Не оправдывай нацизм , потому что нацизм есть нацизм ( это всегда плохо кончается ). Углубись в тему бандеры - это и есть нацизм (цру пытались его оправдать в свих агитках ).
so called Ukraine is the artificial invention of Western propaganda, antiRussian destructive project since Austrian & German special services in 1WW till the modern British &US propaganda. The only aim of this project is the partition of historical Russia into hostile pieces
Let's explain the statehood, both Kiev and Novgorod including Moscow converted to orthodox Christianity who's patriarch was in Byzantium, the eastern Christian church in 988 after which over a period of over a 1000 years were being crusaded against by the Rome orthodox Catholicism, involving monastic brotherhoods, with regards to the crusades lead by the teutonic knights, the brothers of the sword, the hospitalllers, who then moved onto forming our masonic lodges of today who were given a papal bull from the pope in Rome to ethnicity cleanse the land west of the Baltic states against the Wends in 1147, 1243,nearly 300 years after the kievan rus converted to eastern orthodox Christianity. Fast forward to today as soon as the SMO started, zelensky went to the pope to get his blessings and the pope granted it. Allowing 1.5 billion Catholics to back zelensky. This is a sectarian war that has been raging for over a thousand years between east and west Christian civilizations.
@@softdrink-0 these rings have been forged over thousands of years, take the current pope's ring, depecting a fisherman, as the church fishes and harvests people, even the wedding ring you wear, to bind people in marriage, to the russian orthodox ring of jesus in heaven and hell, showing the different theology between Roman Catholicism and the orthodox church. This is a civilizational struggle between east and west, with spiritually being at the fore, with zelensky going to the Pope to receive his papal bull, to conduct the war, permission so to speak, and yes he kissed the pope's ring, the Muslim ottoman seal rings, invoked with talismans, we see this in Gaza with regards to one religion against another. Putin was being metaphorically mystical in describing a clash of civilizations.
@@davydacounsellor The Moscow KGB Church is not even Orthodoxy. It is an ethnophyletic syncretic state cult. There is more xenophobic opposition to the West there than Christianity itself. Ukraine returned to normal Orthodoxy from the Ecumenical Patriarch in 2019 and they are fighting against the Moscow sect, among other things.
@@IImus so for the last 10 years when I've watched orthodox monansteries, churches, being burned, priests monks and nuns being beaten and killed, please correct me with facts if they were all KGB bases and agents, the schyum pushed by the western NATO, greek patriarch in 2019 was not a CIA ploy to split the orthodox church in Ukraine. I think you need to do your research. As now the Ukrainian government has now even changed the date of Christmas.
Any people saying they were 'bored' by this must have wandered into the wrong stream! Personally, I would say this was essential listening, and as usual by AM, the most informative 2 hour breakdown of Professor Putin's history thesis that you're likely to find anywhere. Kudos sir!
Thank you for this! As a Russian who had been exposed to a great deal of our official historiography from school to university, I feel compelled to point out that what the president presented is mostly the old texbook, boilerplate post-Leninist version of Russian history that was taught to me and my 60s-born parents, sans explicit Marxism. None of this, least of all the anachronistic "Hegelian" identification of the historical subject, is at all original to him. I should say, though, that the translation is obviously suboptimal at times. "Российское государство стало собираться как централизованное..." should not actually be translated as "the Russian state started to exist as a centralized state", rather, "it started to coalesce/be gathered as [that is, into] a centralised state". The same note of becoming is present in the baptism of Rus' passage. Putin says "стало укрепляться централизованное государство", which can be translated as "began to strenthen", but I'd say the Russian is vaguer, and the "state" can be plausibly be presented as a terminus of development, rather than an already actual reality, which sense is reinforced by what follows. "Начало складываться централизованное Российское государство", which was more or less accurately rendered as "A centralized Russian state began to take shape" (here the terminal note is very clear, I'd say). I'd also like to draw your attention to the precise phrase he uses, "Российское государство", of Karamzin's magnum opus fame. The identification of Rus' with Russia, and this Russia with Muscovy (with the latter being the most active (surviving) part of Russia/Rus', at least), harkens back to romantic conservative writers of the early 19th century and onwards, which itself can be plausibly traced back to the theorising of post-Union of Brest Eastern Orthodox 'intelligentsia' in the17th century, including, importantly, Kiev (see e.g. Innocent Giesel's circle). So the conflation is something both Russian Orthodox ("disuniate") theorising and the dominant Russian Hegelian-Marxist teleologisms agree on, and arguably commit one to. In a sense, our president stood no chance of avoiding this. Please also note, for context, that, again, *both* tend to consider, if implicitly and only materially, the Russian Orthodox Church to be part of "the Russian state". The fact that the words "Russian/Rusian" historically did, in fact, function as terms of confessional allegiance (cf. the Rusyns of Hungary, who had little connection to "Kievan Rus'" as such), makes the conflation even easier. The ecclesiastical unity - and the historically felt need for it, which I think one has to grant - can thus be taken to ground the statement re: "centralisation", as well explain the in itself rather ludicrous attribution of ethnogenetic causality to "the Poles". None of this is to say that I agree with the version presented by Putin. I'm neither an EO nor a "Marxist" (I am, in fact, a Catholic), so I lack commitments that serve to make this view plausible, unlike many (if not most) Russians and, importantly, Ukrainians. P.S. AFA I can tell, the transcript presented at the Kremlin's website is entirely faithful to the translation in Mr. Carlson's video.
So I'd say that the "oration" was not at all original. It was, in fact, somewhat boringly conventional, which should suffice to absolve him of the charge of deliberate misrepresentation (even if the historiography behind it cannot be entirely absolved). it's just a very (post-)Soviet thing to do. P.S. The same more or less applies to the Austrian general stuff theory: it's been around for a long time now, and goes back to the emergence of modern Russian-Ukrainian polemics about the time of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, and has its counterparts in, say, modern Polish discourse, where Central Powers (and ultimately Germany) are seen as the ultimate mastermind weaponising Ukrainians agaisnt Polish statehood, even today. P.S.S. FWIW I'd also venture to say that the (partial and gradual) identification of the Soviet State with Russia is a clearly identifiable Stalin-era phenomenon, like many of the things you mention (I mean, you have Stalin-era historians writing very characteristic tracts about *Vatican* (sic) conspiracies to destroy Russia thwarted by Alexander Nevsky etc. etc.), so I'm somewhat confused by your comments on this subject, Your Majesty.
Historians should use different terms for historical 'nations':not Russians but e.g.: Rus-Varangians Rus-Medieval-East-Slavs(Excluding Novgorod) Rusyns-Ukrainian-Belorus and Ruskie-Moscovites Ukrainians and Belorusians and Ruskie-Rossiyans So term Russian is misleading and should not be used at all. Or we will end up where modern Romanians can claim they're the same as ancient Romans and that Italians do not exist and Rome should belong to Bucharest
I just wanted to say Kudos. I'm so glad to hear another honest and sharp analysis. As a native Russian speaker, having heard Putin speak many times, I know for certain he's aware of how brittle early Russian statehood actually was. It's harder for me to say if he intends to be honest with a large Western audience though. He's anything by ignorant, but he insanely calculating in his own way. Anyway, thanks!
Sorry, I meant to say OAN, you got it right never the less. Just finished watching the full stream, really brought me back to the series. Thanks for such a quick review on the matter. Looking forward for more, specially Franco's stream ;)
The very thing that most of the Putin apologists ignore when it comes to the modern conception of nationhood. They want to think in terms of civilization states that would justify imperialism all over again and would essentially put every state that desire their own self-determination as trivial and under the behest of their regional hegemon. Oh well, if that is their ultimate goal, all the more is the need to stem the tide because the case of Ukraine will not be the last one if they fall.
“[Tom] decried the fact that Putin was very much invested in history, that he had a particular narrative in history, that he had a conception of nationhood that was vested in the entirety of history and not simply nations as conceived and understood in twentieth-first century language. That was the essence of his argument, to the extent that [Holland] believes that [Putin’s] history has given him some overarching mission or zealousness in terms of being able to wage war on Ukraine, is how he sees it. And of course, he then goes on to claim that Putin’s worldview cannot counter any obstacles, everything he believes as to be the way it was it is a very rigid and uncompromising version of history. The irony of course is that the same argument can be applied to Tom Holland.” Absolutely important and well put AM
I think Putin just tried to explain that Russian people live in that territory for centuries and it's important to respect their rights in Ukraine instead of killing them. If Ukraine doesn't want to respect Russians, then they can join Russia.
@@irinam.87 Russians did not live in that territory for centuries. Ukranians did. Every time russians came to Ukranian territories was as conquerers and even then, before 2014 and russians starting to wage war on us, their rights were respected.
@@bezyn2291 It's an Ukrainian version of history which didn't exist even 20 years ago. Is killing pro-Russian people in Ukraine or killing their representatives in powers means respect? Is forbidding their language mean respect? You began this war, not Russians. Read Kravchuk's address to Russian counterparts and compare what was promised in 1991 and what you have done.
@@irinam.87 Forbiding russian language? Interesting, as a russian speaking Ukranian that`s the first time I heard about it. Please do elaborate on your made up bullshit.
@@bezyn2291 23 февраля 2014 года на экстренном заседании Верховной рады Украины депутат «Батькивщины» Вячеслав Кириленко внёс в повестку дня заседания Верховной Рады законопроект № 1190 «О признании утратившим силу Закона Украины „Об основах государственной языковой политики“», 232 депутата проголосовали за принятие законопроекта в повестку дня и без обсуждения немедленно приняли его.
Whether the Bolsheviks would have seen the USSR as a continuation of Russia or not the leaders and citizens of NATO see the USSR and Russia as indistinguishable.
I wonder if the reason for Putin's need to contextualize the Soviet Union as a part of Russian continuity, as opposed to a break from it which should be reversed, has to do with a psychological need to rationalize his own past. He could have easily constructed a narrative where the Soviet Union was a break from continuity which needed to be reversed, and the narrative would have been much harder to dispute.
Much of his voterbase still loves the Soviet Union; I'm sure he himself isn't fond of the USSR (you can sense this bitterness even in the Tucker interview) but the scars and legacy of communism runs too deep to be discarded from Russian canon anytime soon.
The modern Russian population has no desire, for the most part to jettison Soviet history. See how the French love Napoleon? Same idea. I was born in the USSR. I'm not proud of it exactly, but why would I lie to myself about my people's history? The USSR had many good sides and I have many positive memories of it.
The older Russian generation lived through it and are still nostalgic. As the younger generation come in and the Orthodox Church expands the perspective will likely shift radically, but that will be outside of Putin's lifespan and WW2 will still be a complicated sticking issue.
@@justian1772 I consider communism and international capitalism two sides of the same coin with the same goal of a globalist totalitarian one world order and despise both accordingly. This doesnt in any way take away from the acheivements of the Russian peoples and I can understand having an attachment to the Ussr. I personally celebrate both Russian and western acheivements separate from the self destructive ideologies their Cold War governments adhered to.
You forget to mention the fact that as the result of the secret part of the Ribbentrop -Mołotow Pact, the Soviet Union ALSO annexed HALF OF POLAND, invading Poland on Sep. 17, 1939. After that, Nazi Germany and the Soviets held a victory parade(!). That is a very troubling ommission :(
There was no capture since there was not a single battle between and then Rus'and Lithuania, this was an unification, and what Putin talks about the Moscow Principality is that in those days it was not part of Rus', but was the outskirts of the Golden Horde
Никакого захвата литвой Руси небьІло так как ето бьІло единое государство которому в ХІV веке уже бьІло 500 и которое в таких границах просуществовало 600 лет а може и больше.
And you’d think that David Cameron PM, with the benefit of his Oxford PPP, might at least have hazarded a guess as to what Magna Carta meant in English…
So you have a short attention span. This was addressed in the interview. It's not just territory claims. It's also to save the Donbass from terrorism, which it's baffling to see Christians ignore
@derek123wil0 people ignore it for the same reason they ignore the fact even the us acknowledges that ukriane is comiting lots of war crimes in the current war. They have decided that Russia is the 'bad guy' in the war and so ignore any evidence that would even out the morality of the war.
I listened to The Last Briton two nights ago, and this tonight, I liked and subscribed. Bring on the Autism, and throw in some OCD. Great work, thank you.
As for the whole unified Russian state thing at the beginning, it would be nice to have the Russian version of Putin’s speech. It can simply be a case of “lost in translation”.
Even the best translations involve judgement and could be debated. For example, the book.'My Struggle', should it not be called 'My Fight' in English? @ApostolicMajesty A Panzer IV was not an 'Armoured Struggle Vehicle', for instance
@@juliantheapostate8295a struggle is really a form of fight. The two while not the same are often used interchangeably in English as they have overlapping meanings at the very least.
I would suggest Michael Rossi Poli Sci right here on you tube. He's an area specialist that puts out excellent transcription of important Russian political speeches and interviews including this one.
Tucker Carlson is weird. Anyone notice that? He gives off that buffoonish laugh, at all the wrong junctures. And that perennial deer in the headlights stare? Just weird…
he was way out of his depth, but then Tucker is a product of American MSM, he started at CNN, he's always been a talking head not a journalist. He is so invested in the Putin/Ukraine issue because its been a good stick to beat the Democrats with. But now he's boxed himself into a corner since the brutal invasion and his ego won't allow him to admit he got it so wrong
My favourite part was “Here are the letters from Khmelnetsky to Russia from our archives. They are *translated into Russian* you can translate them into English” But to really dig into the historical arguments: > It was not simply because the soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. This is technically true, and includes Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinovief (Apfelbaum), Larine, Ouritsky, Volodarsky (Bronstein) etc. To portray them as some kind of nationalists pushing korenizacija because they love Ukraine is wrong for obvious reasons > As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation the lands which had originally been German. The eastern lands of Germany, these are now the western lands of Poland. It’s interesting that Putin can go back to the 9th century for Russian claims but not for the legitimacy of Polish territory. The regions of modern Poland are also the regions of historical Poland from 1000 years ago, however German settler colonisation lead to the Germanisation and consolidation of these regions as German from the 13th-17th centuries, which was part of the pressure pushing poles east into Ukraine. This process was reversed in 1945 with Poland original frontiers in both the east and west being restored. Putin appears to hold a very anti polish sentiment, probably largely relating to his impression that Poles separated Ukrainians from Russia, in a similar way to, for example, how many Bulgarians hold anti Serbian sentiments as they blame Serbs for the unwillingness of Macedonians to be Bulgarians. > Even if we go back to 1654… that area was the size of 3-4 regions of modern Ukraine Yes because Southern Ukraine was controlled by Turkic tribes who were driven out and the territory was slavicised by Ukrainian settlers from those 3-4 regions, meanwhile the west was still ethnically Ukrainian/Ruthenian but under the control of Poland-Lithuania (since 1363). The Ruthenians in this region were subjected to a feudal caste system that placed Jews directly above them and had the worst living conditions for any serf in Europe (facilitating massive Jewish population growth while Ukrainians outside the 3-4 regions previously mentioned relatively stagnated and suffered extremely high mortality rates). This is why Khmelnetsky had rebelled against the Poles & massacred the Jews in the 1650’s to allow Russia to move in. I’m not sure what part of this makes the presence of the Ukrainian state in these regions illegitimate > Ukraine also received, in addition to lands that were part of Poland before the war, part of lands which had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the soviet Ukraine, and still belong to Ukraine. Zakarpatia has been inhabited by Rusyns since the 13th century, although other Slavic tribes were also present at earlier times. Budjak was inhabited by Nogais and other peoples of the mongol empire/Golden Horde and was settled by Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Russians, Romanians, Gaguz and Germans in the 19th century. No ethnicity makes up a majority but most of the population is Slavic, and Budjak has never been an important or integral region of any historical state. Bukovina was part of the Kievan Rus however Romanians started to settle in its south and it was annexed by Moldavia in the 14th century. North Bukovina is part of Ukraine today while the south is part of Romania. I’m not sure what part of this makes Ukraine’s presence there artificial or illegitimate It’s unfortunate someone more knowledgeable about history & ethnicity in Eastern Europe couldn’t interview Putin to challenge his claims as the historic argument seems to be the root of his argument, however i doubt that Putin would agree to such an interview.
"German settler colonisation lead to the Germanisation and consolidation of these regions as German from the 13th-17th centuries" - they were not majority "German" until 18th century. They were majority Polish between 10th and 14th and then mostly mixed (Czech/Bohemian, Austrian, Silesian) with Polish majority between 15th and 17th. Anyways, it's utterly ridiculous to call western Poland as "historically German" I agree.
@@misterkefir it should also be noted that the first major settlement of Poles in what is known as western Ukraine were invited by the Rus Princes to repopulate the region after the depopulated caused by the Mongols. By the time the Polish Kingdom annexed the region Lachians were already living there.
@misterkefir yes let's conflate all of modern western Poland as historically polish, even though there are parts that even when slavic were never polish untill the forced migrations of the 1940s. As for saying all of it was majority polish in the 17th century. Well the parts that were never polish obviously never had a polish majority. Slavic pomeranians were not polish, there is a greater difference between them and pole's than between ukrianians and Russians. But even if we conflate the various non-polish slavs as polish we would still have parts of modern day western Poland as majority German before 1300AD. Furthermore, if you can go back to medieval times why can't the germans go back even further? As late as 500AD the entirety of poland west of the vistula would of had German majorities (with large slavic minorities) it wasn't untill the late 500s AD that the germans were minorities in all the territories East of the Oder. If the Poles can claim pomerania after over 600 years of German majority why can't the germans claim the lands west of the vistula after after a similar period? (the gap between German migration out and German migration back in to these regions)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 TL;DR. I was mostly talking about the Poznań adjacent territories and Wrocław adjacent south-west btw. Also - Territories as far as Berlin lies today and even further to the west also to the north (sea) also to the south were ethnically slavic until at least 800 AD.
A master work from AM here. After I first watched the original Tucker v Putin interview one of my first cravings was for a stream/video breaking down and analyzing Putin's historical conception of Russia as relayed in the interview. Like AM said - despite Putin gravely skewing the narrative through omission & conflation at many points along the way - I can respect the fact that he at least HAS a conception of his nation's history that predates 1945, even If I disagree with it. Also bonus points to AM for finally breaking down what Putin means by 'Denazification' as nobody else seems to be able to tackle that topic. Top quality, keep up the great work.
Excellent exposition made much more interesting by showing what's at stake in historicism than a straight up 'here's how it was' history piece. Very good.
I will admit, my first plan was to listen to you and fall asleep, I can say I failed miserably at that. This is by far the best in context understanding of the Putin "History lesson" I have seen. Its super interesting and I would say as accurate as I have managed verify it. Than you for making it. Now there are a few details when it comes to the Czeck question that you sort of get wrong, or misunderstand, and Putin really blunders it. What I am expecting him to say was that Poland collaborated with Germany over the death of Czeckhoslovakia, yet fell pray for her own policy. That the Soviet state was supporting of the established order after WW1. And that they where working within the framework of the international system. That system fell apart in Munich 1938. After that the Soviet union had to protect itself and signed the M-R pact to avoid the Polish - German - Japanese pact. Now why does he do this, well there are two reasons. 1. The Polish collaboration with Hitler has been erased from every western history book used by the general public. You have to dig very very deep to find it in the western sources. The reason for it is obvious. 2. There is a precedence for this, Putin would prob claim that in the same way Hitler carved up Czechoslovakia, an ally of the Soviet Union, NATO carved up Yugoslavia (Serbia), and ally of Russia. Especially with the Kosovo campaign, an province the the US pushed into independence 2008 just month before inviting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Місяць тому+1
1. Ruthenia is a European name for Rus'. Russia is the Greek transcription for Rus' that was then pulled on Rus ambitions in the titles of the Muscovian prince - Ivan 4th the Terrible.. 2. Rus'(Ruthenia/Russia(greek)) is a principality or Dutchy, that existed before the Mongolian invasion in 1240, located from about 700 mentioned in chronicles by several historians and academics line Nasonov and Rybakov(in 70ties and 80-ties) and the area is located in the Northern Ukraine, little bit overlapping south of Belarus and Kursk, Belgorod oblastes. So that historian writing, as France had never been called France before, he can easily prove that Ukraine is almost direct and the most direct "successor" of Rus' - at least in context with Moscovia, that remained Russian Empire by Sinod and Peter 1st the Great. "Rossiya"(taken from greek transcription) - is almost nothing like Rus' also. 3. Anything else wasn't called Rus - it was all invented by the Imperial and Soviet propaganda, like Moscovian Rus, Novgorod Russ, the Great Russ, Kyivan Russ/Principality(which is the Rus from Chronicles) - those all terms are artificial and not actual from the real life. Yeah - those territories were usually controlled by siblings, brothers, and relatives of Rus Ruller in Kiev, and after the Mongolian invasion, it was so so-called split, where those individual dutchies and principalities got yarliks from the Han in Saray. Lithuanians overtook the territory of the former original Rus - and the nearby Rus Kingdom was established by Daniel Romanovich in 1253 - by uniting Galicia and Volhynia. 4. How do Muscovites excuse their Russ-iness? - When "Mongol-Tatars" burned Kyiv and acted horrible afterwards, the "metropolitan of Rus", went from Kyiv to Moscovia and kept his title, though he is outside of geographical Rus, that's how Muscovian tzars were crowned and baptised by a church of the Rus. The church was restored in Kyiv and there were 2 All-Rus metropolites at the same time which is just titling absurd promoted also by Constantinople. The history of Rus/Russian church is complex, especially of their maze of titles, but geographically, politically, and historically Rus is the name of the exact area, which of course, is hidden from pupils of Russia's schools and propaganda.
Regarding the narrative, which says that Muscovy are not Russians. Well, that's silly now, but it wasn't so at the beginning. According to Nestor, the area of current Moscow, likely with a keep at Kremlin, was inhabited by people he calls Lachy, which is an alternative Russian name for the Poles. Nestor fairly precisely defines who Lachy are, and for him it means Western Slavs, as opposed to Eastern Slavs. There are linguistic reasons to believe that Nestor was correct, and those places were really settled by two Western Slavic tribes, at least at the time when Rus was initially founded. The areas further to the East and North of Moscow were occupied by Finnic peoples. There is no doubt about that. So there is something to the claim, that Kievan Rus was the real Rus, while Muscovy was an amalgamation of various peoples, who eventually adopted Rus culture. It's not as crazy an idea as it may seem on the surface. Obviously, Russian historians were never allowed to entertain such concepts. Even if they addressed this issue at all, they tended to brush it aside under various pretexts. Understandable attitude, but not necessarily the most convincing.
If you bring up that argument then what is to say what a true rus even is? It's not as if the kieven rus in kiev were not themselves an amalgomous group.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Well, in the older sources the Rus people and the Slavs were distinguished as different peoples. The Rus were the Warangian Swedes, while the Slavs were the Slavs. So yeah, you got a point. However, Vladimir Putin *decided* to bring up those old times, not me. If he did that, he should be prepared to face the facts... ;-)
@@bakters While it is undisputed that the areal of Moscow used to be Finnic before the arrival of the Rus, I don't really see how this is a gotcha for Putin. It is undisputed that Attica was inhabited by Pelasgians before the arrival of the Greeks, but that doesn't translate to some kind of argument that Athens in some way isn't central to Hellenic civilization. Of course, by the same standards, the area of Kiev used to be part of the realm of the Greuthungi, and still before I suppose part of Sarmatia. This is all true and also interesting, but it really isn't relevant to Putin's main point, which was to explain how the core territory of Rus shifted from Kiev to what would become Muscovy as a reaction to the Tatar rule, which as far as I can see is entirely correct.
@@ecgwineicling2543 " *Moscow used to be Finnic before the arrival of the Rus* " That's not what I wrote. Nestor claims that those areas belonged to two Lach tribes (western slavs), Viatichi and Radomichi. " *before the arrival* " There was no arrival of new peoples. Yaroslav (who was a Swede) simply defeated those Lach tribes and extracted tribute from them. They never moved out. " *part of Sarmatia* " That's correct, however there are good reasons to believe that Sarmatians and Slavs were working together, with Sarmatian elites eventually adopting Slav culture. Long story. Anyway, Nestor describes local tribes around Kiev as Eastern Slavs, while he *does not* say so about peoples in current Moscow area. " *reaction to the Tatar* " The notorious Oprichina... So, according to You, is Putin saying that Moscow was not inhabited by Eastern Slavs, then they became the tax collectors for Tatars, and that's why Kiev should belong to them?
You helped me understand the context of "denazification" from Putin's perspective, and when you went into that, and contextualized it with the fact that Putin is not really speaking of Ukranians and Russias in an ethnocentric way, it all made sense to me. I think it was the highlight of the monologue. I'm still curious however if what you identified broadly as the "ukranian supremacist" perspective has more or less merit than this more civic centered notion of Russia and russians as a community of different ethnic peoples, amalgamating both ukranians and russians as more or less the same.
Like it or not, the focus on specific historical justification or territorial is a hallmark of autocratic or royal rule, it doesn’t really “cut the mustard” for contemporary western democracies when used by itself..historically eastern justifications even recently adhere to that “argument from ancient history”it doesn’t mean it’s wrong but the western/eastern divide is no better exemplified in the disconnect between the two parties regarding the Putin interview
Thank you for this! As Ukrainian, I really appreciate such videos because the history of our Ukraine is a topic difficult to discuss even in Ukraine itself.
33:49 But Putin never said the word Ukraine comes from polanization. I don’t even know where you caught this in the interview. Everyone in Ukraine and Russia knows that the name of the country comes from “u kraya” (near the border, on the outskirts)
@@mitchyoung93 in Northern Bucovina most of the population was Ukrainian. It used to be part of the old principality of Moldova. And in the Buceag, West of Odessa, that place was multicultural, Ukrainians, russians, Bulgarians, some turks and tatars.
Well see, your very first argument about Ukraine not existing in 9th century is flawed, as Russia didn’t exist either. There was Rus, which was an identification of one op plenty ethnic or rather even social groups
Germany also gave a German town in Czechoslovakia to Poland as a goodwill gesture and spoken promise from Poland to negotiate the return of Danzig to Germany. Poland turned around and declared they're a sovereign state and don't have to negotiate anything belonging to them. Later the British and the French were heavily pressuring Poland to allow Soviet troops access. The French going as far to give Soviets a 'permission', in case of war with Germany, without Poland's acceptance on August 21st. Poles rightly assumed that the Soviet troops would never leave if they allowed that to happen. French were also willing to give Soviets anything they wanted to occupy already in July in exchange for an alliance against Germany. Or like Soviets liked to put it "protecting it's neighbors from indirect threat of Fascism". Molotov-Rippentrop pact gave Lithuania to Germany but Soviets occupied it anyway. Rippentrop wrote a long article back in the day detailing the treaty preaches by Soviet Union, this was one of the big ones. Interestingly the British-French Soviet negotiations had a secret protocol too, defining which countries it applies to. Belgium-Finland-Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania-Poland-Romania-Turkey and Greece.
> Germany also gave a German town in Czechoslovakia to Poland as a goodwill gesture and spoken promise from Poland to negotiate the return of Danzig to Germany. Poland turned around and declared they're a sovereign state and don't have to negotiate anything belonging to them. What? What German town? What spoken promise? How did Germany give it as a goodwill gesture?
@@misterkefir Viscount Halifax to Sir W. Seeds (Moscow) July 10 French Government are informing French Ambassador that they are disposed to accept M. Molotov's definition of indirect aggression and insertion in Article 1 of words 'direct or indirect' Minute by Mr. Strang August 21 M. Cambon called this evening to make an urgent communication on behalf of the French Government about the question of the use of Polish territory by Russian troops. 4. The French Ambassador and General Doumenc, head of the French military mission in Moscow, therefore think it possible to give the Soviet delegation an affirmative answer in principle which might help on the military negotiations. Sir W. Seeds (Moscow) to Viscount Halifax July 10 Article 1 of the Agreement signed by them today will apply to the following European States: Turkey, Greece, Roumania, Poland, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Switzerland and Netherlands. Viscount Halifax to Sir H. Knatchbull-Hugessen July 21 We have made the following concessions to the Russians: (2) It shall not cover Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxemburg. 3. The only concession so far made by the Soviet Government is that they have agreed to put the list of States covered by the Agreement not in the agreement itself but in an unpublished Protocol.
@billyberrington @@misterkefir UA-cam says I can't give you direct sources so go read Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939 Third edition Vol IV, V, VI and VII
@@billyberrington Source for that exact thing is Hitler himself according to British diplomats so if you're inclined not to believe it then fine. The towns people sent him a letter begging him not to but Hitler told them 'such is the price we have to pay for Danzig'.
Putin describes Russia as a noble civilization spreading humanity and order as opposed to decadent, cynical West always plotting to destroy it. You may not know much about Russian history but ask yourself a question: why all the countries bordering Russia on its Western side rushed to join NATO and EU. Why Ukraine fights so desperately for its independence. If Russia's history is the way Putin describes it - certainly all those states would love to be again close to Moscow.
Liking and commenting for the algorithm. Thank you for this great video, very far above the endless low iq hysterical takes that have come out. You throve for historical accuracy over ideologies and geopolitical interests which is the way History should be tackled. Wonderful work.
Місяць тому+1
Ukraine from the Ukrainian language can be translated as InCountry, within the country. U being as In, and Kraina - as Country. And - Hmelnyetzky.. that could be the spelling for the kossak hetman.
This was a fantastic history! I wish I would have found your channel sooner. All the history channels I have found before you have been Ideological and used bully tactics to shut down honest questions. Thank you for doing this!
For clarification they’re most commonly called “Eastern Catholics.” Being those Catholic communities out in the former lands of the Tsardom and Commonwealth who while being in communion with the Holy See do not follow the Roman/Latin rite. They tend to this day become a bit of a “sore spot” on the topic of Catholic-Orthodox mending of relations as while there is a official agreement that neither group in the east(Eastern Catholics and Orthodox) will try and actively convert the other some among the Orthodox hierarchy view it as really meaning that the Eastern Catholics must return to full communion with the Orthodox Churches before any further steps to mend the schism take place.
The language used in Kiev rus was in no way russian. Its more close to ukrainian with elements used in polish nowadays ( like nevyem - do not know, never said in russian) so ukrainian version is closer to facts
Its important to notice that neither of the major Russian royal dynasties were ethnically slavic. The Ruriks were of Swedish heritage and the Romanovs of German heritage. That does say a lot about how the Russian civilization is perceived, its a cultural union state, not neccessarily ethnic.
A "unified" Russian state can disintegrate and another "unified" Russian state can emerge later. How is that a contradiction? My understanding of Putin is that he views Russia as a "civlisational state". So there might be some conflation between "state" and "civilisation". Anyway, the winners write the history and Ukraine has to survive as a state for all this "debunking" to matter.
Ukraine literally has an entirely different language from Russian. History may be “written by victors”, even though that saying is way too simplistic to actually reflect on how real life historiography works, but even if it was the case it doesn’t change the reality which is that nation and state are two every different things, and just because an empire ruled over a people does not mean that they are the same as the empire or that the empire has the right to rule them or conqueror them if they break off. Like it or not But Ukrainians are not Russians.
@@baneofbanes I don't particularly care whether Ukrainians are Russians or not. As for their rights, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. " - Thucydides
@huntersmith761 It's language is just a different kind of Russian. You can argue the Ukies ought to be separate from a Russian national state without having to try and act like Ukrainians aren't Russians. Much in the way a British state can be rejected by the Irish or the English despite claiming to be a British state.
@@baneofbanes i actually enjoy the refutation of this popular statement: the history of the (you know what) was written for the most part by the generals of the defeated germany :)
Applying modern terms like "Russia" or "Russians" to historic entities such as Kievan Rus can promote misleading, anachronistic narratives. We should avoid referring to the people of Kievan Rus as Russians and instead use historical terms like "the people of Kievan Rus" or "inhabitants of medieval Rus' lands." President Putin often equates Kievan Rus with modern Russia in ways that many historians consider dubious or politically motivated. For instance, his linkage between Kievan Rus, the USSR, and modern Russia glosses over centuries of complex change in identities, states, and peoples across the region. Meanwhile, Putin denies Ukraine's distinct heritage and peoplehood, contradicting most scholarly perspectives. The territory around modern-day Moscow was referred to externally as Muscovy until the early 1700s. Consulting historians from various backgrounds, including Ukrainian, Russian and international scholars, provides fuller understanding of the contested history. Some Putin supporters even claim the Ukrainian language was invented by Austria-Hungarians, despite historical evidence that when Muscovite envoys negotiated with the Ukrainian Cossack hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1654, they brought translators to bridge the linguistic divides between the two languages.
The concept of "Russia" comes from the transcription of the Greek word "ῬΩσίΑ". So since the middle of the 10th century, the Greeks called Rus that way (today they use the word "pως"). The end of the 14th century. The word "Russia" in Cyrillic appears for the first time in the title of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev. The middle of the 16th century. "Russia" (Russia) became the name of the Moscow state Ivan the terrible, who was called "цр҃ь и҆ вели́кїй ки҃зь і҆ѡа́ннъ васи́лїевичъ всеѧ̀ рꙋ́сїи"does it mean: " the tsar and the Grand Duke of all Russia. Rus and Russia are the same thing
As Moscow became the dominant center of Russian statehood, the name "Russia" gradually replaced localised references to Rus', Kievan Rus', Muscovy, etc. to refer to the entire land and people under Muscovite rule. So while the roots go back to the 9th century 'Rus', the modern name "Russia" itself first appeared in written form in the 14th century, eventually superseding older regional names as Moscow's power spread.
@@Metobolic_78Тебе же объяснили,что слова могут звучать одинаково,а смысл может быть другим. А ты все пишешь под каждым комментарием одно и тоже. Русский бот!
People really throw the word "autistic" around too much these days. It says a lot about how uneducated our society has become that some people can't distinguish between genuine intelligence and a mental condition.
@@JohnDoe-wv7ep He literally says in the video if you can't handle autistic history nerd commentary it isn't meant for you + I am on the spectrum so your argument is invalid.
This is why America should not be involved in foreign engagements. We just don’t understand the history of these areas, and when someone tries to explain we say “eh that’s boring”.
You accepting that Putin is trying to "explain" is exactly what he is counting on. There are people in America who understand the conflict. And it isn't 1000 year old. There are experts who understand the underlying issue, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the basic tenets of this conflict. The bottom line is Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine and he was. Then he said he wouldn't invade again and he did. If that behaviour alone isn't indicative enough to help you decide which side to support, then you seem to be willfully ignorant, not just lacking in understanding.
Why do you diverge the "Rus" and Russian culture/history? When you go into the Slavic etymology it's exactly the same word and the Russian/Muscovite history has every possible continuity with the medieval Rus(ian) statehood. Wouldn't that argument (of divergence) be the same in the context of English, French and German history? Yet we don't somehow have different terminology for medieval England, france or Germany.
There is a reason that we traditionally say "the Ukraine" in English and why until the day before yesterday to express being located on this frontier area Slave used "na", that is 'on' rather than "v" or "u" meaning in. Kraj can mean country in the generic sense...moj rodnij kraj, land of my birth, but has nothing to do with an ethnie or narod.
1000 years ago, the daughter of the assassinated King of England Harold II Godwinson, was Geeta (Geeta of Wessex / Gytha of Wessex ), fled to nowhere to be forcibly married to her father's killer. ( NOTE Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 - 14 October 1066), also called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon English king. Harold reigned from 6 January 1066 until his death at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. It was the decisive battle of the Norman Conquest. Harold's death marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule over England. He was succeeded by William the Conqueror and Norman rule of England ) After the death of their father King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Gytha and two of her brothers escaped to the court of their first cousin once-removed, King Sweyn Estridsson of Denmark. After some time for political reasons was contracted into a diplomatic marriage Gytha was married to Vladimir II Monomakh, the grand prince of Kiev (NOTE Vladimir Monomakh was buried at Saint Sophia Cathedral. Succeeding generations often referred to his reign as the golden age of that city.) So how did this all happen to be ? After king Harold II, Gythas father the last crowned Anglo-Saxon English king was kill in battle and William the Conqueror invaded and took the crown of England for himself needed to legalize his rule in the eyes of the populace and the church he needed a blood line and in his eyes Gytha was just that he there wanted to force Gytha hand in marriage. But Gytha with her two brother was already on the run trying to find safe haven .. William the Conqueror (now England's now king ) warned all the kings and queens of France, Germany, Denmark Europe ... , if they gave Gytha shelter that , it will end up in war; William really wanted and needed for political reasons the royal title of Gytha in marriage to help legitimize his own rule and tittle as the new king of England ; Harolds intention was to marry Gytha by force or by persuasion and those unite the now divided the new country under his new rule . No one in mainland Europe submitted help to the princess because no one wanted a war. The only one who was not afraid and challenged William was the Queen of Norway - Elizabeth, the daughter of the builder of the Sofia Cathedral of the Prince of Kyiv Russia Yaroslav the Wise. The then Norwegian Queen by marriage and daughter Prince Yaroslav I of Kiev; was known in Europe as Ellisif. After the murder of her husband The Norwegian King Harald III, Elizabeth took over the ruled of the kingdom of Norway, and was the Queen of the Norwegian Vikings. (NOTE ; Elisaveta Yaroslavna of Kiev (in Norwegian: Ellisif or Elisabeth), (1025 - ca 1067), was a Rus' Princess of Kiev and queen of Norwegian, the wife and queen consort of king Harald III of Norway. Elisaveta was born to Prince Yaroslav I of Kiev and Princess Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisiv_of_Kiev
Amazing discussion, probably because I had the same take as you. Putin's view points were not at all absurd and very nuanced when compared to most western politicians who seem to think history began in 1945. But he did go a bridge too far trying to paint Poland as the arch collaborator with Nazi Germany, while the USSR was acting with pure motives, and was a victim of unprovoked aggression by the Nazis ( west) . But I wonder if that came about because he was trying to convince a domestic audience as well as an international one. Nothing is more emotional to the Russians than the Great Patriotic War. One understands this in view of the great losses suffered by the Russians (and Ukrainians). But to an outsider such as myself does reek of hypocrisy.
Excellent insights to what his strategy is based on his choice of historical events to highlight. Very enlightening. Knowledge of history really can change your views of the situation in more than one way actually.
as a descendant of Ruricks and several others of land owners in these lands I am very pleased with your presentation very consistent with my family lore.
no see these are two different people groups. the Turkish in the south and the rus of the north. Kiev was conquered by Oleg and is part of that Rus empire and culture. Russia itself is a multi ethnic multi national empire where the rus people are its core citizenry
I have one problem with the first image: Novgorod should not be on the line leading to Russia. Novgorod existed as a separate civilization with its own culture and language. Moscow captured Novgorod and destroyed its culture and language. And they tried (and are trying now) to do the same with Ukraine (and Belarus).
@Apostolic Majesty: Putin did not invent the idea that the Soviet Union was a continuation of Russian Statehood. Maybe you're not saying precisely that, but that's the idea I got. This concept has been around in Russia for decades. Putin didn't think he said anything new. Most Westerners referred to Soviets as Russians even when the USSR was around...
Putin’s Logic: When we consider what the whole Earth was like, before even the earliest human civilisations and communities arose. There were no countries and no borders, Earth was truly one people and nation. So this means, if I exterminate every other Being on the planet. Then Earth will be back to its original, rightful state and I will be the King of the World.
An interesting twist on molotov pact. Perhaps, you should have mentioned that Great Britain and France hacked both refused to sign a defence pact with the Soviet Union before that? Or the Polish-Soviet war of the 1920? And the hundreds of thousands of the Soviet soldiers starved to death in the Polish concentration camps? Perhaps a little bit of context would help to clarify the picture?
@@quadra4A What homeland? The last time Poland was a threat to the Russian homeland was during the Polish-Russian war at the beginning of the 17th century. The Soviet Union simply wanted spread of communist domination. The captured Soviet soldiers were not so much victims of the Polish army, but to a greater extent victims of the communist ideology of which they were the agents. They ended up in Polish territories only to die for ideas created by a bearded German-speaking Jew.
@@xxvxxv5588 Didn't you know that Poland was a part of the Russian Empire before the revolution? Didn't you know that Poland took Kiev in 1920 which was not a part of Poland for sure? Didn't you know that Poles also participated in the revolution 1917?
I haven't watched the interview but when I saw your video on it, I took the chance to learn something about Russian history in general. My knowledge on Russia as a country and it's history is quite lacking. That's the main reason why I refrained myself from commenting on the Ukrainian-Russia conflict. Thank you for your perspective and it was an interesting stream. I have a better history knowledge than someone who doesn't care at all, but my historical knowledge is pretty bad compared to anyone who is at least somewhat invested in educating himself. In the past year or two I only met one type of person who was interested in bringing a historical case for politics. And those are the Germans who want to resurrect the "Grossreich". Their arguments were not all that overwhelming, but even if they would have a good argument, I don't think history trumps all other arguments. If we compare the last hundred years of Germany and Switzerland we can see how vastly different the two countries ruled themselves. Germany wanted big government and rules. Switzerland not only combines 4 languages and several protestant and catholic cantons, we truly have as a fundamental understanding that we reject nobility and want to discuss everything on the most local level possible. But once we discussed it we can respect the compromise. A unified Germanic nation is going against that entire way of thinking and if it were to be implemented then we would be back in the times of Wilhelm Tell. But of course I could be charitable to the point of absurdity and assume they don't want to impose their ideals on us but instead take on all of our ideals. Germany has 10 times more people than Switzerland. If we were to fuse then even if everything was in our favor, we still would be outvoted by them every time as we would be less than 10% of the voting block. So when a German says that he wants a Germanic nation then in practice he just wants us to join their ideals while we had to abandon our own identity. And that is something I can't agree with, even if they were to have a perfect historical case for it. It was interesting to see how Ukraine is just the borderlands of the Rus country and the surrounding countries fighting for their people in a way shaped their nation.
@benrex7775 she rewarded him with 6000 acres in Kherson. His descendants in Mglin benefitted as well in that region. My cousin helped desolve some of Cossack state which they lashed back. Burned down his mansion 3 times.
Russia because it's full of Russians. To pretend his arguement is purely about historical terriroty is laughable. His arguement (and if you disagree this is what you need to argue against) is that ukrainains and Russians are the same people. His historical argument is about that, not who controled the land in the past.
It’s population is 90%+ Russian. Also Germany refused it as did Poland, due to that fact. Don’t want to welcome millions of people of a different ethnicity into your country....that didn’t last.
8:38 but there were no "Russia" in the documents as well. The name was taken by Muscovy in the 18th century. We can't say "Italy doesn't have Romans ancestry, because of nowadays Romania". To put it roughly. Nothing will be changed if Ukraine will rename itself to Kyivan Rus or just Rus.
would it be possible that the poles AND russians described the territory as "Ukraine", because these parts were equally "on the outskirts/on the edge" of their respective "countries"? maybe as a barrier or somewhat of a grey zone from each other?
Russians and Poles called it Ukraine because it was called that by people who lived there. "Outskirts" version is only one of three major ones, and not even most plausible, but russians like it because they know only their language which has word "okraina". But Ukrainian language does not have this word, it has "okolytsia" or simply "kraj". Polish has word "kraniec". For people who know only one language every foreign word is exercise in misheard lyrics.
@@ThorneyedWT Hm. I was wondering, because "u kraja" literally means "on/close to the edge" in russian. And these words have the same meaning in ukrainian, as you rightfully say. So i dont think there was a mistranslation of some sorts, or at least its very unlikely imo. What people do you mean with "people who lived there"? Lived where? P.S: thx for your answer!
@@jonasdauerbrenner6432 lived in Ukraine when this name surfaced in documents. Ukrainians rarely use word "kraj" as "edge" and "u" in Ukrainian in most cases means "in" while in Russian it means "near". Furthermore in middle ages lands that belonged to certain slavic feudal were called "krajna". There are numerous examples of this word in Balkan toponyms and in modern Ukrainian "kraina" means "country". Literally. Heck several russian regions are called "*****skiy kraj", but in modern russian it is considered somewhat obsolete. "Ye olde style" if you will.
@@jonasdauerbrenner6432 and furthermore in Ukraine for a lot of centuries used world Вкраїна (Vkrajina), and if you assume kraj means edge then it will be like "in edge" and it sounds like nonsense. You can be near or on edge, not in edge.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Also, join the Discord: discord.gg/8cNB39kY. Many thanks.
Is the word "crisis" banned in this comment section?
Не оправдывай нацизм , потому что нацизм есть нацизм ( это всегда плохо кончается ). Углубись в тему бандеры - это и есть нацизм (цру пытались его оправдать в свих агитках ).
so called Ukraine is the artificial invention of Western propaganda, antiRussian destructive project since Austrian & German special services in 1WW till the modern British &US propaganda. The only aim of this project is the partition of historical Russia into hostile pieces
Trump 2024🇷🇺🇷🇺
I would agree on the conspiracy part if I didn't know about these four things
The world economic forum
Event 201
The great reset
Dr. Steve turley
Tucker: Mr President why did you invade Ukraine?
Putin: It began with the forging of the great rings.
Let's explain the statehood, both Kiev and Novgorod including Moscow converted to orthodox Christianity who's patriarch was in Byzantium, the eastern Christian church in 988 after which over a period of over a 1000 years were being crusaded against by the Rome orthodox Catholicism, involving monastic brotherhoods, with regards to the crusades lead by the teutonic knights, the brothers of the sword, the hospitalllers, who then moved onto forming our masonic lodges of today who were given a papal bull from the pope in Rome to ethnicity cleanse the land west of the Baltic states against the Wends in 1147, 1243,nearly 300 years after the kievan rus converted to eastern orthodox Christianity. Fast forward to today as soon as the SMO started, zelensky went to the pope to get his blessings and the pope granted it. Allowing 1.5 billion Catholics to back zelensky. This is a sectarian war that has been raging for over a thousand years between east and west Christian civilizations.
@@davydacounsellor but when we’re the rings forged?
@@softdrink-0 these rings have been forged over thousands of years, take the current pope's ring, depecting a fisherman, as the church fishes and harvests people, even the wedding ring you wear, to bind people in marriage, to the russian orthodox ring of jesus in heaven and hell, showing the different theology between Roman Catholicism and the orthodox church. This is a civilizational struggle between east and west, with spiritually being at the fore, with zelensky going to the Pope to receive his papal bull, to conduct the war, permission so to speak, and yes he kissed the pope's ring, the Muslim ottoman seal rings, invoked with talismans, we see this in Gaza with regards to one religion against another. Putin was being metaphorically mystical in describing a clash of civilizations.
@@davydacounsellor The Moscow KGB Church is not even Orthodoxy.
It is an ethnophyletic syncretic state cult. There is more xenophobic opposition to the West there than Christianity itself.
Ukraine returned to normal Orthodoxy from the Ecumenical Patriarch in 2019 and they are fighting against the Moscow sect, among other things.
@@IImus so for the last 10 years when I've watched orthodox monansteries, churches, being burned, priests monks and nuns being beaten and killed, please correct me with facts if they were all KGB bases and agents, the schyum pushed by the western NATO, greek patriarch in 2019 was not a CIA ploy to split the orthodox church in Ukraine. I think you need to do your research. As now the Ukrainian government has now even changed the date of Christmas.
You see, it all began more than 1000 years ago, during the reign of Yaroslav I, also known as Yaroslav the Wise...
And God said, Let there be Rossiya. And there was Rossiya. And God saw that it was good. xD.
Have you heard the tragedy of Yaroslav The Wise?
yes you see drinking is the joy of the rus
@@hokkaidosnow6643 I had the exact same thought! Well done!
It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you.
The autism is strong with us.
The historical rantby putin felt very autistic. I'm glad to know we're not alone lol
Any people saying they were 'bored' by this must have wandered into the wrong stream! Personally, I would say this was essential listening, and as usual by AM, the most informative 2 hour breakdown of Professor Putin's history thesis that you're likely to find anywhere. Kudos sir!
Professor Putin? He is a liar and a manipulator
Bloody great stream... Really, a superb stream.
Thank you for this!
As a Russian who had been exposed to a great deal of our official historiography from school to university, I feel compelled to point out that what the president presented is mostly the old texbook, boilerplate post-Leninist version of Russian history that was taught to me and my 60s-born parents, sans explicit Marxism.
None of this, least of all the anachronistic "Hegelian" identification of the historical subject, is at all original to him.
I should say, though, that the translation is obviously suboptimal at times.
"Российское государство стало собираться как централизованное..." should not actually be translated as "the Russian state started to exist as a centralized state", rather, "it started to coalesce/be gathered as [that is, into] a centralised state".
The same note of becoming is present in the baptism of Rus' passage. Putin says "стало укрепляться централизованное государство", which can be translated as "began to strenthen", but I'd say the Russian is vaguer, and the "state" can be plausibly be presented as a terminus of development, rather than an already actual reality, which sense is reinforced by what follows. "Начало складываться централизованное Российское государство", which was more or less accurately rendered as "A centralized Russian state began to take shape" (here the terminal note is very clear, I'd say).
I'd also like to draw your attention to the precise phrase he uses, "Российское государство", of Karamzin's magnum opus fame. The identification of Rus' with Russia, and this Russia with Muscovy (with the latter being the most active (surviving) part of Russia/Rus', at least), harkens back to romantic conservative writers of the early 19th century and onwards, which itself can be plausibly traced back to the theorising of post-Union of Brest Eastern Orthodox 'intelligentsia' in the17th century, including, importantly, Kiev (see e.g. Innocent Giesel's circle).
So the conflation is something both Russian Orthodox ("disuniate") theorising and the dominant Russian Hegelian-Marxist teleologisms agree on, and arguably commit one to. In a sense, our president stood no chance of avoiding this.
Please also note, for context, that, again, *both* tend to consider, if implicitly and only materially, the Russian Orthodox Church to be part of "the Russian state". The fact that the words "Russian/Rusian" historically did, in fact, function as terms of confessional allegiance (cf. the Rusyns of Hungary, who had little connection to "Kievan Rus'" as such), makes the conflation even easier. The ecclesiastical unity - and the historically felt need for it, which I think one has to grant - can thus be taken to ground the statement re: "centralisation", as well explain the in itself rather ludicrous attribution of ethnogenetic causality to "the Poles".
None of this is to say that I agree with the version presented by Putin. I'm neither an EO nor a "Marxist" (I am, in fact, a Catholic), so I lack commitments that serve to make this view plausible, unlike many (if not most) Russians and, importantly, Ukrainians.
P.S.
AFA I can tell, the transcript presented at the Kremlin's website is entirely faithful to the translation in Mr. Carlson's video.
So I'd say that the "oration" was not at all original. It was, in fact, somewhat boringly conventional, which should suffice to absolve him of the charge of deliberate misrepresentation (even if the historiography behind it cannot be entirely absolved).
it's just a very (post-)Soviet thing to do.
P.S.
The same more or less applies to the Austrian general stuff theory: it's been around for a long time now, and goes back to the emergence of modern Russian-Ukrainian polemics about the time of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, and has its counterparts in, say, modern Polish discourse, where Central Powers (and ultimately Germany) are seen as the ultimate mastermind weaponising Ukrainians agaisnt Polish statehood, even today.
P.S.S.
FWIW I'd also venture to say that the (partial and gradual) identification of the Soviet State with Russia is a clearly identifiable Stalin-era phenomenon, like many of the things you mention (I mean, you have Stalin-era historians writing very characteristic tracts about *Vatican* (sic) conspiracies to destroy Russia thwarted by Alexander Nevsky etc. etc.), so I'm somewhat confused by your comments on this subject, Your Majesty.
Thanks for the details, sir.
@@justian1772 You're most welcome!
@@GTMancz you're not nearly as lazy as I am :)
I’m Russian and I have no idea what your telling about
In fairness, Putin is a politician. The last time I expected a politician to tell the entire truth I was maybe 15. Everyone has an agenda.
agenda, yes, but not every agenda has to be THAT deranged.
@@sillysad3198 Compared to what?
@@fus132 compared amything else, Ivan.
Bro I'm an American. I know what deranged looks like.@@sillysad3198
@@sillysad3198 So killing a million people in Iran (as just one example) is not THAT deranged?
Ignore the hecklers AM, your work is great! I love turning your videos on and chilling in the evening
Historians should use different terms for historical 'nations':not Russians but e.g.:
Rus-Varangians
Rus-Medieval-East-Slavs(Excluding Novgorod)
Rusyns-Ukrainian-Belorus and Ruskie-Moscovites
Ukrainians and Belorusians and Ruskie-Rossiyans
So term Russian is misleading and should not be used at all.
Or we will end up where modern Romanians can claim they're the same as ancient Romans and that Italians do not exist and Rome should belong to Bucharest
I just wanted to say Kudos. I'm so glad to hear another honest and sharp analysis. As a native Russian speaker, having heard Putin speak many times, I know for certain he's aware of how brittle early Russian statehood actually was. It's harder for me to say if he intends to be honest with a large Western audience though. He's anything by ignorant, but he insanely calculating in his own way. Anyway, thanks!
I thought he conveyed that brittleness quite well, how the Russian state started to consolidate itself, had the periods of foreign invasion, etc.
I guess the italians have every right to conquer and own england given it belonged to Rome.
Given the present state of the UK that might not be a bad idea
When the people seek understanding of geopolitics, they go straight to Spiderman for guidance.
Sorry, I meant to say OAN, you got it right never the less. Just finished watching the full stream, really brought me back to the series. Thanks for such a quick review on the matter. Looking forward for more, specially Franco's stream ;)
This was exactly what i had been looking for after that interview. Thank you.
Nuance good, therefore AM's channel good. Simple as.
Isn't every state artificial?
The very thing that most of the Putin apologists ignore when it comes to the modern conception of nationhood. They want to think in terms of civilization states that would justify imperialism all over again and would essentially put every state that desire their own self-determination as trivial and under the behest of their regional hegemon.
Oh well, if that is their ultimate goal, all the more is the need to stem the tide because the case of Ukraine will not be the last one if they fall.
yes
Some are more then others
Well, no, all of them are. What is natural about a nation state ?
Only if you are a midwit
“[Tom] decried the fact that Putin was very much invested in history, that he had a particular narrative in history, that he had a conception of nationhood that was vested in the entirety of history and not simply nations as conceived and understood in twentieth-first century language. That was the essence of his argument, to the extent that [Holland] believes that [Putin’s] history has given him some overarching mission or zealousness in terms of being able to wage war on Ukraine, is how he sees it. And of course, he then goes on to claim that Putin’s worldview cannot counter any obstacles, everything he believes as to be the way it was it is a very rigid and uncompromising version of history. The irony of course is that the same argument can be applied to Tom Holland.”
Absolutely important and well put AM
I think Putin just tried to explain that Russian people live in that territory for centuries and it's important to respect their rights in Ukraine instead of killing them. If Ukraine doesn't want to respect Russians, then they can join Russia.
@@irinam.87 Russians did not live in that territory for centuries. Ukranians did. Every time russians came to Ukranian territories was as conquerers and even then, before 2014 and russians starting to wage war on us, their rights were respected.
@@bezyn2291 It's an Ukrainian version of history which didn't exist even 20 years ago. Is killing pro-Russian people in Ukraine or killing their representatives in powers means respect? Is forbidding their language mean respect? You began this war, not Russians. Read Kravchuk's address to Russian counterparts and compare what was promised in 1991 and what you have done.
@@irinam.87 Forbiding russian language? Interesting, as a russian speaking Ukranian that`s the first time I heard about it. Please do elaborate on your made up bullshit.
@@bezyn2291 23 февраля 2014 года на экстренном заседании Верховной рады Украины депутат «Батькивщины» Вячеслав Кириленко внёс в повестку дня заседания Верховной Рады законопроект № 1190 «О признании утратившим силу Закона Украины „Об основах государственной языковой политики“», 232 депутата проголосовали за принятие законопроекта в повестку дня и без обсуждения немедленно приняли его.
Definitely NOT boring mate. Very interesting lecture. Thank you!
It's not boring, it's absolutely fascinating! Good job!
Really excited to get your takes on this interview, cheers for the stream, AM.
Whether the Bolsheviks would have seen the USSR as a continuation of Russia or not the leaders and citizens of NATO see the USSR and Russia as indistinguishable.
It is undeniable that the Russians came to dominate the USSR despite the intentional Bioleninism at its inception.
The Ukrainian SSR has been in the UN since 1954, separately from the USSR.
I wonder if the reason for Putin's need to contextualize the Soviet Union as a part of Russian continuity, as opposed to a break from it which should be reversed, has to do with a psychological need to rationalize his own past. He could have easily constructed a narrative where the Soviet Union was a break from continuity which needed to be reversed, and the narrative would have been much harder to dispute.
Much of his voterbase still loves the Soviet Union; I'm sure he himself isn't fond of the USSR (you can sense this bitterness even in the Tucker interview) but the scars and legacy of communism runs too deep to be discarded from Russian canon anytime soon.
@@rogerc6533 You both are perfeclty right.
The modern Russian population has no desire, for the most part to jettison Soviet history. See how the French love Napoleon? Same idea. I was born in the USSR. I'm not proud of it exactly, but why would I lie to myself about my people's history? The USSR had many good sides and I have many positive memories of it.
The older Russian generation lived through it and are still nostalgic. As the younger generation come in and the Orthodox Church expands the perspective will likely shift radically, but that will be outside of Putin's lifespan and WW2 will still be a complicated sticking issue.
@@justian1772 I consider communism and international capitalism two sides of the same coin with the same goal of a globalist totalitarian one world order and despise both accordingly. This doesnt in any way take away from the acheivements of the Russian peoples and I can understand having an attachment to the Ussr.
I personally celebrate both Russian and western acheivements separate from the self destructive ideologies their Cold War governments adhered to.
You forget to mention the fact that as the result of the secret part of the Ribbentrop -Mołotow Pact, the Soviet Union ALSO annexed HALF OF POLAND, invading Poland on Sep. 17, 1939. After that, Nazi Germany and the Soviets held a victory parade(!).
That is a very troubling ommission :(
Last minute petition for this full video to substitute the Super Bowl commercials.
I'm pretty sure the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania captured what is now Ukraine in the 14th century, and the process of differentiation began then.
There was no capture since there was not a single battle between and then Rus'and Lithuania, this was an unification, and what Putin talks about the Moscow Principality is that in those days it was not part of Rus', but was the outskirts of the Golden Horde
Никакого захвата литвой Руси небьІло так как ето бьІло единое государство которому в ХІV веке уже бьІло 500 и которое в таких границах просуществовало 600 лет а може и больше.
10/10 thanks for the upload so fast. Your work is important to us all.
And you’d think that David Cameron PM, with the benefit of his Oxford PPP, might at least have hazarded a guess as to what Magna Carta meant in English…
Excellent! Thank you. As a one-time student of the Russian language I enjoyed learning more about the history of that area.
Sweden should really invade Russia as it's their old territory and no one can convince me it's not the right thing to do.
{Insert Stockholm as a nuclear wasteland image here.jpg}
@@fus132Russia has been threatening with nukes ever since Germany sent helmets to Ukraine
They can certainly try but my guess is it would have an opposite effect
So you have a short attention span. This was addressed in the interview. It's not just territory claims. It's also to save the Donbass from terrorism, which it's baffling to see Christians ignore
@derek123wil0 people ignore it for the same reason they ignore the fact even the us acknowledges that ukriane is comiting lots of war crimes in the current war.
They have decided that Russia is the 'bad guy' in the war and so ignore any evidence that would even out the morality of the war.
I listened to The Last Briton two nights ago, and this tonight,
I liked and subscribed.
Bring on the Autism, and throw in some OCD.
Great work, thank you.
As for the whole unified Russian state thing at the beginning, it would be nice to have the Russian version of Putin’s speech. It can simply be a case of “lost in translation”.
As I said, I was using the official Kremlin transcript to give them the best possible benefit of the doubt when it came to translation.
A lot of the comments on the video of the interview are how good the translation was.
Even the best translations involve judgement and could be debated. For example, the book.'My Struggle', should it not be called 'My Fight' in English? @ApostolicMajesty
A Panzer IV was not an 'Armoured Struggle Vehicle', for instance
@@juliantheapostate8295a struggle is really a form of fight. The two while not the same are often used interchangeably in English as they have overlapping meanings at the very least.
I would suggest Michael Rossi Poli Sci right here on you tube. He's an area specialist that puts out excellent transcription of important Russian political speeches and interviews including this one.
Tucker Carlson is weird. Anyone notice that? He gives off that buffoonish laugh, at all the wrong junctures. And that perennial deer in the headlights stare? Just weird…
Navous laugh lol
he was a failed CIA candidate, of course he glows
he is part of the USA 1% who live in that Swamp which 1% Trump will never drain.
he was way out of his depth, but then Tucker is a product of American MSM, he started at CNN, he's always been a talking head not a journalist. He is so invested in the Putin/Ukraine issue because its been a good stick to beat the Democrats with. But now he's boxed himself into a corner since the brutal invasion and his ego won't allow him to admit he got it so wrong
That's his mask.
My favourite part was “Here are the letters from Khmelnetsky to Russia from our archives. They are *translated into Russian* you can translate them into English”
But to really dig into the historical arguments:
> It was not simply because the soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine.
This is technically true, and includes Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinovief (Apfelbaum), Larine, Ouritsky, Volodarsky (Bronstein) etc. To portray them as some kind of nationalists pushing korenizacija because they love Ukraine is wrong for obvious reasons
> As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation the lands which had originally been German. The eastern lands of Germany, these are now the western lands of Poland.
It’s interesting that Putin can go back to the 9th century for Russian claims but not for the legitimacy of Polish territory. The regions of modern Poland are also the regions of historical Poland from 1000 years ago, however German settler colonisation lead to the Germanisation and consolidation of these regions as German from the 13th-17th centuries, which was part of the pressure pushing poles east into Ukraine. This process was reversed in 1945 with Poland original frontiers in both the east and west being restored. Putin appears to hold a very anti polish sentiment, probably largely relating to his impression that Poles separated Ukrainians from Russia, in a similar way to, for example, how many Bulgarians hold anti Serbian sentiments as they blame Serbs for the unwillingness of Macedonians to be Bulgarians.
> Even if we go back to 1654… that area was the size of 3-4 regions of modern Ukraine
Yes because Southern Ukraine was controlled by Turkic tribes who were driven out and the territory was slavicised by Ukrainian settlers from those 3-4 regions, meanwhile the west was still ethnically Ukrainian/Ruthenian but under the control of Poland-Lithuania (since 1363). The Ruthenians in this region were subjected to a feudal caste system that placed Jews directly above them and had the worst living conditions for any serf in Europe (facilitating massive Jewish population growth while Ukrainians outside the 3-4 regions previously mentioned relatively stagnated and suffered extremely high mortality rates). This is why Khmelnetsky had rebelled against the Poles & massacred the Jews in the 1650’s to allow Russia to move in. I’m not sure what part of this makes the presence of the Ukrainian state in these regions illegitimate
> Ukraine also received, in addition to lands that were part of Poland before the war, part of lands which had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the soviet Ukraine, and still belong to Ukraine.
Zakarpatia has been inhabited by Rusyns since the 13th century, although other Slavic tribes were also present at earlier times. Budjak was inhabited by Nogais and other peoples of the mongol empire/Golden Horde and was settled by Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Russians, Romanians, Gaguz and Germans in the 19th century. No ethnicity makes up a majority but most of the population is Slavic, and Budjak has never been an important or integral region of any historical state. Bukovina was part of the Kievan Rus however Romanians started to settle in its south and it was annexed by Moldavia in the 14th century. North Bukovina is part of Ukraine today while the south is part of Romania.
I’m not sure what part of this makes Ukraine’s presence there artificial or illegitimate
It’s unfortunate someone more knowledgeable about history & ethnicity in Eastern Europe couldn’t interview Putin to challenge his claims as the historic argument seems to be the root of his argument, however i doubt that Putin would agree to such an interview.
"German settler colonisation lead to the Germanisation and consolidation of these regions as German from the 13th-17th centuries" - they were not majority "German" until 18th century. They were majority Polish between 10th and 14th and then mostly mixed (Czech/Bohemian, Austrian, Silesian) with Polish majority between 15th and 17th. Anyways, it's utterly ridiculous to call western Poland as "historically German" I agree.
@@misterkefir it should also be noted that the first major settlement of Poles in what is known as western Ukraine were invited by the Rus Princes to repopulate the region after the depopulated caused by the Mongols. By the time the Polish Kingdom annexed the region Lachians were already living there.
@misterkefir yes let's conflate all of modern western Poland as historically polish, even though there are parts that even when slavic were never polish untill the forced migrations of the 1940s.
As for saying all of it was majority polish in the 17th century. Well the parts that were never polish obviously never had a polish majority. Slavic pomeranians were not polish, there is a greater difference between them and pole's than between ukrianians and Russians.
But even if we conflate the various non-polish slavs as polish we would still have parts of modern day western Poland as majority German before 1300AD.
Furthermore, if you can go back to medieval times why can't the germans go back even further? As late as 500AD the entirety of poland west of the vistula would of had German majorities (with large slavic minorities) it wasn't untill the late 500s AD that the germans were minorities in all the territories East of the Oder. If the Poles can claim pomerania after over 600 years of German majority why can't the germans claim the lands west of the vistula after after a similar period? (the gap between German migration out and German migration back in to these regions)
I'm so grateful my ancestors settled on a little windswept Island.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 TL;DR. I was mostly talking about the Poznań adjacent territories and Wrocław adjacent south-west btw. Also - Territories as far as Berlin lies today and even further to the west also to the north (sea) also to the south were ethnically slavic until at least 800 AD.
A master work from AM here.
After I first watched the original Tucker v Putin interview one of my first cravings was for a stream/video breaking down and analyzing Putin's historical conception of Russia as relayed in the interview.
Like AM said - despite Putin gravely skewing the narrative through omission & conflation at many points along the way - I can respect the fact that he at least HAS a conception of his nation's history that predates 1945, even If I disagree with it.
Also bonus points to AM for finally breaking down what Putin means by 'Denazification' as nobody else seems to be able to tackle that topic.
Top quality, keep up the great work.
I found this lecture fantastic. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
The best way to prevent this sisirc
based schizo
tahW
Best? In what sense?
b@sed schizo
@@unbearifiedbear1885
UA-cam censorship.
It detecs some key words and secretly wipes the comment away after 20 seconds.
Excellent exposition made much more interesting by showing what's at stake in historicism than a straight up 'here's how it was' history piece. Very good.
I will admit, my first plan was to listen to you and fall asleep, I can say I failed miserably at that. This is by far the best in context understanding of the Putin "History lesson" I have seen. Its super interesting and I would say as accurate as I have managed verify it. Than you for making it.
Now there are a few details when it comes to the Czeck question that you sort of get wrong, or misunderstand, and Putin really blunders it. What I am expecting him to say was that Poland collaborated with Germany over the death of Czeckhoslovakia, yet fell pray for her own policy. That the Soviet state was supporting of the established order after WW1. And that they where working within the framework of the international system. That system fell apart in Munich 1938. After that the Soviet union had to protect itself and signed the M-R pact to avoid the Polish - German - Japanese pact.
Now why does he do this, well there are two reasons.
1. The Polish collaboration with Hitler has been erased from every western history book used by the general public. You have to dig very very deep to find it in the western sources. The reason for it is obvious.
2. There is a precedence for this, Putin would prob claim that in the same way Hitler carved up Czechoslovakia, an ally of the Soviet Union, NATO carved up Yugoslavia (Serbia), and ally of Russia. Especially with the Kosovo campaign, an province the the US pushed into independence 2008 just month before inviting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
1. Ruthenia is a European name for Rus'. Russia is the Greek transcription for Rus' that was then pulled on Rus ambitions in the titles of the Muscovian prince - Ivan 4th the Terrible..
2. Rus'(Ruthenia/Russia(greek)) is a principality or Dutchy, that existed before the Mongolian invasion in 1240, located from about 700 mentioned in chronicles by several historians and academics line Nasonov and Rybakov(in 70ties and 80-ties) and the area is located in the Northern Ukraine, little bit overlapping south of Belarus and Kursk, Belgorod oblastes.
So that historian writing, as France had never been called France before, he can easily prove that Ukraine is almost direct and the most direct "successor" of Rus' - at least in context with Moscovia, that remained Russian Empire by Sinod and Peter 1st the Great. "Rossiya"(taken from greek transcription) - is almost nothing like Rus' also.
3. Anything else wasn't called Rus - it was all invented by the Imperial and Soviet propaganda, like Moscovian Rus, Novgorod Russ, the Great Russ, Kyivan Russ/Principality(which is the Rus from Chronicles) - those all terms are artificial and not actual from the real life. Yeah - those territories were usually controlled by siblings, brothers, and relatives of Rus Ruller in Kiev, and after the Mongolian invasion, it was so so-called split, where those individual dutchies and principalities got yarliks from the Han in Saray. Lithuanians overtook the territory of the former original Rus - and the nearby Rus Kingdom was established by Daniel Romanovich in 1253 - by uniting Galicia and Volhynia.
4. How do Muscovites excuse their Russ-iness? - When "Mongol-Tatars" burned Kyiv and acted horrible afterwards, the "metropolitan of Rus", went from Kyiv to Moscovia and kept his title, though he is outside of geographical Rus, that's how Muscovian tzars were crowned and baptised by a church of the Rus.
The church was restored in Kyiv and there were 2 All-Rus metropolites at the same time which is just titling absurd promoted also by Constantinople.
The history of Rus/Russian church is complex, especially of their maze of titles, but geographically, politically, and historically Rus is the name of the exact area, which of course, is hidden from pupils of Russia's schools and propaganda.
Putin is an incredible historian 👏
This is the type of content that we need. Thank you for this you earned a new subscriber.
Thank you AM. Your work is much needed
Regarding the narrative, which says that Muscovy are not Russians.
Well, that's silly now, but it wasn't so at the beginning. According to Nestor, the area of current Moscow, likely with a keep at Kremlin, was inhabited by people he calls Lachy, which is an alternative Russian name for the Poles. Nestor fairly precisely defines who Lachy are, and for him it means Western Slavs, as opposed to Eastern Slavs. There are linguistic reasons to believe that Nestor was correct, and those places were really settled by two Western Slavic tribes, at least at the time when Rus was initially founded.
The areas further to the East and North of Moscow were occupied by Finnic peoples. There is no doubt about that.
So there is something to the claim, that Kievan Rus was the real Rus, while Muscovy was an amalgamation of various peoples, who eventually adopted Rus culture. It's not as crazy an idea as it may seem on the surface.
Obviously, Russian historians were never allowed to entertain such concepts. Even if they addressed this issue at all, they tended to brush it aside under various pretexts. Understandable attitude, but not necessarily the most convincing.
If you bring up that argument then what is to say what a true rus even is? It's not as if the kieven rus in kiev were not themselves an amalgomous group.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Well, in the older sources the Rus people and the Slavs were distinguished as different peoples. The Rus were the Warangian Swedes, while the Slavs were the Slavs.
So yeah, you got a point.
However, Vladimir Putin *decided* to bring up those old times, not me. If he did that, he should be prepared to face the facts...
;-)
@@bakters While it is undisputed that the areal of Moscow used to be Finnic before the arrival of the Rus, I don't really see how this is a gotcha for Putin. It is undisputed that Attica was inhabited by Pelasgians before the arrival of the Greeks, but that doesn't translate to some kind of argument that Athens in some way isn't central to Hellenic civilization.
Of course, by the same standards, the area of Kiev used to be part of the realm of the Greuthungi, and still before I suppose part of Sarmatia.
This is all true and also interesting, but it really isn't relevant to Putin's main point, which was to explain how the core territory of Rus shifted from Kiev to what would become Muscovy as a reaction to the Tatar rule, which as far as I can see is entirely correct.
@@ecgwineicling2543 " *Moscow used to be Finnic before the arrival of the Rus* "
That's not what I wrote. Nestor claims that those areas belonged to two Lach tribes (western slavs), Viatichi and Radomichi.
" *before the arrival* "
There was no arrival of new peoples. Yaroslav (who was a Swede) simply defeated those Lach tribes and extracted tribute from them. They never moved out.
" *part of Sarmatia* "
That's correct, however there are good reasons to believe that Sarmatians and Slavs were working together, with Sarmatian elites eventually adopting Slav culture. Long story.
Anyway, Nestor describes local tribes around Kiev as Eastern Slavs, while he *does not* say so about peoples in current Moscow area.
" *reaction to the Tatar* "
The notorious Oprichina...
So, according to You, is Putin saying that Moscow was not inhabited by Eastern Slavs, then they became the tax collectors for Tatars, and that's why Kiev should belong to them?
You helped me understand the context of "denazification" from Putin's perspective, and when you went into that, and contextualized it with the fact that Putin is not really speaking of Ukranians and Russias in an ethnocentric way, it all made sense to me. I think it was the highlight of the monologue.
I'm still curious however if what you identified broadly as the "ukranian supremacist" perspective has more or less merit than this more civic centered notion of Russia and russians as a community of different ethnic peoples, amalgamating both ukranians and russians as more or less the same.
Like it or not, the focus on specific historical justification or territorial is a hallmark of autocratic or royal rule, it doesn’t really “cut the mustard” for contemporary western democracies when used by itself..historically eastern justifications even recently adhere to that “argument from ancient history”it doesn’t mean it’s wrong but the western/eastern divide is no better exemplified in the disconnect between the two parties regarding the Putin interview
Thank you for this! As Ukrainian, I really appreciate such videos because the history of our Ukraine is a topic difficult to discuss even in Ukraine itself.
33:49 But Putin never said the word Ukraine comes from polanization. I don’t even know where you caught this in the interview. Everyone in Ukraine and Russia knows that the name of the country comes from “u kraya” (near the border, on the outskirts)
Everyone know your parents are siblings.
@@Overlord734 who am I to judge your kinks? Sweeet home Alabama
1:32:42 those territories from romania given to Ukraine did not have even half of the population that identified as romanian.
What did they identify as?
@@mitchyoung93 in Northern Bucovina most of the population was Ukrainian. It used to be part of the old principality of Moldova. And in the Buceag, West of Odessa, that place was multicultural, Ukrainians, russians, Bulgarians, some turks and tatars.
Well see, your very first argument about Ukraine not existing in 9th century is flawed, as Russia didn’t exist either. There was Rus, which was an identification of one op plenty ethnic or rather even social groups
Germany also gave a German town in Czechoslovakia to Poland as a goodwill gesture and spoken promise from Poland to negotiate the return of Danzig to Germany. Poland turned around and declared they're a sovereign state and don't have to negotiate anything belonging to them.
Later the British and the French were heavily pressuring Poland to allow Soviet troops access. The French going as far to give Soviets a 'permission', in case of war with Germany, without Poland's acceptance on August 21st. Poles rightly assumed that the Soviet troops would never leave if they allowed that to happen. French were also willing to give Soviets anything they wanted to occupy already in July in exchange for an alliance against Germany. Or like Soviets liked to put it "protecting it's neighbors from indirect threat of Fascism".
Molotov-Rippentrop pact gave Lithuania to Germany but Soviets occupied it anyway. Rippentrop wrote a long article back in the day detailing the treaty preaches by Soviet Union, this was one of the big ones.
Interestingly the British-French Soviet negotiations had a secret protocol too, defining which countries it applies to. Belgium-Finland-Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania-Poland-Romania-Turkey and Greece.
> Germany also gave a German town in Czechoslovakia to Poland as a goodwill gesture and spoken promise from Poland to negotiate the return of Danzig to Germany. Poland turned around and declared they're a sovereign state and don't have to negotiate anything belonging to them.
What? What German town? What spoken promise? How did Germany give it as a goodwill gesture?
Incredible are these lies you people continue to spew.
@@misterkefir Viscount Halifax to Sir W. Seeds (Moscow) July 10 French Government are informing French Ambassador that they are disposed to accept M. Molotov's definition of indirect aggression and insertion in Article 1 of words 'direct or indirect'
Minute by Mr. Strang August 21
M. Cambon called this evening to make an urgent communication on behalf of the French Government about the question of the use of Polish territory by Russian troops. 4. The French Ambassador and General Doumenc, head of the French military mission in Moscow, therefore think it possible to give the Soviet delegation an affirmative answer in principle which might help on the military negotiations.
Sir W. Seeds (Moscow) to Viscount Halifax July 10
Article 1 of the Agreement signed by them today will apply to the following European States: Turkey, Greece, Roumania, Poland, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Switzerland and Netherlands.
Viscount Halifax to Sir H. Knatchbull-Hugessen July 21 We have made the following concessions to the Russians: (2) It shall not cover Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxemburg. 3. The only concession so far made by the Soviet Government is that they have agreed to put the list of States covered by the Agreement not in the agreement itself but in an unpublished Protocol.
@billyberrington @@misterkefir UA-cam says I can't give you direct sources so go read Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939 Third edition Vol IV, V, VI and VII
@@billyberrington Source for that exact thing is Hitler himself according to British diplomats so if you're inclined not to believe it then fine. The towns people sent him a letter begging him not to but Hitler told them 'such is the price we have to pay for Danzig'.
Long man bad? No. Long man good. Detail > all else.
And then Russia collaborate with Hitler 😂😂😂
How so?
@@user-kf7kv8zp5v Think he means when they divided poland.
I think he is making fun of people who died during the war between Russia and Hitler.
*Soviet Union
Very good show mate
I like the opening music
I like the pictures.
The word "krayina" means country in many Slavic languages.
Putin describes Russia as a noble civilization spreading humanity and order as opposed to decadent, cynical West always plotting to destroy it. You may not know much about Russian history but ask yourself a question: why all the countries bordering Russia on its Western side rushed to join NATO and EU. Why Ukraine fights so desperately for its independence. If Russia's history is the way Putin describes it - certainly all those states would love to be again close to Moscow.
Liking and commenting for the algorithm. Thank you for this great video, very far above the endless low iq hysterical takes that have come out. You throve for historical accuracy over ideologies and geopolitical interests which is the way History should be tackled. Wonderful work.
Ukraine from the Ukrainian language can be translated as InCountry, within the country. U being as In, and Kraina - as Country.
And - Hmelnyetzky.. that could be the spelling for the kossak hetman.
This was a fantastic history! I wish I would have found your channel sooner. All the history channels I have found before you have been Ideological and used bully tactics to shut down honest questions. Thank you for doing this!
Thank you for this video. Just subbed.
For clarification they’re most commonly called “Eastern Catholics.” Being those Catholic communities out in the former lands of the Tsardom and Commonwealth who while being in communion with the Holy See do not follow the Roman/Latin rite.
They tend to this day become a bit of a “sore spot” on the topic of Catholic-Orthodox mending of relations as while there is a official agreement that neither group in the east(Eastern Catholics and Orthodox) will try and actively convert the other some among the Orthodox hierarchy view it as really meaning that the Eastern Catholics must return to full communion with the Orthodox Churches before any further steps to mend the schism take place.
Word of the stream: conflate! Great stuff AM
The language used in Kiev rus was in no way russian. Its more close to ukrainian with elements used in polish nowadays ( like nevyem - do not know, never said in russian) so ukrainian version is closer to facts
Very well done mr AM
Its important to notice that neither of the major Russian royal dynasties were ethnically slavic. The Ruriks were of Swedish heritage and the Romanovs of German heritage. That does say a lot about how the Russian civilization is perceived, its a cultural union state, not neccessarily ethnic.
A "unified" Russian state can disintegrate and another "unified" Russian state can emerge later. How is that a contradiction?
My understanding of Putin is that he views Russia as a "civlisational state". So there might be some conflation between "state" and "civilisation".
Anyway, the winners write the history and Ukraine has to survive as a state for all this "debunking" to matter.
Ukraine literally has an entirely different language from Russian. History may be “written by victors”, even though that saying is way too simplistic to actually reflect on how real life historiography works, but even if it was the case it doesn’t change the reality which is that nation and state are two every different things, and just because an empire ruled over a people does not mean that they are the same as the empire or that the empire has the right to rule them or conqueror them if they break off.
Like it or not But Ukrainians are not Russians.
@@baneofbanes I don't particularly care whether Ukrainians are Russians or not. As for their rights, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. " - Thucydides
@huntersmith761 It's language is just a different kind of Russian. You can argue the Ukies ought to be separate from a Russian national state without having to try and act like Ukrainians aren't Russians. Much in the way a British state can be rejected by the Irish or the English despite claiming to be a British state.
@@baneofbanes i actually enjoy the refutation of this popular statement: the history of the (you know what) was written for the most part by the generals of the defeated germany :)
@@lokenontherange ivan-linguist in the chat! hide!
Applying modern terms like "Russia" or "Russians" to historic entities such as Kievan Rus can promote misleading, anachronistic narratives. We should avoid referring to the people of Kievan Rus as Russians and instead use historical terms like "the people of Kievan Rus" or "inhabitants of medieval Rus' lands."
President Putin often equates Kievan Rus with modern Russia in ways that many historians consider dubious or politically motivated. For instance, his linkage between Kievan Rus, the USSR, and modern Russia glosses over centuries of complex change in identities, states, and peoples across the region. Meanwhile, Putin denies Ukraine's distinct heritage and peoplehood, contradicting most scholarly perspectives.
The territory around modern-day Moscow was referred to externally as Muscovy until the early 1700s. Consulting historians from various backgrounds, including Ukrainian, Russian and international scholars, provides fuller understanding of the contested history.
Some Putin supporters even claim the Ukrainian language was invented by Austria-Hungarians, despite historical evidence that when Muscovite envoys negotiated with the Ukrainian Cossack hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1654, they brought translators to bridge the linguistic divides between the two languages.
The concept of "Russia" comes from the transcription of the Greek word "ῬΩσίΑ". So since the middle of the 10th century, the Greeks called Rus that way (today they use the word "pως").
The end of the 14th century. The word "Russia" in Cyrillic appears for the first time in the title of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev.
The middle of the 16th century. "Russia" (Russia) became the name of the Moscow state Ivan the terrible, who was called "цр҃ь и҆ вели́кїй ки҃зь і҆ѡа́ннъ васи́лїевичъ всеѧ̀ рꙋ́сїи"does it mean: " the tsar and the Grand Duke of all Russia. Rus and Russia are the same thing
As Moscow became the dominant center of Russian statehood, the name "Russia" gradually replaced localised references to Rus', Kievan Rus', Muscovy, etc. to refer to the entire land and people under Muscovite rule.
So while the roots go back to the 9th century 'Rus', the modern name "Russia" itself first appeared in written form in the 14th century, eventually superseding older regional names as Moscow's power spread.
@@Metobolic_78Тебе же объяснили,что слова могут звучать одинаково,а смысл может быть другим.
А ты все пишешь под каждым комментарием одно и тоже.
Русский бот!
Informative✅
Slavic splurge✅
Autistic✅
Another day another Apostolic banger
People really throw the word "autistic" around too much these days. It says a lot about how uneducated our society has become that some people can't distinguish between genuine intelligence and a mental condition.
Lmao I thought it was a hilarious joke in the vid
@@JohnDoe-wv7epthey absolutely can and do, they are not being serious when they say so, it's a meme and a bit of fun
@@JohnDoe-wv7ep He literally says in the video if you can't handle autistic history nerd commentary it isn't meant for you + I am on the spectrum so your argument is invalid.
Putin: *Describes 1000 years of Ukrainian history*
Also Putin: *"Ukraine did not exist before 1922"*
And he is correct. He never said Ukrainians didn't exist prior to 1922 just that a constitutionally-defined geographic entity didn't exist.
@@dirremoire А УНР ?
What a fantastic dissertation!
the ruso world view is more valid then the western world view especially in term of ww2 and how that war evolved
Masterful as always AM
I discovered this channel around two months ago and it has become one of my favourite channels
This is why America should not be involved in foreign engagements. We just don’t understand the history of these areas, and when someone tries to explain we say “eh that’s boring”.
You accepting that Putin is trying to "explain" is exactly what he is counting on. There are people in America who understand the conflict. And it isn't 1000 year old. There are experts who understand the underlying issue, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the basic tenets of this conflict. The bottom line is Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine and he was. Then he said he wouldn't invade again and he did. If that behaviour alone isn't indicative enough to help you decide which side to support, then you seem to be willfully ignorant, not just lacking in understanding.
Oh sorry, I just realised you probably weren't referring to Putin. My bad.
Why do you diverge the "Rus" and Russian culture/history? When you go into the Slavic etymology it's exactly the same word and the Russian/Muscovite history has every possible continuity with the medieval Rus(ian) statehood.
Wouldn't that argument (of divergence) be the same in the context of English, French and German history? Yet we don't somehow have different terminology for medieval England, france or Germany.
That thumbnail is “ripped from today’s headlines”
There is a reason that we traditionally say "the Ukraine" in English and why until the day before yesterday to express being located on this frontier area Slave used "na", that is 'on' rather than "v" or "u" meaning in. Kraj can mean country in the generic sense...moj rodnij kraj, land of my birth, but has nothing to do with an ethnie or narod.
1000 years ago, the daughter of the assassinated King of England Harold II Godwinson, was Geeta (Geeta of Wessex / Gytha of Wessex ), fled to nowhere to be forcibly married to her father's killer.
( NOTE Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 - 14 October 1066), also called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon English king. Harold reigned from 6 January 1066 until his death at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. It was the decisive battle of the Norman Conquest. Harold's death marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule over England. He was succeeded by William the Conqueror and Norman rule of England )
After the death of their father King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Gytha and two of her brothers escaped to the court of their first cousin once-removed, King Sweyn Estridsson of Denmark. After some time for political reasons was contracted into a diplomatic marriage Gytha was married to
Vladimir II Monomakh, the grand prince of Kiev
(NOTE Vladimir Monomakh was buried at Saint Sophia Cathedral. Succeeding generations often referred to his reign as the golden age of that city.)
So how did this all happen to be ?
After king Harold II, Gythas father the last crowned Anglo-Saxon English king was kill in battle and William the Conqueror invaded and took the crown of England for himself needed to legalize his rule in the eyes of the populace and the church he needed a blood line and in his eyes Gytha was just that he there wanted to force Gytha hand in marriage. But Gytha with her two brother was already on the run trying to find safe haven ..
William the Conqueror (now England's now king ) warned all the kings and queens of France, Germany,
Denmark Europe ... , if they gave Gytha shelter that , it will end up in war; William really wanted and needed for political reasons the royal title of Gytha in marriage to help legitimize his own rule and tittle as the new king of England ; Harolds intention was to marry Gytha by force or by persuasion and those unite the now divided the new country under his new rule .
No one in mainland Europe submitted help to the princess because no one wanted a war.
The only one who was not afraid and challenged William was the Queen of Norway - Elizabeth, the daughter of the builder of the Sofia Cathedral of the Prince of Kyiv Russia Yaroslav the Wise.
The then Norwegian Queen by marriage and daughter Prince Yaroslav I of Kiev; was known in Europe as Ellisif. After the murder of her husband The Norwegian King Harald III, Elizabeth took over the ruled of the kingdom of Norway, and was the Queen of the Norwegian Vikings.
(NOTE ; Elisaveta Yaroslavna of Kiev (in Norwegian: Ellisif or Elisabeth), (1025 - ca 1067), was a Rus' Princess of Kiev and queen of Norwegian, the wife and queen consort of king Harald III of Norway.
Elisaveta was born to Prince Yaroslav I of Kiev and Princess Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisiv_of_Kiev
Amazing discussion, probably because I had the same take as you. Putin's view points were not at all absurd and very nuanced when compared to most western politicians who seem to think history began in 1945. But he did go a bridge too far trying to paint Poland as the arch collaborator with Nazi Germany, while the USSR was acting with pure motives, and was a victim of unprovoked aggression by the Nazis ( west) . But I wonder if that came about because he was trying to convince a domestic audience as well as an international one. Nothing is more emotional to the Russians than the Great Patriotic War. One understands this in view of the great losses suffered by the Russians (and Ukrainians). But to an outsider such as myself does reek of hypocrisy.
This is excellent, I knew before the interview putin was going to answer every question with an answer that favors his position.
Excellent insights to what his strategy is based on his choice of historical events to highlight. Very enlightening. Knowledge of history really can change your views of the situation in more than one way actually.
as a descendant of Ruricks and several others of land owners in these lands I am very pleased with your presentation very consistent with my family lore.
Don’t forget to continue the conversation and join AM fanclub Discord: discord.gg/8cNB39kY
When I click on the link, I get a message saying Invite Invalid. Do you have to subscribe to the UA-cam channel to join the Discord discussion?
@@michaelmonastyrskyj955 here’s an updated link: discord.gg/6ASPUSKF
Going forward I will remember to try and update my post once a week or so
@@ajsj Thank you.
When are we going to see a video done on how Polish Nationalism came to be within Poland now?
A video on men like Roman Dmowski & Jozef Pilsudski. The dichotomy of Polish nationalism.
no see these are two different people groups. the Turkish in the south and the rus of the north. Kiev was conquered by Oleg and is part of that Rus empire and culture. Russia itself is a multi ethnic multi national empire where the rus people are its core citizenry
I have one problem with the first image: Novgorod should not be on the line leading to Russia. Novgorod existed as a separate civilization with its own culture and language. Moscow captured Novgorod and destroyed its culture and language. And they tried (and are trying now) to do the same with Ukraine (and Belarus).
Or few. And many more with full video. But whatever
Facts.
It would be good to have some references in the description.
@Apostolic Majesty: Putin did not invent the idea that the Soviet Union was a continuation of Russian Statehood. Maybe you're not saying precisely that, but that's the idea I got. This concept has been around in Russia for decades. Putin didn't think he said anything new. Most Westerners referred to Soviets as Russians even when the USSR was around...
He is right in all the ways that matter
3:33 what narrative? The narrative where he twists reality? 😂 there were other historians who responsed to putin's fake history.
This was excellent. I greatly enjoyed the depth and effort dedicated to breaking down what was said
Putin’s Logic: When we consider what the whole Earth was like, before even the earliest human civilisations and communities arose. There were no countries and no borders, Earth was truly one people and nation.
So this means, if I exterminate every other Being on the planet. Then Earth will be back to its original, rightful state and I will be the King of the World.
You seem to be slightly unhinged.
I wanted this as soon as Putin started speaking.
An interesting twist on molotov pact. Perhaps, you should have mentioned that Great Britain and France hacked both refused to sign a defence pact with the Soviet Union before that? Or the Polish-Soviet war of the 1920? And the hundreds of thousands of the Soviet soldiers starved to death in the Polish concentration camps? Perhaps a little bit of context would help to clarify the picture?
What did Soviet soldiers forget on Polish territory?
They defended their homeland against the Polish invaders and were captured, as simple as that
@@quadra4A What homeland? The last time Poland was a threat to the Russian homeland was during the Polish-Russian war at the beginning of the 17th century. The Soviet Union simply wanted spread of communist domination. The captured Soviet soldiers were not so much victims of the Polish army, but to a greater extent victims of the communist ideology of which they were the agents. They ended up in Polish territories only to die for ideas created by a bearded German-speaking Jew.
@@xxvxxv5588 Didn't you know that Poland was a part of the Russian Empire before the revolution? Didn't you know that Poland took Kiev in 1920 which was not a part of Poland for sure? Didn't you know that Poles also participated in the revolution 1917?
Ol' Russia, Lil' Russia, Bela Russia, Nova Russia. Sounds like an even more cringe Slavic version of the Spice Girls.
Seriously though good show AM.
I haven't watched the interview but when I saw your video on it, I took the chance to learn something about Russian history in general. My knowledge on Russia as a country and it's history is quite lacking. That's the main reason why I refrained myself from commenting on the Ukrainian-Russia conflict. Thank you for your perspective and it was an interesting stream.
I have a better history knowledge than someone who doesn't care at all, but my historical knowledge is pretty bad compared to anyone who is at least somewhat invested in educating himself. In the past year or two I only met one type of person who was interested in bringing a historical case for politics. And those are the Germans who want to resurrect the "Grossreich". Their arguments were not all that overwhelming, but even if they would have a good argument, I don't think history trumps all other arguments. If we compare the last hundred years of Germany and Switzerland we can see how vastly different the two countries ruled themselves. Germany wanted big government and rules. Switzerland not only combines 4 languages and several protestant and catholic cantons, we truly have as a fundamental understanding that we reject nobility and want to discuss everything on the most local level possible. But once we discussed it we can respect the compromise. A unified Germanic nation is going against that entire way of thinking and if it were to be implemented then we would be back in the times of Wilhelm Tell.
But of course I could be charitable to the point of absurdity and assume they don't want to impose their ideals on us but instead take on all of our ideals. Germany has 10 times more people than Switzerland. If we were to fuse then even if everything was in our favor, we still would be outvoted by them every time as we would be less than 10% of the voting block. So when a German says that he wants a Germanic nation then in practice he just wants us to join their ideals while we had to abandon our own identity. And that is something I can't agree with, even if they were to have a perfect historical case for it.
It was interesting to see how Ukraine is just the borderlands of the Rus country and the surrounding countries fighting for their people in a way shaped their nation.
My ancestor helped Catherine the Great establish the border lands.
@@Old-Dog00 That's cool. Do you know some stories about it?
@benrex7775 she rewarded him with 6000 acres in Kherson. His descendants in Mglin benefitted as well in that region. My cousin helped desolve some of Cossack state which they lashed back. Burned down his mansion 3 times.
@@Old-Dog00 interesting.
@benrex7775 many Cossacks became Serfs and got pissed.
Based on Putin’s logic who gets Konigberg?
Russia because it's full of Russians. To pretend his arguement is purely about historical terriroty is laughable.
His arguement (and if you disagree this is what you need to argue against) is that ukrainains and Russians are the same people. His historical argument is about that, not who controled the land in the past.
It’s population is 90%+ Russian.
Also Germany refused it as did Poland, due to that fact.
Don’t want to welcome millions of people of a different ethnicity into your country....that didn’t last.
Based on his logic russians take everything: Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Baltics, Finland + some Sweden, Japan and China
Slavs and Baltics, since they are the original population before German invasion
@@James-sk4dbThey'd rather have a million sub Saharan Africans
8:38 but there were no "Russia" in the documents as well. The name was taken by Muscovy in the 18th century.
We can't say "Italy doesn't have Romans ancestry, because of nowadays Romania". To put it roughly. Nothing will be changed if Ukraine will rename itself to Kyivan Rus or just Rus.
would it be possible that the poles AND russians described the territory as "Ukraine", because these parts were equally "on the outskirts/on the edge" of their respective "countries"? maybe as a barrier or somewhat of a grey zone from each other?
Russians and Poles called it Ukraine because it was called that by people who lived there. "Outskirts" version is only one of three major ones, and not even most plausible, but russians like it because they know only their language which has word "okraina". But Ukrainian language does not have this word, it has "okolytsia" or simply "kraj". Polish has word "kraniec".
For people who know only one language every foreign word is exercise in misheard lyrics.
@@ThorneyedWT Hm. I was wondering, because "u kraja" literally means "on/close to the edge" in russian. And these words have the same meaning in ukrainian, as you rightfully say. So i dont think there was a mistranslation of some sorts, or at least its very unlikely imo. What people do you mean with "people who lived there"? Lived where?
P.S: thx for your answer!
@@jonasdauerbrenner6432 lived in Ukraine when this name surfaced in documents.
Ukrainians rarely use word "kraj" as "edge" and "u" in Ukrainian in most cases means "in" while in Russian it means "near". Furthermore in middle ages lands that belonged to certain slavic feudal were called "krajna". There are numerous examples of this word in Balkan toponyms and in modern Ukrainian "kraina" means "country". Literally. Heck several russian regions are called "*****skiy kraj", but in modern russian it is considered somewhat obsolete. "Ye olde style" if you will.
@@jonasdauerbrenner6432 and furthermore in Ukraine for a lot of centuries used world Вкраїна (Vkrajina), and if you assume kraj means edge then it will be like "in edge" and it sounds like nonsense. You can be near or on edge, not in edge.