Москва «охмуряє» нового президента старими байками

(I apologize for inclusion of this semi-literate, polonized Russian mess being presented. It is the typical Goebbels-esque iteration of "Ukrainian race theory," where Russians are dismissed as "Asiatic mongrels" who stole "Ukrainian 'Aryan' civilization"--NAZI arrogance and illiteracy, fuelling the fire of "ukrainoznavstvo." I'm putting it forward with comments to begin to once and for all burn this scat in effigy and bury it as intellectual pornography and base, racist stupidity. The "ethnographer" who wrote this piece seems to be unaware of so very many historical facts that he needs to be called on this. Why this is important is because this piece is emblematic of the entire "Ukrainian nationalist" movement, the fuel of their neo-NAZI ideology and hate, and is exactly what has been regurgitated by them for over one hundred fifty years to capitalize on people's naievete and their lack of awareness of Russian history. Punching it in the face is the beginning of ending "Ukrainian nationalism." The battle is joined and this will no longer stand!-R)http://cerkva.info/2010/03/01/moskva_okhmuriaie.html

Москва «охмуряє» нового президента старими байками Огляд ЗМІ, Москва і Київ

(A "baika" is a fairytale. The author is suggesting that the Great Russian constituency as part of Kievan Rus' and its inheritance of the culture and civilization of Kievan Russia is a fairytale. Let's read together and see if he makes his case or provides us with another "baika" to consider.-R)


Візит Московського патріарха Кирила в Україну на інаугурацію нового президента Януковича, відомого свого показною набожністю, не обійшовся без політичної пропаганди. Зводилася до уже чергової спроби «примазатися» до українського історичного спадку. «Наступниками святого благовірного рівноопостального Великого князя Володимира є братні народи, які зв’язані єдиною історичною традицією», - заявив московський патріарх, відзначивши, що це «складові частини єдиної святої Русі».

(The Patriarch is indeed justified in basing himself on the foundation of Kievan Rus' and the Orthodoxy of St. Vladimir, but what of the "Ukrainians" and the "KP" and its existence as an organ of encroachment on the canonical and historical Orthodox Church in cooperation with the UNIA?! After all, St. Vladimir HIMSELF founded the Church that became the Moscow Patriarchate in 988, while the "KP" comes into existence in 1992, emanating from the "Lipkiwskyj" Renovationist Synod which "consecrated" its hierarchs by the "laying on of hands of presbyters" in 1918. While this "synod" was supported by the Bolsheviks until 1936 to "combat the canonical church" and by the NAZIs, who "regularized" some of its consecrations to promote a "greater Reich," this organization WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED AS ORTHODOX OR CANONICAL BY ANY CHURCH IN THE ORTHODOX WORLD (INCLUDING THE CHURCH OF POLAND WHICH CONDEMNED THE NAZI "KHEIRITONIAs" AFTER WWII) and specifically falls under myriad anathemas for schism and heresy, including renovationism, praying and worshipping with heretics and phyletism. The "KP" is a totally uncanonical structure having no connection whatsoever with Kievan Rus'. So how is it such a heretically RENOVATIONIST (Just look at its hierarchs and their white collars) and crypto-Uniate samochinoje sborische DARES to attack the Russian Church founded by St. Vladimir himself to justify their schism from the Church he introduced to RUS'?! Let's look at their position and "history" together. I think the "baika" we will discover is the "ukrainoznavska baika."-R)

Почнемо з того, що сам київський князь Володимир, напевно, дуже здивувався б, коли б його назвали «Владімір». Усі вітчизняні літописи пишуть його ім’я як «Володымер», тобто з українською вимовою і повноголоссям. Навіть у заліських (російських) билинах, записаних у ХІХ столітті, про «залі шан» на службі Київського князя, ім’я київського князя звучить як «Владимир».

("Volodymyer" is not at all the polonized "Volodymyr" the "Ukrainian nationalists" put forward. The author doesn't seem to understand he is arguing against his own polonized slave dialect. For if deviations from the original Russian Slavonic are strictly prohibited and illegitimate, polonizations of it are even moreso to be rejected.

The author seems unaware that in old Slavic languages "polnoglasije" and "kratkoglasije" existed, where the roots "Vlad-" and "Volod-" were interchangeable. That is why you had a city named "VLADIMIR" in the north in the year 1100 AD, constituent of Kievan Rus' and subsequently ITS CAPITOL, and you had the city "Volodymyer Volinsky" in Vohlynia AT THE SAME TIME. The author didn't seem to get that far in his readings.

Moreover, St. Vladimir was a VARANGIAN, a Scandinavian prince, meaning he was quite used to variations of his name and even had a Scandinavian name. In Holy Baptism, he was christened "Vasily" (Not the "Ukrainian" "Wasyl") while St. Olga had been baptized as "Jelena" (Not the "Ukrainian" "Olena") and her Scandinavian name was "Helga."

"Kiev" was spelled "K-I-E-V" and not some bastardized polonized STUPIDITY of "Kyiv" or whatever these "Ukrainian ethnographers" have put forward in their unread vandalism. St. Vladimir would have found "Kyiv" either a foreign appelation or the name of a foreign city, not his own.

What is most important is that St. Vladimir WOULD NOT have had the region around Kiev termed "Ukraina," ie an uncivilized frontier territory, as it had begun to reach cultural heights during his reign, and he would have been offended had Rus' been termed one vast "ukraina," for it would have meant that his nation was being decried as a "barbarian satrapy," while the Kiev of his period was a cosmopolitan European center, beginning to rival Constantinople.

Rus' WAS NEVER CALLED "ukraina" while "ukrainy" existed on the fringes of Russian civilization, in the very Finnish areas this author is baiting for instance.

The term "ukraina" was used for outlying territories, which were sparsely populated and barbarous and WAS NEVER USED in reference to territories around Kiev or even the "Ukrainian" territories which made up Kievan Rus'. The territory was called Rus' with the typonomic adjective used to describe itself as "RUSSKAJA," "Russky," Russkoje,"(NEVER "Rusinskaja" or "Ruthenian") the same as in modern "Literary Russian," with the people calling themselves "RUSSKIJE" and "RUSICHI." None of this is found in the author's presentation nor does he indicate that these historical forms survive in modern literary Russian to the present day while they are ABSENT and/or grammatically compromised in "Ukrainian." Curiously, the author omits these facts.-R)

Напевно, ще більше київський князь Володимир здивувався б, що місто, яке народилося через двісті років після нього на землях фіно-угорського племені меря, претендує на ім’я Русі.

(St. Vladimir had been Prince of Novgorod--why would he have found it odd that Novgorod made pretense to the historic patrimony of Rus' or that the territories of its princes would be included as Rus'?! To make such a stupid argument is to argue that St. Vladimir and Novgorod were not from Rus' and that these territories were "Finno-Ugric" in constitution; however, these territories included more of the Slavic territory of Kievan Rus' than its modern day "Ukrainian" constituent parts, which leaves one wondering if the author had ever even seen a map of Kievan Rus' or read its history and how the Varangian Rurik established it as a Varangian kingdom in NOVGOROD before travelling to Kiev?!-R)

Як відомо, ядро, з якого розвинулася російська держави - Ростово-Суздальське князівство - існувало акуратно в межах племінних територій фіно-угорського племені меря. Російський історик Корсаков писав: «Ростово-Суздальська область при Юрії Довгорукому цілком співпадала з землею народу меря, поширюючись на північ до Білоозера, вверх за течією Мсти, Мологи, Костроми, Унжа, а на півдні обмежучись Клязьмою і Москвою-рікою».

(Actually, the Great Russian legacy as successor to Kievan Rus' is not at all established from Vladimir Suzdal, whose princes and retinues had incidentally migrated from Kiev, but from the historical patrimony of St. Alexander Nevsky of NOVGOROD, whose descendents became the Princes (and Tsars) of Moscow. Vladimir-Suzdal had been sacked during the Mongol conquest and faded as Novgorod rose as the successor to Kievan Rus'. Surely, they have the life of St. Alexander Nevsky available in the Ukraine?! How is it the author is so ignorant as to not know this?!-R)

Російські історики ХІХ століття, зокрема Ключевський, намагалися говорити про слов’янських переселенців на майбутні російські землі, які проникали «тоненькими струмочками на фінські землі», але так і не змогли пояснити факту, що жодних літописних даних про переселення слов’ян не збереглося, а також того факту, що ці «слов’янські переселенці» не заснували жодних нових населених пунктів.

(The Chronicles themselves indicate this so they, the Great Russian historians, indeed proved it. It was proved by the fact that the capitol of Kievan Rus' had prior to the Mongol conquest become Vladimir Suzdal, where Kievan nobility and princes and their retinues, ecclesiastical personages, those engaged in commerce and workers and slaves migrated from one capitol to another. Moreover, the morphing of the area around Kiev from Rus' to "ukraina" roughly a century after the Mongol conquest indicates great migration away from this city. After all, how does a cosmopolitan center become an uninhabited and lawless frontier? Where do the people go? The fact that frontier "ukraina" comes into existence indicates they have left. So, the facts seem to stand for themselves. How is it the author seems not to understand them?-R)

Становлення Росії пояснює, куди зникли з білого світу чудь, ливь, водь, ямь, чухна, весь, пермь, меря, мурома, мокша, мещера, югра, печора і т.д.? І чому лише за 13 років між двома переписами 1989 і 2002 року в Росії одразу майже на чверть зменшилася кількість представників фіно-угорських народів? Тому, Росія є радше слов’яномовною країною, а не слов’янською.

(Finno-Ugric peoples were regarded as "Aryans" by the NAZIs along with the "Ukrainians," at least according to Himmler who equated the Estonian and Galician SS divisions. While Finland was an allied state and "partner" of the Reich which was held in "highest esteem" as an Aryan brother according to Von Roebbentropp. So how is it Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia are any less "Aryan"? Accent or the fact that some have been assimilated into Slavic culture? To argue thus is to state that the Slavic culture of Kiev is inferior to Finno-Ugric culture. The NAZIs did indeed make this point, but it is strange coming from someone who claims to be a descendent of Kievan Rus' /yet strangely isn't a Russian?!/.

Moreover, Kievan Rus' was a VARANGIAN STATE with a Russian Slavic culture which became ascendant, of Greco-Slavic Orthodoxy /Byzantium-Bulgaria/. This state was composed of Finno-Ugric, Scandinavian, Slavic, Avar, Alan, Bulgar, Khazar, Sarmatian, Scythian, Baltic, etc. peoples at the outset. While Novgorod was known for being much less inclined to the inclusion of non-Slavic peoples than Kiev was. Where Kiev was known for the mixing of all the populations of Rus'. It is even written in the Chronicles how by the time of Grand Prince Jaroslav the Wise that the Slavs of Rus' and the Varangians and the Chud had begun to coalesce and "became one people." Grand Prince Jaroslav dies in 1054 AD. So within less than 200 years, a unified multi-racial state had emerged with a Kievan axis.

Who were the princes of the Chud, who inhabited the "ukrainy" of the Kievan period? They were russified Varangians, while the Russian Orthodox church and the Russian state is what had provided the Finno-Ugric assimilates (among other populations) their letters. So the argument becomes that Finno-Ugric people are not legitimate descendents of Rus' even though they were part of its citizenry and became in all effects Slavs and were indistinguishable from Slavs on the basis of their race? Then how does one contend with Scandinavian-Teutonic princes and aristocracy and foreign ecclesiastical personages, non Slavic in race, who made up the upper echelons of Kievan Rus'? Are they then non-Slavic and "non Russian" bastardized peoples as well?

Well, this ignorant and incoherent race theory hinges on what prejudices it ratifies and when it wants to arbitarily ratify them in its lack of standard and reflects unhistorical understandings which exclude almost the entire non-"Ukrainian" Slavic territories of Rus' and their inhabitants, who at least in the case of Novgorod, were initially known as peoples hostile to foreigners, moreso than the Slavs of cosmopolitan Kiev. These territories constitute a greater part of the territory of Kievan Rus' (and make up the bulk of European Russia today) than do the "Ukrainian" territories. They are, incidentally, SLAVIC in race.

Moreover, one is left baffled as to how expansion of Kievan Rus' meant that the populations who were absorbed were not Russian?! Why, the entire southern steppe, modern day "Ukraine" was such a hodgepodge of Indo-European and Asiatic peoples during the era who were absorbed as Russians according to the Chronicles.

Moreover, how is it that the clear cultural and religious and state and linguistic migration north, where all these institutions of Kievan Rus' are clearly retained and historically constitute the emergent state are somehow "unRussian" and Finno-Ugric when they lack totally a Finno-Ugric character but display clearly the patrimony of Kievan Rus'?! How can the possible admixture of some Finno-Ugric peoples in the North in any way disparage the admittedly ascendant Russian patrimony here which continued in uninterrupted succession from Kievan times, especially since those Finno-Ugric peoples were entirely assimilated and had been constituents of Kiev and assimilates of Kievan Rus' in Kievan times?! Is Kievan Rus' then illegitimately Slavic in its multi-racial constitution?!

This is where this neo-NAZI "Ukrainian" race theory begins to collapse in on itself in its stupidity.

One can also add to it the fact that "Ukrainian" nationalists today refuse to use the title "Rus', Russky, Russkaya" in reference to themselves, but ratify use of the term "Ukraina, Ukrainska, Ukrainsky" in this taxonomic position precisely to note their rejection of the Russian patrimony. Historically, these populations referred to themselves as "Rusiny, Russkije, Malorosijanje." Yet these ethnic demarcations which indicate kinship to Kievan Rus' are now set aside for a foreign demarcation which in Kievan times indicated an uncivilized frontiersman.

The differences in language between "Ukrainian" and the Russian of Kiev are also apparent. Taxonomic spellings, long vs. short adjectives and the degree of Polish/W Slavic terminologies and modes of expression are rife in modern "Ukrainian," in a magnitude of revolutionary departure from its Middle Ruthenian parent. While comparisons of old Russian to literary Russian show a natural evolution of language unstressed by foreign occupation and oppression. Literary Russian develops as a native tongue, unpolonized and undefaced by the linguistics and grammars of foreign oppressors. So too historically Great Russian culture, which retains a more native character, even amongst Finno-Ugric assimilates, than amongst Russian populations enslaved by other Slavs and foreigners, ie "Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Galician and Carpatho Rusyn" populations.

While the degree of Finno-Ugric assimilation is totally exaggerated here as these very same Finno-Ugric peoples EXIST TO THIS DAY, unassimilate, in their own villages, in Great Russia, ONE THOUSAND YEARS LATER. Thus, the argument of Russification (from Kievan Rus') even collapses in incomprehension here. Surely, the author has read more than an UPA tract in putting this illiterate scat forward?!-R)


Очевидно, що росіяни як народ виникли в результаті мовної асиміляції перелічених вище фіно-угорських народностей. Визнання цієї простої і очевидної речі не несе жодного негативного контексту – це проста констатація факту.

(How is it that the Mordva, Estonians, Karelians, Finns, Zyrians, etc. exist to this day as their own peoples in their own villages with their own languages, unassimilate?! How is it if there are those who are so totally assimilate as Russian Slavs that they are in any way inferior to those who may have more Slavic DNA especially since these very same Finno-Ugric peoples /and other peoples/ were constituents of a multi-ethnic Kievan Rus' which was much more cosmopolitan and open in Kiev than in the North at Novgorod?! Total lack of logic, stupidity.-R)

Зрештою, фіно-угорські народи, на час підпорядкування Києву, уже мали власні міста (Ерзянь(Рязань), Ростов, Суздаль). Відносини князя Володимира Великого з різнорідними племенами на території сучасної Росії були переважно військовими. Як пише літопис, «Сього ж року (981) і в’ятичів він переміг, і наклав на них данину од плуга, як і отець його брав. У літо 982. Піднялися оружно в’ятичі. І пішов на них Володимир, і переміг їх удруге». В’ятичі і радимичі – племена польського походження – разом із численними фінно-угорськими народами згодом стали складовими російського етносу.

(So Vjatichi and Radmichi are Western Slavs, Poles, who lived in the area of the Don and the Volga and who came to constitute the people of Rus' in that region during the reign of St. Vladimir? Even if this claim can be shown to be accurate, this simply is stating that the Slavs of Vladimir-Suzdal were cosmopolitan and that there were Finno-Ugric constituencies there. Such was the case in Kiev even prior to St. Vladimir. How does this in any way reflect the xenophobia of Novgorod at the time and also the one Russian state which forms under Grand Prince Jaroslav the Wise in uniting disparate peoples under one prince, one Church, one language, one culture afterwards as the Chronicles indicate?! Is the author really this stupid as to neglect the fact that even Prince Jaroslav was prince in Novgorod before coming to Kiev and that it in turn was its own purely Russian Slavic phenomenon, distinct from Vladimir-Suzdal, but later joined with it in reviving the Russian state years after the Mongol conquest?!

Was there Polish and Finno-Ugric culture, religion, language, law, anything resulting from the conquest and inclusion of these peoples into Kievan Rus' that differentiated them from Rus'?! In contradistinction, what is the degree of foreign/polonic vandalism to "Ukrainian" culture, religion, language, law, everything?! Can the author really be this unread?!-R)

Літописець відгукується про них без політкоректності: «У літо 984. Пішов Володимир на радимичів. А був у нього воєвода Вовчий Хвіст, і послав перед собою Володимир Вовчого Хвоста. І стрів він радимичів на ріці Піщані, і переміг Вовчий Хвіст радимичів. Тому й дражнять руси радимичів, кажучи: "Піщанці од вовчого хвоста втікають". Були ж радимичі із роду ляхів і, прийшовши, тут поселилися. І платять вони данину Русі, і возять повіз і до сьогодні».

(Even in this account, it becomes clear that these people become subject peoples of Kievan Rus' and russify willingly.

This is prior to Grand Prince Jaroslav the Wise. Whereas, the Rus' during this period in the Chronicles refer principally to the Varangians, Scandinavians, where the various Slavic tribes still remained disparate but were being united under one Russian center. Is the author totally serious in purposefully omitting these facts? To assert that the inhabitants of Vladimir-Suzdal during the reign of St. Vladimir were really Poles and Finns?! Even if they were, St. Vladimir was a Scandinavian, and Poles and Finns, amongst others, were also part of the population of Kiev at the time. Was Kiev any less Russian as a result?! No, the fact that the "Russian" identity passing from Scandinavians to Slavs and other inhabitants of Kievan Rus' signifies that it was not racial, nor even national/ethnic in appelation, but ecclesiastical, linguistic, cultural and already proto-imperial. This is what these tidbits are stating ABOUT KIEVAN times and rule, asserting the RUSSIAN IMPERIAL modality and stating its legitimacy.-R)

Те ж саме стосується й «єдиної Русі», яка, на думку патріарха Кирила, включає території України, Білорусі і Росії. УП вже наводила цитати, які свідчать про те, що до 15 століття московські князі й не думали зватися Руссю, а остаточно відмовилися від своєї власної назви на користь штучного еллінізованого чужомовного слова «Росія» лише у 18 столітті.

(From the time of St. Alexander Nevsky, the title of Grand Prince of Kiev and all of Rus' had passed from Vladimir-Suzdal /from whence it had passed from Kiev/ to him and his descendents and the title was used uninterruptedly along with calls for "the gathering of the Russian lands" and "Third Rome" ideology. It is even inscribed on bells and whatnot gifted by the Princes of Moscow to the Church. Thus, the author "proved" the lack of use of the word "Rus'" like he has proven all of his "facts" in this piece: BY IGNORING THEM AND CONJURING incoherent propaganda which constitutes nothing more than some quack lie which exists in total anomie from history.-R)

Досить часто народи намагаються привласнити більш авторитетну історію. І в цьому немає нічого дивного чи небаченого. Так, германці ледь не тисячу років намагалися називатися Священною Римською імперією, попри те, що внесок германців у Римську історію насамперед полягав у тому, що германські племена зруйнували Рим. Румуни також намагаються прив’язати свою історію до стародавнього Риму і нащадків римських легіонерів, хоча історичні джерела повідомляють, що 271 року н. е. війська і колонії римлян під натиском варварів залишили сучасну Румунію, і там лишилися тільки місцеві латинізовані даки.

Виходячи з усього вищенаведеного, історія Росії має таке ж відношення до історії Русі, як, скажімо, історія Анголи і Мозамбіку до історії Португалії. Чи історія Індії – до історії Великої Британії, чи, навіть, до індіанців.

(It seems, however, that Novgorod exists in non-interrupted succession from Kievan Rus' to this day and is the progenitor of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which unites the Great Russian lands and then in reunion with Little Russian and White Russian lands comes to constitute the Russian Empire.

Such living witness and ontological reality of the survival of Kievan Rus' without recz pospolita and Unia and its slavery constitutes the survival of the civilization of Kievan Rus' undoubtedly, moreso, than "Ukrainian" attempts at its modern day polonization in their construct of a polonizing framework and psudomorphic cultural enslavement alloyed with Unia as contemporary and revolutionary loose claimant expressions of it, which even patently deny its simple taxonomy and its historical spellings and grammar and religion.

Indeed, Kievan Rus' is historically, culturally, religiously, territorially, etc. preserved and evolves from Novgorod and its heirs, while having to be liberated in the "Ukraine" by these very same heirs of Novgorod.

Thus, Rus' and Russia are easily identified as one, but such an association with the "Ukraine" which has come to stand for the polonization and Uniatization of Kievan Russian identity, etc. becomes much more strained and, yes, analogous to Romania calling itself by the historical name of the Byzantine Empire and expected to be regarded as such or an "heir."

The "Ukraine" through Polish enslavement and utter debasement of its Russian populations and institutions indeed becomes a pseudomorphosed and bastardized claimant state, especially in light of the fact that the North naturally and uninterruptedly observed and developed the ontology of Kievan Rus' without foreign domination NATIVELY. One can read and experience Kievan Rus' in Russia, but "ukraina" by its very name excludes it and historically states only its frontiers and uncivilized aspects under foreign influences. Indeed.-R)

Можливо, патріарх Кирило під «наступництвом» за князем Володимиром мав на увазі причетність Росії до Володимирового хрещення 988 року? Між тим, християнізація північних околиць Київської державивідбулася через кілька століть після Володимира Великого. Приміром, через століття після охрещення Києва на майбутніх московських землях язичники вбили Леонтія-мученика, а через півтора століття - Кукшу Печерського, святого Києво-Печерської лаври.

(While "Ukrainian" nationalists cite the worship of "dazboh" survives to this day in Galicia and the SS division even tried to incorporate some of its imagery?!

Pagan survivals or even pagan populations do not in any way undo the fact that Kievan Rus' became an Orthodox state during the reign of St. Vladimir where the Chronicles clearly indicate that by the time of Grand Prince Jaroslav the Wise that "Rus' had totally been united in Orthodoxy."

Moreover, the arrival of St. Peter of Vohlynia from the West and the transfer of the see of Kiev to Moscow clearly indicate the degree to which Russian Orthodox Christianity had not only attained Kievan standards but became so inculcated amongst the populace that the saintly Metropolitan moved the Kievan Metropolia to the North, which was far less pagan than the Lithuania from which he fled, which ruled the "Ukrainian" and Byelorussian territories of Kievan Rus' at the time.

How is it the author also missed this?!-R)

Цікава тема для патріарха - один український літератор порахував, що рівно через 666 років після цієї світлої події сталася інша подія – Переяславська рада 1654 року.

(The Baptism of Russia equated with the beginnings of the reunion of the Russian lands. How appropriate! Both holy endeavours. May we finally reunite all the Russian lands in this century, four hundred years after Perejaslavl!

While it is curious how a spiritul descendent of those who wore swastikas, skulls, "SS" markings still persists in the occult imagery of Himmler and the Thule Society.-R)

Факт у тому, що на території Росії ніякого утвердження християнства в 988 році не було. Цей процес розтягнувся на століття. Ще й через століття після хрещення киян, воєвода київського князя Ян Вишатич, при зборі данини на території сучасного Нечорнозем’я, десятками виловлював місцевих шаманів. Через століття після хрещення Русі навіть у Новгороді, який міцно контролювався Києвом, син Великого Київського князя Святослава Ярославича Гліб змушений був вдаватися до суворих заходів проти язичників, за якими пішло все місто. Через 108 років після хрещення Русі в Суздальській землі було лише дві церкви, у той час як в одному Києві їх були сотні.

(Russia and Kievan Rus' were one and the same and there was no dichotomy between Novgorod and Suzdal or Suzdal and Kiev or Kiev and Novgorod, but if the author wants to introduce this fiction, then that means that Moscow, since it was founded by the descendents of St. Alexander Nevsky, then in reality becomes the Kievan patrimony BY HIS ADMISSION and also states that he is ignorantly ignoring the Novgorodian patrimony of Moscow to state his piece of unlettered and poor propaganda. That's all this stupidity states.

Likewise, the useage of "Ukrainian nationalists" to state Rus', Russky, Russkaja during this period really means "Ruthenia and Ruthenian" would in the same way apply to Novgorod and its descendent, Moscow, stating that they too were "Ruthenian" as they clearly constituent of the terminology, making an ahistorical distinction which inaccurately really provides no differentiation. /There was no "Ruthenia" until 1595 until the terminology was invented in Rome and used on a medal to commemorate the beginning of Unia./

Again, "Ukrainian nationalists" celebrate the survivals of "ancient Ukrainian" paganism and their Galician SS division flirted with it. But none of this contradicts the clearly stated texts of the Chronicles which state that by the time of Jaroslav the Wise Rus' had become an Orthodox nation where pagan populations may have existed, but were seen as unRussian. The Chronicles emphatically detail how these populations (Slavic and non) were being "civilized" by acceptance of Russian Orthodoxy.

Conversely, Litovskaya Rus' remains an officially pagan kingdom until its rulers renounce their Orthodox Baptism and subject their lands to Poland in Commonwealth. Does this make those Russian lands under occupation any less Orthodox?! Well, St. Peter of Vohlynia felt so and transferred the See of Kiev to the North, but no, these Russian lands were Orthodox even though ruled by an officially "Orthodox-izing" PAGAN state. Surely, they have some sort of history books in the "KP"?!-R)

Що є князь Володимир для України - зрозуміло. Заслуги його безсумнівні, а результати діяльності очевидні й досі. Саме Володимир запровадив в Києві християнство. Саме до держави часів Володимира в усі часи апелювали ідеологи української держави. «Як славні предки наші за великого Київського князя Володимира воювали морем Царгород, так і нащадки їхні на човнах сміливо те ж діють» , - писав у XVII столітті один з них про напади козаків на Стамбул. Саме за часів Володимира закон в Україні став писаним, як у цивілізованих країнах. Саме від тризуба Володимира і Рюриковичів загалом веде свій початок нині чинний український герб. Цей герб Рюриковичів, до речі, на Говерлі зруйнували члени «Євразійського союзу молоді» кремлівського ідеолога Олександра Дугіна. Сам же Дугін називає московського патріарха Кирила «ідеалом православного архіпастиря».

("Ukrainian state" during the time of St. Vladimir?! Where?! How?! There wasn't even mention of such a "Ukrainian state" in Austrian Galicia in the 1870s when these quack ideas were sprung. While the title of the Chronicles is clear: POVEST VREMENNYKH LJET OTKUDA jest poshla RUSSKAJA ZEMLJA. We read the "Russian land" here clearly, but no mention of anything "Ukrainian," as "ukrainian" terminology means historically REGIONAL "uncivilized and sparsely populated frontier." During the time of St. Vladimir "ukraina" was usually used in reference to the very Finno Ugric lands this author is racially dismissing. What in the world is he talking about? Where did he get this "Ukrainian baika" from?!

In the sixteenth century, there was no "Istanbul" just as there was no "Ukrainian nation" a Cossack wrote about, while the "tryzub" had passed to the Lithuanians and was used by them to oppress the Russian populations of recz pospolita under blue and yellow colors. What in the world is the author talking about?! Is this supposed to be history or just a "Ukrainian baika."

During the era, what became the brotherhoods, under the aegis of the Kiev Caves Lavra cultivated the notions of "Jedinaya Rus' Svjataja" and "Russkaja zemlja," no "ukraines."

While during this period, the title "Rosija mikra," ie "Little Russia" garnered from CONSTANTINOPLE to distinguish a Russian metropolia, minor to the historical Kievan one preserved in the North as "megalo," ie "Great," was established. After Lublin this Constantinopolitan taxonomy of "Rosija Mikra" becomes the "Malaja Rosija" of the Lvov, Ostrogh, and Kievan brotherhoods, where they begin referring to the Russian populations of recz pospolita as "Malorosijanje" and do so throughout the histories of their existences.

Why, this FIRST use of the term "Rosija" becomes the basis for the taxonomy "Russia" introduced by Kievan scholars to Tsar' Alexis Mikhailovich and subsequently affixed to the subsequent imperial state. Yet somehow, "Ukrainian nationalists" attempt to state that it was Peter I's creation, but even there they fail to concede that the modernizers of the "Russian language" and heads of educational and state institutions which introduced Latin letters to the North WERE PRINCIPALLY FROM KIEV AND LITTLE RUSSIA and that the terminology was their brainchild, ie that of the Little Russian brotherhoods.

These "Ukrainoznavtsy" also neglect to inform people that the MIDDLE RUTHENIAN of the Little Russian brotherhoods was a parent language of the All Russian literary language inaugurated this era, and that their "derussifications" and "Ukrainska mova" are not an affirmation of "anti-Moscow" "national consciousness" but of FLIGHT FROM THEIR MIDDLE RUTHENIAN parent language, which upon cursory examination is clearly a variant of LITERARY RUSSIAN and in no wise the bastardized polono-Russian mess they put forward as "mova." Their "derussification" is vandalism of the scholarly and historical speech of Kiev, Lvov, Vilna and Ostrogh and has nothing at all to do with Moscow or Great Russian chauvinism, but everything to do with legitimizing and creating a polonized UNIATE slave language distinct from the historical literary language of the people.

This "Cossack: the author invents is not in any way related to any Zaporozhian (or even Polish chartered "Ukrainian" Cossack) of the era, who in their correspondences and in such documents as the TREATY OF HADIACH wrote of a "RUSSKAJA ZEMLJA," which included in its territory parts of the Ukraine, in Commonwealth with recz pospolita. That document makes clear what was the REGIONAL and the NATIONAL/ETHNIC appelations of the Russian populations of the era and historically. Sadly, it too is missed by the author in his "Ukrainoznavska baika." -R)

Судячи з останніх заяв патріарха Кирила, керівництво Московського патріархату цілком свідомо продовжує розглядає себе як агента поширення російського впливу. І ця роль для московської церкви важливіша за властиву роль церкви. Треба сказати, що для московської церкви це досить традиційна постава. Ті, хто спрямував у Київ Кирила на інаугурацію, враховують відому набожність і забобонність Віктора Януковича, для вчинків якого може знадобитися зрежисоване Кремлем «теоретичне обґрунтування». Зі свого боку Україні не можна просто дивитися на те, як в неї намагаються вкрасти її історію. Бо все це, в остаточному рахунку, робиться задля того, щоб вкрасти у нашого народу його Батьківщину і місце під сонцем.

(Agent of the Russian state? Then how is it he wants "Ukrainian citizenship"?! Is that a new act of Russian espionage?!

Moreover, speaking of political operatives, Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko, is BY FAR not an ORTHODOX MONK, is defrocked, LAICIZED, as an Orthodox cleric, yet has only maintained a post due to political intrigues by the "Ukrainian nationalist" government to divide the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine and lessen its degree of response to secularization, Unia and sectarianism, which the "Ukrainian nationalist" government encourages.

It put this man in his post, funds his sect, gives it Orthodox churches and institutions and legal standing, provides funds for building of new churches, and has members/family of politicians within its ranks to not in any way promote Orthodoxy, but legitimation of UNIA (PAPAL AND FOREIGN SPIRITUAL IMPERIALISM ON "UKRAINIAN" territory), and any and all "Ukrainian nationalist" stupidities such as this article by this author for no other reason than to uproot the historical Russian Orthodox church which has been on "Ukrainian soil" since 988 AD.

The MP has a clear lineage from KIEV. St. Peter of Vohlynia existed and his acts existed, were ratified and recognized throughout the Orthodox world as good and proper.

But Mikhail Antonovich has only had a "Ukrainian" church since 1992 and then as a laymen with a checkered moral record, compromised by an unmonastic lifestyle and outright sergianist/renovationist lackeyism to "Ukrainian nationalist" politicians and the UNIATE "church," which he courts in obsequium

To argue that the historical church is out of place as being "a political arm of Russia" to assert that this "KP" with no historical or canonical foundation is legitimate, along with the Polish imposed-Vatican ruled/directed UNIA, is to firstly dismiss standards of "politization" as being ignored in regard to establishing legitimacy and to secondly state that ahistorical and quack political operatives who represent this base and groundless "Ukrainian nationalism" are the standard of legitimacy, which leaves that legitimacy nothing but politicized and historically contradicted and hollow. Such is the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian baika."

Indeed, such a poorly articulated double standard only reinforces the position of Patriarch Kyrill and mandates his "pechalovanije," political involvement into an ecclesiastical situation in the Ukraine which has not been so anti-Orthodox and politicized since Brest and the Unia of 1596 to preserve Orthodox Faith and piety, which the author and the KP here declare their full frontal assault against in both methodology and incoherent historiography. The author and the "KP" are warring against Rus', history, Orthodoxy in the support of UNIA and the "Ukrainian baika."

It would be errant for the Patriarch OF ALL RUS' to not intercede and act to stop these unOrthodox and heretical/schismatic currents from threatening the spiritual lives of Orthodox believers.-R)

Під час інаугурації Януковича патріарх Кирило завершив свою промову модифікованими словами «Молитви за Україну»: «Боже великий єдиний Русь-Україну храни. Волі і світу промінням Ти її осіни». Московський патріарх, напевно, не знає, що автор цих рядків Олександр Кониський за «малоросійську пропаганду» був висланий з України, а його твори знищені. Престарілого композитора музики до «Молитви за Україну» Миколу Лисенка за «українофільство» жандарми запроторили до буцегарні.

(Does the author deny here the role played by Austria-Hungary in creating the "Ukrainian nationality" under the auspices of the chauvinism of Kostamarov-Dragmomanov to dislodge Little Russia from the Russian empire and swallow it into the Austro-Hungarian empire?

How is it he does not mention that the only "Little Russian" documents that were banned called for such sedition and whose point of origin and financial support came from Austria-Hungary, which at the time was using such propaganda to combat the "Rusin Awakening," where possession of books printed in cyrillic became grounds for Austro-Hungarian summary arrest and repression.

Does the author know the plight of such news organs as the "Svit" newspaper or what transpired with the centuries old Lvov Russian Brotherhood due to "ukrainoznavstvo" created and enforced by the Austrian secret police?!

What about the Austrian famines and Talerhoff?!

Does the author even know that Hrushevsky was accused of "russophile propaganda" by the very same secret police until he change the name of his opus A HISTORY OF RUS' to a HISTORY OF THE UKRAINE and placed it under secret police and "Ukrainian nationalist" censor?!

Then again, if he admitted knowledge of such things, he certainly couldn't write the stupidity he has--there could be no propagation of his "Ukrainoznavska baika."-R)

Попри всю цю сумну історію, між Україною і Росією можуть скластися добрі відносини. Потрібна лише одна умова: щоб усі керувалися заповіддю: «Не пожадай ні дому ближнього твого, ні поля його». Якщо б бути безнадійним ідеалістом, можна було б сподіватися, що московський патріарх почне із себе.

(So for Russia to encourage the reunfication of Rus' is to "covet" the "Ukraine"?! Well, that is easily answered with one simple question: UKRAINA CHEVO?! RUSI!!! Zanchit RUSSKAJA ZEMLJA. The use of the term "ukraine" apriori ratifies its RUSSIAN territorial character.

"Ukrainian nationalist" quackery tends to quickly fall to pieces with THEM (Uniates and Galicians mainly) openly coveting Russian land for a "nationality" which has no history and is not the ethnic identity of the land they occupy. So who really is covetting? Blue and yellow Galician Uniate occupation seems to be more a culprit logically.-R)


Олександр ПАЛІЙ
- історик, політолог, кандидат політичних наук

("Historian, Political Scientist, Candidate for a Doctorate in Political Studies"--From what we have just read, history is a backdrop for politics, and here, a false Neo-NAZI propaganda which is incoherently stupid is masquerading as both. The only thing he has presented us with is the UKRAINOZNAVSKA BAIKA. This man is not serious and his credential is nothing but a total joke.-R)


ВАЖЛИВО: Публікації у розділі «Огляд ЗМІ» подаються без змін мовою оригіналу з метою привернути увагу до зовнішнього погляду на події та/або думки, які стосуються буття Української Церкви. Зміст публікацій не відображає офіційної позиції Київського Патріархату. Розміщення їх в цьому розділі не означає, що прес-центр Київської Патріархії погоджується зі змістом матеріалу або поділяє точку зору його авторів.


(It would have been good for the "KP" to edit this piece to not embarass itself with its incoherent and stupid arguments and clear ignorance of history and shifting, self contradictory standards of legitimacy. The fact the "KP" puts scat like this forward unedited and uncorrected shows how desperate and baseless its schismatic and phyletistic claims are.

Judge for yourself, but this piece is so flawed as to not be worthy of presentation in a high school forensics class. It is utterly that laughible.

So the author titled this piece looking to define a "baika" and succeeded in doing so, that of HIS OWN, the "KP's", and of the "Ukrainian nationalists'." Pathetic.

R M Malleev-Pokrovsky)




Джерело: «Українська правда».

(A clear oxymoron.-R)