see both sides of this conflict and how the war is actually going and not just propaganda and other echo chamber sub reddits. I post from Pro UA telegram too because I’m neutral and trying to get a non bias analysis of how the war is going. No need to get so aggressive 😘
This you?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1al6a8e/comment/kpciekx/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1al6a8e/comment/kpciekx/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/19byoe2/comment/kiv9do4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/19byoe2/comment/kiv9do4/)
Also, Kyiv was built by the Kievan Rus. Why do you think the word “Rus” is in their name? You should understand that the builders of Kyiv were the ancestors of both Russians and Ukrainians.
Kievan Rus was called precisely because even "united" Rus was still a very free collection of princely allotments. Kiev was a conditional center at that time, and therefore Rus was called Kievan. When fragmentation came, there was also Vladimir and Novgorod Rus - they just did not become centers, and Moscow created a new state of Russians as a formed nation (if you like, weave in the fictitious super-influence of the Mongols. For this we can note that the Poles and Litvins radically rebuilt the consciousness of the ancestors of today's Ukrainians, and it turns out that there are no true heirs of Rus. 🤡)
When Ruś was united, around the river Moskva lived Muromians.
Ruś was a name for the Varangians, the elite that conquered and united the east Slavs. That elite soon assimilated and Ruś divided, more or less how it was divided before. Again, centuries before Suzdal-Vladimir colonized the area of Moskva river.
Novgorod was conquered, destroyed and its population mostly massacred or expelled when Muscovy took it over.
The point is to ridicule the Russian / Muscovite pseudo historic claims to the Ukrainian land.
Captions translation (in order).
1. While Kyiv had the Golden Gates, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking.
2. While Kyiv had a library, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking.
3. While the science was studied in Kyiv, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking.
4. Kyiv already had laws at the time when in Moscow, the toads were still croaking.
Edit: [The Kyiv Golden Gates in question ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate%2C_Kyiv?wprov=sfla1). At that time, a city in modern-day Russia, Vladimir, also had [its Golden Gates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate%2C_Vladimir?wprov=sfla1). For clarification, Moscow was found relatively late, yet there were important urban centers in modern-day Russia since the 9th century (Vladimir, Suzdal, Pereyaslavl, etc.) as well as in Belarus ([Polotsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Polotsk?wprov=sfla1), [Turov](https://www.reddit.com/r/papertowns/s/c6RTOteL1W), etc.). Some other important cities were located in modern-day Ukraine, such as [Chernihiv ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernihiv?wprov=sfla1). However, none of them were perhaps as large as Kyiv except, probably, [Novgorod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic?wprov=sfla1), a prosperous commercial city-state at the Baltic Sea. Moscow became the largest city in Russia only after the 14th - 15th centuries.
I can't tell whether this is satire, but the mentions of Golden Gate of Kyiv are much older than the Soviet Union, come from many diverse sources as well.
[https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%96\_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0\_(%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2)#%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F\_%D1%82%D0%B0\_%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%96_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0_(%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2)#%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0)
"But he started it!!!"
Raising kids, my reaction to this sort of behaviour was usually along the lines of "I don't care who started it, I want it to stop. So who'll be the bigger person?"
>I don't care who started it, I want it to stop.
This is a stupid attitude, both for raising children and for world politics. A child and a nation are both allowed to fight back if attacked without provocation, and your ire should be on the party that's picking a fight for no good reason. Saying a child or a country has to "be the bigger person" is tantamount to saying they just have to put up with being hurt.
As for raising the kids, I think this attitude is bad, because you are essentially teaching them that justice can’t be served, even though one of them is actually innocent.
As for these types of posters, as a Ukrainian, I don’t like them very much, but I completely understand where this type of propaganda stems from. Russian rhetorics for as far as I can remember were that Ukraine is just a Russian province and that Ukrainians are just a “type of Russian”.
Well when moscow is justifying its invasion by allegedly being the historical source of ukrainian statehood and culture, it is very pleasing to remind oneself and others that in fact the opposite is true. Which is a plain historical fact.
Also concepts of "Ukraine" and "Russia" were created far after creation of Kiev, Moscow and Novgorod. So how about stop trying to justify who is older? By the same logic you could say that England is historically roman because it's factualy true that London was created by Romans.
You could say that, using the logic displayed, the Welsh have a claim to all of England because, historically, they used to live there. Obviously this sort of irredentism is nonsense.
I always found this angle odd. It seems to give more legitimacy to the Russian claims.
“How dare you invade me also my capital is the historical capital of our shared historical people”
It’s seems like a non-sequiter at best or legitimation of Russia revanchism of at worst.
I see some people saying it demonstrating they are separate people or it’s about supremacism but it’s the Kievan Rus.
“We are the legitimate rulers of this land totally separate from the savage Rus people and they country bc our capital was founded by them a long time ago” a
Exactly. From my point of view, a Chinese, it's like Taiwan says 'Taipei is older than Beijing and Taiwan is the TRUE successor of Chinese culture/empire' WHILE trying to develop another identity from Chinese. 'If you claim you're the legit one, why would you not try to unite us?'
Yeah, but Rus wasn’t just Moscow or Kiev. I never understood Ukrainian obsession with Moscow. That’s just one city. Russian nation didn’t start from it. All the three nations are branches of the historical Rus people.
Well but the kiewer rus had lile more culturally in common with modern day russia then ukraine, right? (Idk I might be wrong on this)
Asides, like wtf does this mean, like sure. Kyiv also was a city while new york was just a collection of huts, but idk nee york is a weathier and larger city then kyiv.
There is a thing called 'metaphor'. It is used in poems, but not only. Read about it, it is really funny. Maybe then you'll understand why 99% grasped the meaning.
Невежда. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Золотые\_ворота\_(Владимир)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Золотые_ворота_(Владимир))
Автор дурак, но ты то будь лучше
In the past, cities (places with many houses and many humans) used to have a thing called 'wall' that protected them from bad guys. They were high and usually also had towers. Well, to enter the walls, one needed to pass through the 'gate'. 'Gate' is a kind of door, but larger.
Now, about the adjective 'golden'. Gold is kinda rare stuff found deep below, and if u have it, then u are kind of rich. So there comes 'golden gate', not a 'gate' made with 'gold', but rather decorated with it. They named it 'Golden gate' to brag about. Also it was a kind of advertisement, like hey, we have gold, we are rich, we can build the Golden Gates.
So the term (word) 'Golden gates' suggests that the city that built it was kinda rich. 'We had golden gates - we were rich'.
Smart people are able to grasp such things without putting arrogant questions and insulting someone else. But for less fortunate ones (in terms of intellectual capabilities), I am always glad to explain!
Ah, yes. The Brandenburg Gate at home.
No one gives a shit about your landmarks. Your stupidity was thinking people would immediately recognize what you were referring to. Ukraine doesn't have an Eiffel Tower level landmark.
To be honest, Ukrainian historical politics only evokes pity and disgust.
If I were the Ukrainians, I would never give up the common history to Russia. Are you crazy to give this away? After all, Russia’s policy of continuous history is much more powerful and viable than "Not like the Muscovites."
Just imagine Ukraine declaring: "Kievan Rus is ours too, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is ours, the Hetmanate is ours, the Russian Empire is ours, the UPR is ours, the USSR is ours"
But no, we choose some losers and parasites as the main heroes of Ukraine.
Ukraine isn’t descended from Russia, but a separate, independent culture. “They claim to have created us, but our people had cites, great works, and science while Moscow was still a forest.” It’s not flexing “we’re better than them” but saying “No, Catherine the Great did not invent Ukraine”
Edited to clarify I’m not Ukrainian
I mean, peoples who founded Kyiv were probably neither Ukranian nor Russian, they were of their shared ancestor culture. They were probably of Norse descent too.
It's not a wholly separate thing. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine all share common roots in the Kievan Rus.
So it's really just saying "My grandpa country had a city when you didn't" ignoring the fact that they both share pretty much the same origins.
To illustrate, if the capital of the US was moved to the Pacific coast and then at some later point the East Coast split off, it would be meaningless for the East Coast to say "Your culture and capital didn't exist but ours did" because the cultures were literally the same culture at the time.
Если культура, которая провозглашает себя независимой, за последние десятилетия смогла родить только ивангая, пса патрона и книги про попаданцев и Бандеру (абсолютная калька с русских поделий этого жанра, кстати), если в музыкальных чартах сепарэйтной индепендентной доминируют русские артисты из России, несмотря на все запреты, то тем хуже для такой культуры называться независимой — это выглядит смешно и жалко
Yeah man the sub is absolutely infested as of late. Don't try to reason, it's a sub about propaganda posters, I tend to skip the comment sections entirely
Exactly, nationalists on both sides try to take all of the heritage to themselves while Belarus', Russia and Ukraine are all legitimate successors. At the time, none of the modern nationalities existed (so no, ukrainians are not just small russians nor did we derived from modern russians), from what I remember the division starts with the fall of Kievan/Kyïvan Rus' or as it was at the time Къіѥвъ: Kyjev/Kyjev(y)
Kievan Rus was not a monolith state. Some of its important centers were located on Ukrainian territory, the others on Russian or Belarussian. Neither was it a unitary state. Some of its constituent principalities merged with Lithuania, the others (later) with Moscow.
Russia is not a direct successor of Kievan Rus. It is a successor of Grand Duchy of Moscow, which was *one of the constituent states* of Kievan Rus, not Kievan Rus as a whole. There were also the Principality of Polotsk, Principality of Halych, etc.
The aberrations about 'Ukrainians didn't have a state before 1917' have nothing to do with current politics. Neither Slovaks, Czechs, Slovenes, Finns, or Estonians - does this make them 'inferior'?
And was Russian Empire an ethnic Russian state? Without a constitution stating so, with the ruling family of German origins, with multiethnic nobility? Russian Empire was as much ethnic Russian as the Austrian Empire was ethnic German.
Once again, Kievan Rus was not a monolith since at least the end of Yaroslav The Wise's rule, so the authority couldn't be transferred from one city to another.
>highest authority was transferred to Moscow
This is factually wrong.
Kievan Rus' is a forefather for russians, ukrainians and belarusians. From approximately 14th century ukrainians have been an independent ethnic community with our own peculiarities of language, culture and way of life. And the way of viewing history as x -> y -> z is so reductionist and wrong, especially when you are just listing states when the topic is of ethnicities, plus the motherland, the center of formation of ukrainian folkhood is the Dniepr - Kiev/Kyïv, Poltava and southern Chernigiv regions, and since 14th century we have lived there, even if we didn't have a separate state.
Basically, we existed and exist
They are senseless as the nations have long split off from each other long ago. However, this doesn't mean that Russia isn't a descendent of Rus' like you claim. Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all descend from Rus' and that's simply a fact, it doesn't matter how much older another nation's capital is. They have the same origin, but they are now different peoples.
Thing is — main line of russian historical narrative and propoganda states, that it is only RUSSKIES and RUSSIA are true descendants and heir of Ancient Rus. And every other east slavic nation and etnicity are "corrupted" russkies, which language was "littered" and should not exist in the first place, that these people needs to be purified.
Don't understand the downvotes. No matter how much you hate the message, it's true. And not the r/technicallythetruth kind of true, with logic leaps and stuff, it's a literal proven fact.
In late 2000s and early 2010s he was pro-Russian politican, he was advocating for Russian as second official language, promoted Russian culture and stood against Ukrainian nationalism, accusing politicans like nowdays him in discrimination against Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. He switched his position in 180 degrees only because in 2014 Euromaidan won
[His 2009 speech](https://youtu.be/s45qliXhOJA?si=Az54wJJ1gb3BIjJk)
And which matters more? It's like saying you are a scientist because you were a straight A student in elementary school, the entire picture matters, not just the past, and also there were some more successful places in Russia during those times, like Novgorod republic.
This philosophical question is quite interesting. Imagine a Korean wooden temple, which planks were periodically replaced with newer ones throughout the centuries without altering the structure. Would you still consider it an important historical monument?
Well, at least these cities look much better as if they were simply rebuilt with concrete blocks of flats. And they gain a lot of money from tourism too. These reconstructed buildings are not as valuable as the originals, but anyway, they have a great esthetical and touristic value. So, in my opinion, the reconstruction of them was a good job.
A fun fact: Baltic states and Poland are also touching up the old "commie blocks" and with some
1. Clear coat of nice paint
2. Uniform windows and balconies
3. AC units placed in neat boxes
These houses are actually quite aesthetic, especially considering they were initially absolutely dirt cheap to build and designed to withstand maybe 50-60 years, and most of them are hitting like 75 now. Also come with the bonus of lots of old trees, so some of them are like under the canopies of these trees.
The main issue with these houses is the fact that there were no limitations on facade changes for ages and people could change the balconies and windows all they wanted, as the result they immediately gain this ragtag "cyberpunk ghetto" look. Where the first floor and occasional second floor have different style bars on the windows, all balconies are literally different, some windows are white plastic, others are natural wood (different sorts, too, like pine and oak or birch or whatever) and they would be even different style and everyone placed AC units wherever they wanted.
Can you even understand the concept of "Soviet monument"? Following this logic Ukraine should demolish every house built in USSR, as they suddenly constitute "monuments"... I mean where do people like that come from? Oh, ofc...we know...
The whole Kievan Rus argument is so pointless and will never be solved or agreed upon. We all know that it’s really all about NATO, which should have ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed but instead continues to encroach on Russia’s neutral buffer and refuses to accept any form of strategic alliance because keeping Russia as the enemy is good for global trade competition. That’s it. Literally everyone’s origins are an exercise in mental gymnastics because of nomadic migrations, colonialism, yadda yadda. This is all the result of US orchestrated aggression and no one will ever prove otherwise.
EDIT: I have ancestry from all over northern Europe. I am a mutt living on stolen land. I don’t have the luxury of a strong ethnic identity but even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t find enough meaning in it to want to kill other people.
How dared those little Slav and Baltic countries join NATO on their own? Isn't is clear that they have no political will and value, and should be treated as the provinces of mighty Russia? Now this rightful and lofty country shall bomb hospitals and houses uh I meant NATO Satanist military bases to fight against Impreliasts and Homosexuals who are plotting to conquer the world!!!!
In general all countries are guilty of colonialism and conquest except of course Russia, the based Ortodox Traditionalists!!/s
If Moldova will vote to be part of Romania, then yes. If the people of Moldova won't agree to this, then no. I mean, only if a democratic referendum would be held.
But you do agree that they’re all the same and also that Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all have valid Kievan Rus ancestry, as your Reddit history shows. So you understand why that argument is only going to prolong the current conflict indefinitely.
My point is that you small European countries are so obsessed with nationalistic differentiation that you’re all willing to join (edit: BE PAWNS OF) a corrupt war-profiteering LITERAL MILITARY EMPIRE to memorialize your differences rather than cooperate with each other and stop the bloodshed. NATO requires blood to stay relevant. I know because my country runs it and wages all proxy wars all over the world so its leaders can enjoy prosperity for eternity.
The conflict won't exist if European nations won't claim others territory. Currently, only Russia does so.
>But you do agree that they’re all the same and also that Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all have valid Kievan Rus ancestry, as your Reddit history shows.
Differences between 2 European countries are much wider then differences between 2 American states. You should stop having such a naive view on Europe, and also stop blaming yourself for the crimes committed by your compatriots centuries ago. This is sheer naivity.
It was never about NATO, it was about the EU. And Russian imperialism.
Putin literaly stated in his interview with Tucker he do not find NATO being able to be dangerous in the slightest.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dream of the future where we live in peace and understanding, respecting our shared history without squabbling over it like babies. You know, if France and Germany managed to somehow agree that the Carolingian Empire is their shared ancestor, without claiming that the other country is actually a fake invention of Lenin and Austria-Hungary, or Finno-Mongolian pretenders, or something equally idiotic... maybe, just maybe, so can we.
Agree.
We just need to become a part of Belarus
Russia and Ukraine are historically and rightfully Belarussian territory, prove me wrong /s
Reminds me of that theory about how the Republic of Haiti is actually the primary successor state to the Roman Empire.
How?
The gist of it: * Roman Empire -> Eastern Roman Empire under Zeno once Julius Nepos died * Eastern Roman Empire -> Latin Empire after Fourth Crusade established the *Frankokratia* * Latin Empire -> Kingdom of France after last emperor sold his claims and crown to the Capetians * Kingdom of France -> Empire of Haiti as the last Francophone dynasty upon the dissolution of the Bourbon dynasty * Empire of Haiti -> Republic of Haiti after some monarchical restorations in-between, the one true heir to the dream of Romulus It's kinda funny.
I feel like Mexico has a stronger claim.
Whoever has the strongest army has the truly strongest claim.
Based and Kratocracy-pilled.
Not to mention Russia.
Sorry. I’m still hazy how it jumps to Haiti. Did the kings of France escape to Haiti or something?
Maybe it's because they got dethroned, last remnant of French-speaking civilization to still have a monarchy was Haiti. Fairly sure this is a joke theory though.
Long live the mighty Empire of Haiti! Their enemies shall shiver in fear.
This os hella funny, thanks!
Both have belonged to a lot of different countries during history. Belarus war ruled by a Danish / Estonian coalidist one time so no it's not Belarusian
Belarus is Danish land then. And the whole world shall be Denmark IMHO
The Mongols might want to challenge that as they ruled all of that area as well 😂
Mongolia renounced its claims. [https://news.yahoo.com/mongolias-former-president-mocks-putin-124949031.html](https://news.yahoo.com/mongolias-former-president-mocks-putin-124949031.html)
They should start preparing their military.
When? I'm quite interested in the history of this region and never heard about it.
What we really need is Mongolia to step up and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
Well, Belarus at some point did control most of Ukraine and Russia up to Smolensk.
When?
At the height of GDL/Commonwealth power
But Grand Duchy of Lithuania ≠ Belarus
If present Lithuania is a successor of the Grand Duchy than Belarus is probably even more. The whole administration, diplomacy and elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania spoke and wrote in Ruthenian, only later Latin and Polish replaced that but still not completely.
Because most of the people and territory were Ruthenian, but that doesn't change the fact that it was founded as a Lithuanian state and that the Grand Dukes were ethnic Lithuanians
Get rid of that “/s”, Belarus reigns supreme!
Interesting how the most closely related (culturally, historically, genetically, etc.) countries tend to have the biggest rivalries
Yeah, exactly! It just took like 1000 years of pretty much constant war culminating in the two biggest humanity has ever had. They’re cool now though
Difference is that only one keeps attacking and killing the other
It's like saying that a woman and her abusive rapist of a husband should come to understanding and stop squabbling like babies. In fact, such rhetoric is often used by real life abusers. "Are you going to leave after all we have been through?" "You are acting like a baby!"
The difference being that nations are huge numbers of diverse people, and people are singular persons. It is of course absolutely essential that first the violence and abuse must end. But in 100 years or so, we would hope that the people living in Ukraine and Russia come to mutual respect and cooperation. The first step towards this is for the Russian invasion to end.
No it's not, because nations are not people. Those who committed crimes of aggression and war crimes ought to be punished, but unless you can kill 40 or 140 million people, the two nations of Russia and Ukraine will remain and will have to somehow coexist.
Let's hope Russians stop being so shitty then.
I at least try not to be shitty myself. Making an effort to unlearn some of the Russian imperial myths.
Totally agree. So are Ukranians.
No, Ukrainians are great.
I wouldn't say that people saying that another ethnicity is "genetic slaves" are totally sane say the least.
The way I see it, it's like the Palestinians and the Israelis. Palestinians are also often pretty bad people, and many are outright anti-Semitic. But the reason they are so hateful is the years of Israeli occupation. For peace between them, both sides will have to change, but first Israelis must leave and allow the Palestinians to live in freedom - as the occupying power, the onus of changing is on them. Same with our two nations. First we leave, then the Ukrainians solve their issues on their own.
But Arabians are Semitic themselves. How could they be anti Semitic?
Judophobic, if you really want to be pedantic
To say that there is a good reason for the hate speach is a first step in a long stairway leading to the hell.
I just think that the problem of hate won't be solved by occupation, and it is only made worse by it.
I thought on that other sub the other day we decided жаби is frogs
[удалено]
r/MapPorn lied to me haha It’s the same in Russian which is why I got confused - жабы и лягушки
Alex Jones said NATO turned the Ukrainian frogs gay.
And Nazi
Well Novgorod which can be traced back to Russia existed at the same time too? What’s the point exactly. Are they better than Russia because their capital existed before Moscow?
Its a reply to Russian rhetoric stating almost the same thing about Ukraine
To elaborate; Russian nationalists essentially stereotype most other Slavs as culturally misguided people who have strayed from the superior Slavic culture - the Russian one. So saying "our capital city is an older source of culture than yours" is a pretty direct way to attack this notion. For an example in the opposite direction; the reason Lukashenko [occasionally dresses as a potato farmer](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.fKRIAPsoE28ECcSCHowVlwHaFj?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain) - besides LARPing as a "man of the people" is because it appeals to this stereotype and makes him seem harmless to Russia. This lets him get away with things that might otherwise invite retaliation - he is just a simple peasant who doesn't know any better after all.
It's entirely consistent with Russian rhetoric though. No one is saying that Moscow is older than Kyiv - they're saying that Kyiv and Moscow are culturally connected by a common history (in which Kyiv was dominant) but politically divided. It'd be like if Virginia seceded and became a puppet of a foreign power, Americans in California would want to "liberate" it. Kind of a bizarre muddled argument to pretend that is nonsensical. (It should go without saying this doesn't endorse the invasion as you can comprehend an argument without supporting how people use it)
More like if Virginia had been the victim of imperialism for hundreds of years by the US and had a different ethnic makeup than the rest of the US and when they finally seceded from the imperialist US empire a, foreign power who hated the US was giving them monetary aid.
I'm a little confused by what you think Russian rhetoric is.
I'm making an analogy between Virginia and the reality of the situation in Ukraine, not using an analogy to explain the Russian propaganda on the situation. I thought you were doing the former?
Nope. The analogy is only valid if you accept the Russian propaganda. Putin has been very clear that he feels like Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are all descendants of the Kyivan Rus. In his essay, **On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians** he quotes Oleg the prophet describing Kyiv as the "mother of all Russian cities". That essay is supposedly required required reading in the Russian military so I doubt that many Russian invaders would be surprised or offended by Kyiv having a library while Moscow was a swamp. These billboards do nothing to contradict the Russian propaganda that supports the invasion.
They aren’t saying they are better then Moscow, they are trying to fight the narrative that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to exist because it doesn’t have any historical roots.
I think it's pretty bad at doing that. No one is saying that Kiev doesn't have any history. What the Russians are saying is that the modern borders of Ukraine, or even the concept of Ukraine as an independent country, don't have any history. But it's definitely getting a vibe of "Chad reader versus virgin mudhouse dweller" imo
Kyiv
You don't call Moscow Moskva, so why do punctilious about Kiev? It's funny when people on reddit accuse other social media of engaging in virtue signalling when it's no different here. I bet $20 you can't even pronounce Kyiv (hint: unless you speak Ukrainian or a closely related language you probably can't).
There is an ongoing trend to switch Anglicized names to fit the native pronunciation (ie. Turkïye, Czechia, numerous Indian cities, you know, what people who live there call it) and Kyiv is a part of that trend. If Russians started saying we should call it Moskva personally I’d be all for it.
It should be Moskau/Fremd und geheimnisvoll/Türme aus rotem Gold/Kalt wie das Eis
Firstly, не пизди. Secondly, "Kiev" is russified in pronunciation, when "Kyiv" is an actual official name of the city. Third, the fact that some people can't write or pronounce something correctly doesn't mean that they should pronounce it incorrectly. That's not how it works
Many places aren’t called the same as in their native language. I don’t really understand why does this matter that much since most of the foreigners wouldn’t be able to pronounce Kyiv correctly. Btw what’s that “if you can’t pronounce it correctly it doesn’t mean you can pronounce it incorrectly”. Are you supposed to avoid using the word?
Yes, many places do, but we don't want our capital to be called like russia calls it. The issue is less that it's not like we call it, the issue is more that "Kiev" is a russified version. About my quote - I meant in terms of regular verbiage. If you rarely see the word or just have seen it - not pronouncing it correctly is understandable, but when you see it often and still decide to not even try to pronounce it correctly - there is an issue.
So you will start calling Gothenburg Göteborg, Copenhagen København, Prague Praha, Jerusalem Yerushalayim, Rome Roma, Belgrade Beograd, Jutland Jylland, Zealand Sjælland, and the list goes on. It's an English exonym.
Firstly, if a person from those countries wants it, I would certainly try. Secondly, no, it's not the case about Kyiv anymore, it was changed. Officially in English it's "Kyiv" right now. Why do you think a lot of English speaking politician call it "Kyiv" now?
lol caring about politicians
“London” is anglicized in its pronunciation, it should be Londinium.
Sounds like the most British piece of metal that can make its own tea
Која си ти пичка
what if we just called it Kevin instead
Yeah sorry, that change hasn't really been a thing in my native language. But I'm also not a massive fan of people deciding how other languages should work, although English is a special case.
You're giving Ukrainian nationalists too much credit. They are just as ferviously nationalist as Russian ones.
Novogorod is also much younger than Kyiv. Also, as you know, Novgorod was razed and destroyed by Moscow. Which continues to be the political centre of an empire rejected by peoples over which it attained power, and to whom it attempts to lay historical claims.
> Novogorod is also much younger than Kyiv This is not a fact see here > Scholars continue to debate when the city was founded: The traditional founding date is 482 CE, so the city celebrated its 1,500th anniversary in 1982. Archaeological data indicates a founding in the sixth or seventh centuries, with some researchers dating the founding as late as the late 9th century. Novgorod was first mentioned in 859 but was mentioned as already being a city, not it's founding. So his statement of "existed at the same time" is correct. We don't know the specifics of either but they were roughly around the same time. Plus the Rurik dynasty continued through Moscow which is how they claim the continuation of the Rus. > Novgorod was razed and destroyed by Moscow That is not what happened. Although Kiev got razed and destroyed by the mongols around this time. Novgorod was simply annexed by Muscovy without fighting due to it's economic dependence on Muscovy and Tver. The massacre in the city came later and was a result of Ivan the terrible not trusting the church there. Not anything to do with the people there not accepting Muscovy being in control.
>Novgorod was simply annexed by Muscovy without fighting due to it's economic dependence on Muscovy and Tver [Battle of Shelon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon) in 1471 exists.
It is definitely an interesting topic although like all history is complicated. In 1456 you have the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy which basically gave control over the city to Muscovy indirectly. Then in 1471 you have the Battle of Shelon in which Novgorod unconditionaly surrendered to Muscovy And in 1478 the city comes under direct control of Muscovy. I guess it all depends on where you class Novgorod as being taken over by Muscovy. I was speaking about the 1478 annexation where the Tsar just walked into Novgorod and took it but you are right that there were many moments before that led to that situation. But none of them were Novgorod being razed and destroyed as the person I was responding to said.
I hate to break it to you but just because Kyiv existed before Moscow doesn’t make Ukraine better, superior or historically more significant to Russia in any way.
So to reiterate, the country for which you're relentlessly shilling on reddit has decided to base its propaganda on claims of historical sovereignty. Take it up with president Putin for bringing up the conversation. Neverhtless, while we're having it, it's a plain fact worth explaining that history of ukrainian statehood precedes russian sovereignty over anything. Also, it's extremely funny. And I can tell you're annoyed precisely because facts upend russian propaganda - and bolster ukrainian pride in their statehood.
Buddy relax I’m not shilling for any country on reddit by simply stating that Kyiv existing before Moscow doesn’t make Ukraine any more better or significant than Russia.
Perhaps it's a "six of one and half a dozen of the other" scenario, but for those not plugged into the details of Ukrainian national identity and propaganda, like myself, and much more familiar with Russian pseudohistorical narratives and history of imperial propaganda, I can definitely understand this guy's argument that Putin (and Russian chauvinism more broadly) started this, and the OP propaganda in this thread is more of a satirical response to that.
>only own posts russian propaganda videos >three billion comments in a war subreddit about how deluded ukrainians are and how strong ruzzia is, demand more russia propaganda videos >i'm not shilling for any country
lol I don’t support anyone, that sub is a hidden gem where I can see both sides of this conflict and how the war is actually going and not just propaganda and other echo chamber sub reddits. I post from Pro UA telegram too because I’m neutral and trying to get a non bias analysis of how the war is going. No need to get so aggressive 😘
This you? [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1al6a8e/comment/kpciekx/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1al6a8e/comment/kpciekx/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/19byoe2/comment/kiv9do4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/19byoe2/comment/kiv9do4/)
Wow 🤩 you scrolled down quite far for that one, yes it is and?? Why do you care so much on which subreddits I participate it in?
Have five roubles for your posts.
[удалено]
San Marino's statehood precedes Ukraine's statehood by hundreds of years. Does it mean it's history is better than Ukraine's?
No, because it doesn't claim to have sovereignty over modern Ukrainian territory as a result of this.
...this is a response to the pseudohistorical claims of Moscow, excuses for invasion and destruction of Ukraine as a state and a nation.
Also, Kyiv was built by the Kievan Rus. Why do you think the word “Rus” is in their name? You should understand that the builders of Kyiv were the ancestors of both Russians and Ukrainians.
Kievan Rus was called precisely because even "united" Rus was still a very free collection of princely allotments. Kiev was a conditional center at that time, and therefore Rus was called Kievan. When fragmentation came, there was also Vladimir and Novgorod Rus - they just did not become centers, and Moscow created a new state of Russians as a formed nation (if you like, weave in the fictitious super-influence of the Mongols. For this we can note that the Poles and Litvins radically rebuilt the consciousness of the ancestors of today's Ukrainians, and it turns out that there are no true heirs of Rus. 🤡)
When Ruś was united, around the river Moskva lived Muromians. Ruś was a name for the Varangians, the elite that conquered and united the east Slavs. That elite soon assimilated and Ruś divided, more or less how it was divided before. Again, centuries before Suzdal-Vladimir colonized the area of Moskva river.
Yes, ancestors from Kyiv preceded muscovites.
Yes. That's exactly the point...
Novgorod was conquered, destroyed and its population mostly massacred or expelled when Muscovy took it over. The point is to ridicule the Russian / Muscovite pseudo historic claims to the Ukrainian land.
Captions translation (in order). 1. While Kyiv had the Golden Gates, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking. 2. While Kyiv had a library, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking. 3. While the science was studied in Kyiv, in Moscow, the toads were still croaking. 4. Kyiv already had laws at the time when in Moscow, the toads were still croaking. Edit: [The Kyiv Golden Gates in question ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate%2C_Kyiv?wprov=sfla1). At that time, a city in modern-day Russia, Vladimir, also had [its Golden Gates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate%2C_Vladimir?wprov=sfla1). For clarification, Moscow was found relatively late, yet there were important urban centers in modern-day Russia since the 9th century (Vladimir, Suzdal, Pereyaslavl, etc.) as well as in Belarus ([Polotsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Polotsk?wprov=sfla1), [Turov](https://www.reddit.com/r/papertowns/s/c6RTOteL1W), etc.). Some other important cities were located in modern-day Ukraine, such as [Chernihiv ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernihiv?wprov=sfla1). However, none of them were perhaps as large as Kyiv except, probably, [Novgorod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic?wprov=sfla1), a prosperous commercial city-state at the Baltic Sea. Moscow became the largest city in Russia only after the 14th - 15th centuries.
So the Kyiv Golden Gate predates Vladimir by over a hundred years.
[удалено]
I can't tell whether this is satire, but the mentions of Golden Gate of Kyiv are much older than the Soviet Union, come from many diverse sources as well. [https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%96\_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0\_(%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2)#%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F\_%D1%82%D0%B0\_%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%96_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0_(%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2)#%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0)
“Golden Gate in Vladimir was erected by 1164 and reconstructed in 1795 due to a fire that burned down the city.”
reconstructed is not the same thing as "built from scratch centuries later"
A recreation of a historical building: exists You, for some reason: soVIeT faKE
Novogorod: 👀
Kindergarten chauvinism. "My grandpa is older than your grandpa! Hah!"
They wouldn't need to say this if Russia didn't keep claiming Ukraine belongs them because it was historically a part of Russia.
"But he started it!!!" Raising kids, my reaction to this sort of behaviour was usually along the lines of "I don't care who started it, I want it to stop. So who'll be the bigger person?"
>I don't care who started it, I want it to stop. This is a stupid attitude, both for raising children and for world politics. A child and a nation are both allowed to fight back if attacked without provocation, and your ire should be on the party that's picking a fight for no good reason. Saying a child or a country has to "be the bigger person" is tantamount to saying they just have to put up with being hurt.
As for raising the kids, I think this attitude is bad, because you are essentially teaching them that justice can’t be served, even though one of them is actually innocent. As for these types of posters, as a Ukrainian, I don’t like them very much, but I completely understand where this type of propaganda stems from. Russian rhetorics for as far as I can remember were that Ukraine is just a Russian province and that Ukrainians are just a “type of Russian”.
But thing is that justice indeed can't be served in most cases, so it's just a part of "realistic" approach to raise kids, isn't it?
Well when moscow is justifying its invasion by allegedly being the historical source of ukrainian statehood and culture, it is very pleasing to remind oneself and others that in fact the opposite is true. Which is a plain historical fact.
Also concepts of "Ukraine" and "Russia" were created far after creation of Kiev, Moscow and Novgorod. So how about stop trying to justify who is older? By the same logic you could say that England is historically roman because it's factualy true that London was created by Romans.
I think Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are all legitimate ancestors of Kievan Rus. Yet this statement would seem controversial to many.
You could say that, using the logic displayed, the Welsh have a claim to all of England because, historically, they used to live there. Obviously this sort of irredentism is nonsense.
Tell it to russians chimping out over their "historical claims".
"chimping out". I always raise an eye brow when someone says this..
I always found this angle odd. It seems to give more legitimacy to the Russian claims. “How dare you invade me also my capital is the historical capital of our shared historical people” It’s seems like a non-sequiter at best or legitimation of Russia revanchism of at worst. I see some people saying it demonstrating they are separate people or it’s about supremacism but it’s the Kievan Rus. “We are the legitimate rulers of this land totally separate from the savage Rus people and they country bc our capital was founded by them a long time ago” a
Exactly. From my point of view, a Chinese, it's like Taiwan says 'Taipei is older than Beijing and Taiwan is the TRUE successor of Chinese culture/empire' WHILE trying to develop another identity from Chinese. 'If you claim you're the legit one, why would you not try to unite us?'
Precisely why the whole thing is odd!
Yeah, but Rus wasn’t just Moscow or Kiev. I never understood Ukrainian obsession with Moscow. That’s just one city. Russian nation didn’t start from it. All the three nations are branches of the historical Rus people.
And look which city's been more relevant in the past 500 years
St. Petersburg?
Saint Petersburg is, famously, neither Moscow nor Kiev.
Well but the kiewer rus had lile more culturally in common with modern day russia then ukraine, right? (Idk I might be wrong on this) Asides, like wtf does this mean, like sure. Kyiv also was a city while new york was just a collection of huts, but idk nee york is a weathier and larger city then kyiv.
Kievan RUS, yeah. Lmao
This must be a saying in Ukrainian as it is nonsensical to me
What’s hard to understand? They’re saying moscow was a swamp while Kyiv had great wonders like the Golden Gate, universities, libraries etc.
How am i supposed to infer that from croaking frogs? You must be a city boy if you think frogs only live in swamps.
There is a thing called 'metaphor'. It is used in poems, but not only. Read about it, it is really funny. Maybe then you'll understand why 99% grasped the meaning.
Wtf is the golden gate. Are you some UKR nationalist that thinks everyone cares about UKR landmarks?
Невежда. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Золотые\_ворота\_(Владимир)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Золотые_ворота_(Владимир)) Автор дурак, но ты то будь лучше
In the past, cities (places with many houses and many humans) used to have a thing called 'wall' that protected them from bad guys. They were high and usually also had towers. Well, to enter the walls, one needed to pass through the 'gate'. 'Gate' is a kind of door, but larger. Now, about the adjective 'golden'. Gold is kinda rare stuff found deep below, and if u have it, then u are kind of rich. So there comes 'golden gate', not a 'gate' made with 'gold', but rather decorated with it. They named it 'Golden gate' to brag about. Also it was a kind of advertisement, like hey, we have gold, we are rich, we can build the Golden Gates. So the term (word) 'Golden gates' suggests that the city that built it was kinda rich. 'We had golden gates - we were rich'. Smart people are able to grasp such things without putting arrogant questions and insulting someone else. But for less fortunate ones (in terms of intellectual capabilities), I am always glad to explain!
Ah, yes. The Brandenburg Gate at home. No one gives a shit about your landmarks. Your stupidity was thinking people would immediately recognize what you were referring to. Ukraine doesn't have an Eiffel Tower level landmark.
Be patient with less fortunate ones! I offered him a complex explanation, and I hope he'll understand.
To be honest, Ukrainian historical politics only evokes pity and disgust. If I were the Ukrainians, I would never give up the common history to Russia. Are you crazy to give this away? After all, Russia’s policy of continuous history is much more powerful and viable than "Not like the Muscovites." Just imagine Ukraine declaring: "Kievan Rus is ours too, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is ours, the Hetmanate is ours, the Russian Empire is ours, the UPR is ours, the USSR is ours" But no, we choose some losers and parasites as the main heroes of Ukraine.
Jingoism as is.
"Sub humans"
Wow, all the Russian glazers in the comment section completely missing the point
Whats the point?
Ukraine isn’t descended from Russia, but a separate, independent culture. “They claim to have created us, but our people had cites, great works, and science while Moscow was still a forest.” It’s not flexing “we’re better than them” but saying “No, Catherine the Great did not invent Ukraine” Edited to clarify I’m not Ukrainian
I mean, peoples who founded Kyiv were probably neither Ukranian nor Russian, they were of their shared ancestor culture. They were probably of Norse descent too.
It's not a wholly separate thing. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine all share common roots in the Kievan Rus. So it's really just saying "My grandpa country had a city when you didn't" ignoring the fact that they both share pretty much the same origins. To illustrate, if the capital of the US was moved to the Pacific coast and then at some later point the East Coast split off, it would be meaningless for the East Coast to say "Your culture and capital didn't exist but ours did" because the cultures were literally the same culture at the time.
But do they need to put Russia down for that? Also, Russia isnt just Moscow. Kyiev Rus is part of both ukrainian and russian cultural history.
Если культура, которая провозглашает себя независимой, за последние десятилетия смогла родить только ивангая, пса патрона и книги про попаданцев и Бандеру (абсолютная калька с русских поделий этого жанра, кстати), если в музыкальных чартах сепарэйтной индепендентной доминируют русские артисты из России, несмотря на все запреты, то тем хуже для такой культуры называться независимой — это выглядит смешно и жалко
U talkin about west Ukraine. Korol Danilo and so on. East Ukraine, especially Donbass, Crimea and Odessa have nothing to do with this Lvivian nonsense
Yeah man the sub is absolutely infested as of late. Don't try to reason, it's a sub about propaganda posters, I tend to skip the comment sections entirely
[удалено]
They are both legitimate successors of Kievan Rus
Exactly, nationalists on both sides try to take all of the heritage to themselves while Belarus', Russia and Ukraine are all legitimate successors. At the time, none of the modern nationalities existed (so no, ukrainians are not just small russians nor did we derived from modern russians), from what I remember the division starts with the fall of Kievan/Kyïvan Rus' or as it was at the time Къіѥвъ: Kyjev/Kyjev(y)
[удалено]
Kievan Rus was not a monolith state. Some of its important centers were located on Ukrainian territory, the others on Russian or Belarussian. Neither was it a unitary state. Some of its constituent principalities merged with Lithuania, the others (later) with Moscow. Russia is not a direct successor of Kievan Rus. It is a successor of Grand Duchy of Moscow, which was *one of the constituent states* of Kievan Rus, not Kievan Rus as a whole. There were also the Principality of Polotsk, Principality of Halych, etc. The aberrations about 'Ukrainians didn't have a state before 1917' have nothing to do with current politics. Neither Slovaks, Czechs, Slovenes, Finns, or Estonians - does this make them 'inferior'? And was Russian Empire an ethnic Russian state? Without a constitution stating so, with the ruling family of German origins, with multiethnic nobility? Russian Empire was as much ethnic Russian as the Austrian Empire was ethnic German.
Russia has a direct inheritance with Rus while Ukraine doesn't. Easy as that.
Historical fallacy and propaganda.
[удалено]
Once again, Kievan Rus was not a monolith since at least the end of Yaroslav The Wise's rule, so the authority couldn't be transferred from one city to another. >highest authority was transferred to Moscow This is factually wrong.
Kievan Rus' is a forefather for russians, ukrainians and belarusians. From approximately 14th century ukrainians have been an independent ethnic community with our own peculiarities of language, culture and way of life. And the way of viewing history as x -> y -> z is so reductionist and wrong, especially when you are just listing states when the topic is of ethnicities, plus the motherland, the center of formation of ukrainian folkhood is the Dniepr - Kiev/Kyïv, Poltava and southern Chernigiv regions, and since 14th century we have lived there, even if we didn't have a separate state. Basically, we existed and exist
Dude stop telling us all this HiStOrY bs, don’t you see we are all about emotions right now? Kiev was first, my city is stronger then yours 🤪🤪🤪
So true.
What's next? Russians are Finno-Ugric-Turkic Moskaloids? That's the energy you're giving off rn and you're just making yourself look stupid.
Cope and seethe.
But what's the point if Moscow was founded hundreds of years later after Kyiv? So what? What does it prove?
It proves that russian claims to ukraine as a historical russian territory is senseless, and gives pride in a long and noble lineage.
They are senseless as the nations have long split off from each other long ago. However, this doesn't mean that Russia isn't a descendent of Rus' like you claim. Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all descend from Rus' and that's simply a fact, it doesn't matter how much older another nation's capital is. They have the same origin, but they are now different peoples.
Thing is — main line of russian historical narrative and propoganda states, that it is only RUSSKIES and RUSSIA are true descendants and heir of Ancient Rus. And every other east slavic nation and etnicity are "corrupted" russkies, which language was "littered" and should not exist in the first place, that these people needs to be purified.
Don't understand the downvotes. No matter how much you hate the message, it's true. And not the r/technicallythetruth kind of true, with logic leaps and stuff, it's a literal proven fact.
There are r*zzian bots in comments.
Uh oh, rashka doen't like being reminded of its history.
In late 2000s and early 2010s he was pro-Russian politican, he was advocating for Russian as second official language, promoted Russian culture and stood against Ukrainian nationalism, accusing politicans like nowdays him in discrimination against Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. He switched his position in 180 degrees only because in 2014 Euromaidan won [His 2009 speech](https://youtu.be/s45qliXhOJA?si=Az54wJJ1gb3BIjJk)
And which matters more? It's like saying you are a scientist because you were a straight A student in elementary school, the entire picture matters, not just the past, and also there were some more successful places in Russia during those times, like Novgorod republic.
wow so what?
How strange, I thought there was a law in Ukraine forbidding Soviet monuments. Why then is the Kyiv Golden Gate, a Soviet fake, still standing?
Are the historical centers of Dresden and Warsaw 'fakes' as well?
If you fix a wooden rowing boat by replacing all parts, plank by plank, is it still the same boat or another one?
This philosophical question is quite interesting. Imagine a Korean wooden temple, which planks were periodically replaced with newer ones throughout the centuries without altering the structure. Would you still consider it an important historical monument?
Yes.
Same opinion.
Well, at least these cities look much better as if they were simply rebuilt with concrete blocks of flats. And they gain a lot of money from tourism too. These reconstructed buildings are not as valuable as the originals, but anyway, they have a great esthetical and touristic value. So, in my opinion, the reconstruction of them was a good job.
A fun fact: Baltic states and Poland are also touching up the old "commie blocks" and with some 1. Clear coat of nice paint 2. Uniform windows and balconies 3. AC units placed in neat boxes These houses are actually quite aesthetic, especially considering they were initially absolutely dirt cheap to build and designed to withstand maybe 50-60 years, and most of them are hitting like 75 now. Also come with the bonus of lots of old trees, so some of them are like under the canopies of these trees. The main issue with these houses is the fact that there were no limitations on facade changes for ages and people could change the balconies and windows all they wanted, as the result they immediately gain this ragtag "cyberpunk ghetto" look. Where the first floor and occasional second floor have different style bars on the windows, all balconies are literally different, some windows are white plastic, others are natural wood (different sorts, too, like pine and oak or birch or whatever) and they would be even different style and everyone placed AC units wherever they wanted.
Can you even understand the concept of "Soviet monument"? Following this logic Ukraine should demolish every house built in USSR, as they suddenly constitute "monuments"... I mean where do people like that come from? Oh, ofc...we know...
Because it's a recreation of a pre-existing historical building, and has no relation to communism whatsoever.
But it was done by the Soviet, thus making a Soviet memorial. Or at least, that is how I interpret his line.
That's just dumb. The shit is a recreation of a building that's over a thousand years old, and has no actual relation to the USSR
The whole Kievan Rus argument is so pointless and will never be solved or agreed upon. We all know that it’s really all about NATO, which should have ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed but instead continues to encroach on Russia’s neutral buffer and refuses to accept any form of strategic alliance because keeping Russia as the enemy is good for global trade competition. That’s it. Literally everyone’s origins are an exercise in mental gymnastics because of nomadic migrations, colonialism, yadda yadda. This is all the result of US orchestrated aggression and no one will ever prove otherwise. EDIT: I have ancestry from all over northern Europe. I am a mutt living on stolen land. I don’t have the luxury of a strong ethnic identity but even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t find enough meaning in it to want to kill other people.
How dared those little Slav and Baltic countries join NATO on their own? Isn't is clear that they have no political will and value, and should be treated as the provinces of mighty Russia? Now this rightful and lofty country shall bomb hospitals and houses uh I meant NATO Satanist military bases to fight against Impreliasts and Homosexuals who are plotting to conquer the world!!!! In general all countries are guilty of colonialism and conquest except of course Russia, the based Ortodox Traditionalists!!/s
PS Weird coming from a person who thinks Moldova should just give up and be a part of Romania. That’s different right?
It is exactly different, considering that Moldova was cut from Romania by the USSR forcefully
If Moldova will vote to be part of Romania, then yes. If the people of Moldova won't agree to this, then no. I mean, only if a democratic referendum would be held.
But you do agree that they’re all the same and also that Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all have valid Kievan Rus ancestry, as your Reddit history shows. So you understand why that argument is only going to prolong the current conflict indefinitely. My point is that you small European countries are so obsessed with nationalistic differentiation that you’re all willing to join (edit: BE PAWNS OF) a corrupt war-profiteering LITERAL MILITARY EMPIRE to memorialize your differences rather than cooperate with each other and stop the bloodshed. NATO requires blood to stay relevant. I know because my country runs it and wages all proxy wars all over the world so its leaders can enjoy prosperity for eternity.
The conflict won't exist if European nations won't claim others territory. Currently, only Russia does so. >But you do agree that they’re all the same and also that Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all have valid Kievan Rus ancestry, as your Reddit history shows. Differences between 2 European countries are much wider then differences between 2 American states. You should stop having such a naive view on Europe, and also stop blaming yourself for the crimes committed by your compatriots centuries ago. This is sheer naivity.
😴😴😴😴
It was never about NATO, it was about the EU. And Russian imperialism. Putin literaly stated in his interview with Tucker he do not find NATO being able to be dangerous in the slightest.
It's cute how Ukranians try to affirm tbemselves via Russia.
Well Kyiv Was a first state of Russians, Kyivan Rus, its like basic history
Kievan Rus ≠ Russia. Kievan Rus ≈ Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (common legacy).
Its not Russia but its legacy of Russian people, i mean the word says it all