Victory for Free people's Victory for the innocent Christians. Ukrainian or Russian. The Christian Free slavic People's have the same God-given right to live with Peace Prosperity and Freedom as we all do here in the Anglo-American world order.
What pisses me off about "free thinkers," is that they believe they are geniuses for not believing everything their government tells them, but then proceed to believe everything another government tells them, as if that one is incapable of lying.
Yup. My fellow conservatives in the U.S. have lost their damn minds. So everything that Joe Biden and the Democrats say are lies and from the Deep State but everything Putin says "exposes the West" and should be taken as absolute truth? Huh?!
Worse they believe what some random alt-media person of their coresponding political inclination tells them. I swear the meme "Don't trust everything you learn on the internet - Isaac Newton" is missed on them.
And often times the people who just blindly accept everything their own government tells them are accidentally still closer to the truth than these "free thinkers". Simply by virtue of media having more freedom in the west.
tsarist Russia, the Soviet Russia & Putin's Russia have one thing in common: IMPERIALISM (which means: destruction, pillage, murder, oppression, deportation or genocide)
in perfect world it isnt, but in reality every nation with borders with other always argues for teritory, its just that russia is one hell of a country that was trying to steal land and others history throughout its history
French people actually learn at school that France was founded when Clovis was baptised on Christmas of 498. As a Belgian I always found that kind of funny.
That was when the kingdom of the franks was founded. Are you sure they dont differentiate between france and the franks? Afaik its very commonly understood in modern times that the french are in most parts not descendants of franks.
Yes we do learn about the franks because the franks ruled our territory for a long time and we can't deny the impact they had on french culture. For Clovis we also learn that him being baptized isn't a verified info and it could have been between 486 and 508
We do not learn that the franks are french they are like a culture which mixed with the population of Gaul ( which was latinized at the time ) progressively became France. When we talk about the beginning of a french state I think we start at the last division of the regnum francorum. Honestly not learning about what's in your territory before your country is weird. It would be like Belgium never learns history before 1830
In Germany, its quite the opposite, we learn that Germany isnt a national state per se, because of its very difficult history, but all the potential foundings are discussed, and yeah, 498 /487 belongs to these years too, as much as 962, 1648, 1871 or 1948 and 1990.
Honestly, great video, but this is all a moot point because Russia recognized Ukrainian independence on December 2nd, 1991. Even if Ukraine was “Russian people on Russian territory” their independence was recognized by you, and must be respected.
@@dwl3006 Ukraine has never made any legal promises to anyone lmao. You keep yapping about that yet the only document that somewhat fits that claim is the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, passed on July 1, 1990, which simply declares that Ukraine just has "intentions" about staying neutral. At the same time the same declaration was passed in Belarus, yet nothing prevented them from joining Russian CSTO and becoming a Russian puppet. Guess what? NATO is not genociding Belarusians because of that right now. There were no real agreements between Russia and Ukraine regarding their neutrality, Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and sovereign nations have freedom of choice. And are seriously blaming Ukraine for pursuing NATO membership after 2014? What is this clownery, Russia has literally stolen Crimea and started a war in the East, what kind of neutrality at that point are you talking about? And not to mention that all this stuff has nothing to do with Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Just accept that Russia is simply waging a feudal medieval landgrabbing war, they don't give a damn about NATO's "expansion" (that Russia is continuously provoking by their own actions, e.g. Finland and Sweden)
@@dwl3006 Ukraine has never made any legal promises to anyone lmao. You keep yapping about that yet the only document that somewhat fits that claim is the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, passed on July 1, 1990, which simply declares that Ukraine just has "intentions" about staying neutral. At the same time the same declaration was passed in Belarus, yet nothing prevented them from joining Russian CSTO and becoming a Russian puppet. Guess what? NATO is not invading Belarusians because of that right now. There were no real agreements between Russia and Ukraine regarding their neutrality, Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and sovereign nations have freedom of choice. And are seriously blaming Ukraine for pursuing NATO membership after 2014? What is this clownery, Russia has literally stolen Crimea and started a war in the East, what kind of neutrality at that point are you talking about? And not to mention that all this stuff has nothing to do with Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Just accept that Russia is simply waging a feudal medieval landgrabbing war, they don't give a damn about NATO's "expansion" (that Russia is continuously provoking by their own actions, e.g. Finland and Sweden)
@@IlyaIgnatov-te6njimagine if Canada was anti UK because the UK had already invaded Canada again ten years ago and the Canadians had been fighting against English incursions into their country that had been killing Canadian civilians for 10 years. And the UK had held power in Canada as recently as 1991, so everyone alive still remembers how shitty it was living under the UKs tyrannical rules, so that people alive today wouldn't ever want to go back to living like that. Because many of them already did.
You're not being charitable to putin. His irrenditism is not based on the ethnicity of a leader or whether russia owned a territory in the past(As a stand alone justification). His irredentism is based off ethnicity, shared culture, etc. People fail to realize how much of a moderate putin is. While communists, and other political parties were calling for destruction of Ukraine years and years before the special military operation, he was steadfast and didn't budge until the internal pressure built up
The Rus' were not Russians but Scandinavians. So if Putin was to be honest about his history rant, he should step down and hand it all over to the Scandinavians.
@@proudtitanicdenier4300 ... No, the Rus' were an actual tribe living in Scandinavia. Rurik from that tribe was invited to rule, he was not slavic and neither was the Rus' tribe he came from.
This is why I'm glad Tucker actually interviewed Putin. We actually have a complete statement of the logic he's espousing, which means we can create relevant counters and refutations like this.
I concur, but for a different reason. Having listened to Ex-Russians, I had already been exposed to Putin's unique... dribble... method. For so many others though, this would have been the first experience with Putin having to 'argue' something with the press. Those nearly incoherent answers, delivered via broken sentence structures and contradictory points, are the bred and butter of press releases by Putin's government. I am told by Russian speakers that it is exactly the same in native! More needed to see that for themselves, so guess some good came from the interview. Perhaps they can come to see the man as rediculous, a clown that can not even answer a simple questoin from a friendly press well. Perhaps they can conclude, like many of us do, that the person lying on camera so obviously isn't to be trusted on the world stage. Although, sadly, not many Americans seem capable of reaching that conclusion. Also, There is a saying out there, I can't remember exactly which world leader said it about Starlin, but it is to be forever remembered: I don't get it, they Lie to our face We know they are Lying They know that We know they are Lying And yet they keep lying right to our face How do you 'factually counter-point' that very Russian tactic?
On the other hand there are many many people who will just take Putins word as law and argue with everyone that he is right even though these are clearly lies.
I don’t understand why you call Vilnius a historical Polish city. It was founded by a Lithuanian ruler, was the capital and heart of Lithuania for all of its history and was occupied by Poland in 1919. For all history Lithuania claimed Vilnius as an integral part and capital of their country.
true, but by the times of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth it was polonised and Polish was the main language spoken I dont think the author was trying to act like these territories were Polands and Polands only, but was trying to prove the hypocrisy of Putin, like if Ukraine is russian then these lands are also Polish by his logic I doubt he actually thinks Poland should regain these lands today
Imagine having to go to the bath room but the guard makes you sit and listen to Putin talk about how a cat sneezed on a banana in 1230 thus giving Russia the right to that land for 3 hours
He only talked about history for 30 minutes, and he wasn’t justifying the invasion by it. His point with the history was to answer a question Tucker never asked but the viewers would probably want an answer to anyways: Are Russians and Ukrainians the same people? According to Putin, the answer is yes.
HEhehe! He managed to commit yet another war-crime while at the same time never even stop talking or even leaving the conference-room. (Which, OK shouldn't be bragged about - but still, quite impressive, eh?) ;-)
Meh, in tye realm of geopolitics the appeal to history can be incredibly valuable as far context goes. However here it is apperent that the appeal itself was more of a trick, blending truth and falsehood together to form a narrative that can be molded towards your interest
No not really its what you'd find in any history book in eastern,southern europe the only book where you wouldn't find it is in a liberal migrant filled shi* hole like France or Sweden
@@stanisawzokiewski3308 Ruthenia is literally medieval vuIgar-latin name for Rus/sia. Rusini/Rusyns is the name of people living in Ruthenia, nothing to do with 'ukraine' whatsoever. Revisionists and nato-bot propagandists are IaughabIe.
@@bdleo300 No. Russia was founded by Peter the Great. Before that there multiple different Rus'es, Moscovite Rus, Novogrodian Rus, White Rus (Belarus), Red Rus (Ukraine) etc. Peter the Great transformed Moscovia into Russia or rather claimd to be the Tzar of "All-Rus" or in other words of every Rus. The Moscovites and Novgorodians chose to become the part of this new nation as Russians. But Ruthenian (Belarus and Ukraine) still concidered themselves separate. Rus=/= Russia. Just like Germany =/= Germania. or Turkey =/= turkic.
Русин, у множині - русини, це самоназва предків українців, частково білорусів, хоча вони радше називали себе литвинами, а точніше ліцвінами. I wrote this in ukrainian to convey the phonetics, it is very hard to do when you write in English.
@@bdleo300 man, you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. To convey the phonetics i will write it in ukrainian. Русини - самоназва людей які жили в Русі. Не «русичі», не «росичі» і точно не «рускіє». Були люди «руські» як ті які якимось чином належали до Русі, тобто як прикметник, але самоназва це русини. Це можна особливо яскраво побачити у записах, наприклад, Люблінського сейму, чи довгих перемовин між Короною Польською і волинською шляхтою, там же видно кого волиняни вважають своїм(спойлер, тільки людей які проживають на території нинішньої України, трохи Білорусі)
As a Polish guy, I think it is really cute that you put so many Polish songs in. The interview was clearly very anti-Polish, well anti-history in general but you get my point. I hope it clears some stuff out for the people that still believe in Russian revanchism. Thank you man
@@Videntis.History Putin spends an hour rewriting Ukrainian history and insulting the entire Ukrainian nation Westerns: He said bad things about the Poles! It sadly shows that primitive demonization of Ukrainian people, works. You could take Ukrainian historical songs, there is many of them, much more than russian, Khorea Kozacky one of best band. But no, you take it as insult of Poles barely mentioned in his shisoprenic speech... Not that they werent insulted, he insulted all west contries. But this is just a russian tactic, a deliberate confrontation. Everything he said was about Ukrainians.
@@СайберЛінк So, him saying false information about Poles is anti-ukrainian? You're trying to undermine the bad things he said about Poland by saying it doesn't matter as much as what he said about Ukraine.. The entire world doesn't revolve around Ukraine. Just because someone points out Putin said something bad about something else than Ukraine in an in-general interview doesn't mean they demonize Ukraine. Also, he picked POLISH SONGS for the part that he talks about POLAND. Get a grip on reality, a content creator can use any song he wants in his videos, and it shouldn't matter to you.
@@DullBradtake it easy. There are people who pretend to be on other side to make them look bad. They provoke anti ukrainian sentiment by just adding more fuel to fire and get benefit from. Obviously is hard to see who is who but when you see such generic nickname it comes to you by itself.
You make an excellent point at the end that me and others have overlooked simply because of how absurd every other argument already is: if the basis of Russian occupation of Ukraine is denazification, in what is supposed to be an ideological realignment/reunification and NOT simple colonialism, and the Soviet Union, a century-long institution that was directly antithetical to everything Nazis, failed to do so in their tenure in Ukraine, how can anyone expect the former-KGB dictator to do it right this time? Even if we take EVERYTHING else Putin says at his word, he *still* isn't compelling.
Being compelling is the least he can be for yall’s sorry a**’s, homely a bloodthirsty, backstabbin’, genocidal, bias dictator who’s evil a** still comes at you for open for debate means, at such anti-russian times? don’t you think? 🤦♂️ Such an evil president, oooooohhh noooo, what should we do, this President is so evil, that he’s daring still exchanging words with the world. 🙄
2:28 How 19-century Czech pan-Slavist Karel Havlíček Borovský once said about russians in his essay "Slav and Czech": These gentlemen have started everywhere to say and write "Slav" instead of "Russian", so that later they will again be able to say "Russian" instead of "Slav"... So, yeah, they practicaly get this goal
Oh, and two centuries before Muscovy pulled the same trick on Ukraine - that current name, "Rosiya"? Stolen from Ukrainian prior ethnonym - "Rusyny"/"Ruthenians".
@@Pidalin Yep. Even the current so-called "allies" of Muscovy mostly hail from countries that are supremely fortunate to have never been under Muscovy's direct yoke. All of the "true friends" of Muscovy, such as Iran, North Korea, China, most of Africa. Pan-Slavism itself was invented in Muscovy and it's no different from the kind of thinking that assumes that all Africans are the same just because they live in Africa or that all Europeans are the same.
as a latvian, hearing him say ‘we have no interest’ is extremely meaningless, for so many reasons, one of the most prominent being our shared history. it just shows that he genuinely does not care and wants to maintain the idea that russia is all powerful and everyone else is the bad guy.
As a German, I'd like to add that I think that the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein are all Germans and together, we make Germania. However, i don't want any of these countries to be annexed by Germany, nor do I think we should all sacrifice our own nations for a larger West Germanic Union. All Dutch, Austrians, Swiss, etc are my brothers and I'm honored to be surrounded by such beautiful countries as equals. We are different and yet we are one
@@yaneyobe3147 I know but I say it because we have Lower Saxons in Germany and they're essentially Dutch 😂 and no one can deny that we all used to be part of the HRE at one point. Swiss are Swabians, Austrians are Bavarians, etc etc. I consider them German because their cultures are already part of Germany and the people within them, for the most part, are considered German.
Even britain was mostly germanic, yet your ancestors let France occupy and influence it so much, that nobody in the world knows now what to do with the aggressive expansionism of anglophones.
Yes and You highlighted in this approach problem with particular kind of Russian irredentism. It’s not just claim for Ukrainians (although that is by far the worst case), even we here in Czechia made this experience as far back as 150 years ago and not forgotten (and actually freshly reminded) since. As You might imagine some 150 years ago (or about 170 actually) we in Czechia, being under Austria-Hungary had primarily and initially quite different concern. Our forefathers actually fought against germanization of our culture and society (as German at that time was enforced by Austrian bureaucracy). For that reason some of our intellectuals (journalists, activists of kind etc) got initially to get some support (and inspiration) from biggest Slavic nation in the east. Several rounds of study and collaboration trips to Russia ensued. The most prominent was the journey political journalist (later jailed by Austria) the Karel Havlíček Borovský (maybe google this dude). He had great impact on Czech society in general and so his trip to Russia transcribed into Czech historic memory as well. In short: he returned from Russia completelly disgusted. He travelled there with hopes, came back with disappointment and warning. To TLDR it , I will just paraphrase the most famous quote, quote remembered and quoted frequently since (while it’s kind of difficult to translate the possessives form of verbs he used, I’ll try): “Russians like to call everything Russian "Slavic", so that they can later call everything Slavic "Russian"“ (Something Czech is actually “Slavic” and when something is Slavic it is immediately called to be Russia (possessive form)) Russian plau this panslavic game till this date with all Slavic nations. Although we are furthest away (both geographically and linguistically) and poor Ukrainians are closest to them.
I love how Putin says that Poland finishing a war that had been started before Hitler came to power is collaborating with Nazis but then quickly glosses over actual collaboration with Nazis (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) as Russia just taking historical lands back.😂
Wich "collaboration"? Hitler wanted the East(he had written it even in "Mein Kampf"). Stalin made a deal to win time. And just took the lands back, the Poles stole from Russia and Austria-Hungary 20 years before. And what is about the Nazi-Polish collaboration in Czechoslovakia? Never heard of Teschen? Please don’t tell me, that it was only a "small land". The size of the territory you divided with the Nazis doesn’t matter. But the fact, that you did it.
@@karaltar7914 seems like you have 0 arguments. That’s why you can’t live with the fact, that the Poles were big friends of the Nazis. I am sure, you don’t even know how Hitler admired Piłsudski.
“i’m not pro anything I just want to correct history” and the next sentence is “Russian nationalists” And Rus state started with Novgorod and no there were no Kievan Rus, it was only Rus. Kievan term was invented in the 19th century.
When we talk about Novgorod, we forget two things. Apart from the chronicles, there is no evidence that such a city existed in 862. Archeology indicates that a permanent fortified settlement appeared in the 10th century, that is, after Igor ascended the throne of Prince Rus, with the capital in Kyiv. Second, after the invasion of the Mongols, Novgorod formed its own state with its own traditions and language (with strong influence of western slavic words). Novgorod was a republic where the prince was elected. In the Volodymyr-Suzdal Principality, and later in the Moscow Principality, there was no Viche tradition. The tradition is similar to the Scandinavian Ting, it was spread throughout the territory of Kievan Rus, except for the northeastern territories, strongly populated by finnic tribes. When Moscow captured Novgorod, it destroyed the population, the local language, and the tradition of electing a prince. Because of this, the heredity of modern Russia from Novgorod looks strange. Russia has strong absolutist traditions since the times of the Volodymyr-Suzdal Principality. While the population of both Kyivan Rus and Novgorod could choose their rulers, and if they did not like the princes, they expelled them (as was the case, for example, with Yuri Dolgoruky, who was expelled from Kyiv several times by the local population and, according to legend, became the founder of Moscow). And in the case of the fate of the population of Novgorod, well, it is the same as if the Romans, having destroyed Carthage, declared themselves Phoenicians, while preserving their own language and culture, and declared their claims to the Levant.
Так, і взагалі, Рюрік як би легенда на рівні Кия, чи Пржемисла Орача. Є кращі джерела інформації, на кшталт Бертинських анналів. Такі ось відео де людина викриває Московску брехню ліше на половину, ще гірше ніж якби взагалі не викривав, тому що виходить ті хто подивляться, дойдуть к висновку що ця брехня, це версія заходу... Про 850к закарпатьских Русинів взагалі мовчу...
Your argument regarding the historical interpretation of Novgorod and its relationship to modern Russia raises several interesting points worth considering: Dating discrepancy: You are correct that archaeological evidence places Novgorod's permanent settlement closer to the 10th century, contrasting with earlier chronicle mentions. However, some historians argue that smaller settlements or trading posts might have existed before, evolving into the documented city. Further archaeological exploration could shed more light on this. Novgorod's distinctness: You accurately highlight Novgorod's unique characteristics - elected princes, a distinct language, and republican traditions. This sets it apart from the absolutist tendencies of the Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow principalities. Questioning heritage claims: Your analogy of Rome and Carthage effectively presents the problematic aspects of claiming direct lineage from Novgorod while disregarding its specific cultural and political traits. Complexity of historical inheritance: It's crucial to remember that modern Russia's heritage is complex and multifaceted. Influences from various historical entities, including Kyivan Rus, Novgorod, and the Vladimir-Suzdal/Moscow principalities, all contribute to its cultural and political make-up. Attributing absolute dominance to any single source is an oversimplification. Additional perspectives: While your interpretation offers valuable insights, other perspectives exist. Some historians emphasize the continuities between Kyivan Rus and Muscovite Russia, despite Novgorod's differences. Additionally, cultural influences from Novgorod arguably persisted despite the city's subjugation by Moscow. Further exploration: To delve deeper into this topic, consider exploring these avenues: Research works on the specific historical periods and entities involved. Consult different historical interpretations and academic debates. Analyze primary sources like chronicles and archaeological findings. Remember, historical interpretations are dynamic and evolve with new discoveries and perspectives. Engaging with diverse viewpoints fosters a richer understanding of complex historical narratives.
@@henrikfox8960 There was not a continuity rather than a discontinuity between Muscovy and Rus-Ukraine! In 1169 Yuri Dolgorucky and his son Andriy Boholubsky attacked Kyiv, sacked it and slaughtered its inhabitants!
There is not such thing as "Kyivan Rus". The real name of that country was "Rus'. Moscovia changed it's name to "Rossia" in 18 century (and it remains till now). "Holy Roman Empire" collapsed, "Rossia" managed to survive. Both countries are took names of existing in past countries to justify claims for territory.
@@avishnevsky7394 That is just not true. Already in the 16 century foreign sources called the country with the capital in Moscow as Russia. For example, the book "Of the Russe Commonwealth" By Giles Fletcher in 1591. Read that book and throughout that book the word "Russia" was used as the name of the country
I agree with most of the arguments in this video, except the language. When I, Ukrainian, speak Ukrainian, people from Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Chekh Republic easily make sense of my words. But not Russians. They are very different from us both linguistically and mentally. I might be biased, I acknowledge it. You can check it yourself: give Russian any text or example of speech in Ukrainian, and ask him, what is it about. Do the same with Pole or Slovak. You'll see the difference
I think its because Ukrainian and Belarusian have very similar vocabulary with Polish, but gramatically speaking they are Eastern Slavic languages just like Russian. Idk, Im not linguist.
You are correct---RuZZian, unlike the other Slavic languages was artificially created in the 18th century and imposed on its sheeple who spoke a DIFFERRENT native language at home. RuZZian was like an Esperonto--no one's native language.
@@Kretek Of course you are not a linguist--yet you comment---Ukrainian, Belarus'ian and Polish are natural native Slavic languages each distinct, but of course similar because of common ancient roots. RuZZian is totally DIFFERENT in that it is an ARTIFICIALLY created language---INSTEAD of using one of the many local native languages in the Muscovian Empire,--INSTEAD of using French which most of the Muscovian elite spoke, INSTEAD of Using Ukrainian or Belarus'ian (quite a lot of speakers), it was decided to make up a NEW language "worthy of a great empire" and so Old Church Slavonic( a dead language from Old Bulgarian) was chosen as the base--they took all of the words they could from it and added new words--much like Esperonto and then forced the sheeple (who spoke a DIFFERENT one of the many native languages at home) to learn it.
This is one of anti-historical theories in Russia how Ukrainians appeared. There is also a theory that Bolsheviks "created" ukrainians. Different russian imperialists believe in one of two theories depends on their attitude towards communism.
25:24 The January Uprising lasted 1863-64. The uprising you're talking about is The November Uprising lasting 1830-31. But that's the only thing. A very good and interesting material full of facts and very helpful for someone uniformed. As a Pole I approve and I have to say you did pretty well with the pronunciation of Polish names. Good job on the whole video
Actually, there are a lot of other problems, and oftentimes, this video only points out information that the content creator felt relevant but that Putin left out. That really is not the same as lying.
@@ltdike123 Calling Grand Duchy of Lithuania a Russian-Lithuanian Duchy is a lie. The same applies to Cossacks wanting to be a part of Russia. Mostly these were extra facts which were necessary to fully understand the topic but there was also some needed info on topics he wasn't right about.
@@goodmorning8526 I'm not going to argue with you. I am very sure of myself. You said yourself "Mostly these were extra facts which were necessary to fully understand the topic". I mostly agree. The weight placed on this extra information is, in my opinion, subjective and open to interpretation. I'm more than willing to admit that Putin's telling of history is skewed towards serving his political agenda, I'm just really tired of people acting like the whole thing is fabricated from an alternate universe or something. That's how the media treats it.
@@ltdike123 I respect you and the way you say it. I agree he told the truth in many places just not mentioning some facts to make the whole story better align with the scenario he was going for. It was selective truth with a few lies. And I fully agree that it's not a made up story based on unrealistic scenarios from his head. I get your point of view and why you feel like that. A constructive criticism is always good and you did it in a very respectful way. I appreciate it and I even agree with some of your points.
3:41 In the russian Federation there really are Don Cossacks who consider themselves a separate people from the russians. But most of them consider themselves russians, and in general this ethnic group was destroyed by the Bolsheviks, and put in one Soviet mess, same with Kuban cossaks, whose ancestors were Ukrainians. And the Ukrainian Zapoirozhian Cossacks never had much in common with the Don Cossacks, you can't talk about them as one ethnic group, the Moscow sources and European, French for example, knew this already in the 17th century. Zaporozhian Cossacsk for Ukraine, is same as Teutonic order for Prussians
I mean every country is going to go as far back as they can to establish the beginning of the states identity. I didn't take his statement to mean actual "state" was founded but more of the beginnings of the future national identity. Just as the 13 colonies or Jamestown in America was not the first U.S. state but it is the accepted beginnings of the future state of America as a country.
@@Videntis.History I agree but I don't think he was saying that the modern state started exactly. It may have been translated that way but it is true that the people group of Russia and Ukraine had they're roots established with the king.
@@Videntis.History either way I could be wrong about it. As far as the war goes, I know Russia is perceived as the aggressor in the conflict but I really do believe the American NATO coalition knew how to push Putin to act on behalf of Russia and therefore, Russia could be labeled the belligerent in the conflict. U.S. would never allow a country directly next to its border to fall into an alliance with another power that was actively hostile against America. I mean the Cuban Missile Crisis is an almost comparable situation of America actively preventing the Soviets from delivering arms to its Cuban ally so America knows Russia was never going to just allow expansion to its border. The media wants to make us choose side A or B without nuance and to paint everything with a broad brush. Zelensky good, Putin bad but obviously that is too reductive of a view because both parties have good and bad parts to them so I say all I'm saying because I believe we need to balance the narrative that's being blasted at us continously. Thanks for having a dialoque with me, Videntis! I enjoy your videos regardless of my opinions in the comment section!
@@danielwatcherofthelord1823Bullshit. Eastern European countries keep joining NATO because Russia keeps breaking treaties and invading countries it said it wouldn't. Georgia and Chechnya are prime examples. There was talk of DISBANDING NATO as there was no need for it anymore but the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, annexation of territory and the funding of pro-secession groups put a stop to that. Finland didn't have plans to join NATO but Russia forced the issue. Poland is massively increasing its military spending because of Russia. Zelensky has been called out on his government's corruption numerous times, as well as on the presence of multiple far-right elements in the military that are only now being properly dealt with. The shelling of civilians in Donbass is something the international community has condemned Ukraine for (though it is no where near a genocide as Russian propagandists claim). Regardless if surrounding countries joined other alliances the U.S. would have no right to invade another nation. That helps prove Russia is in the wrong. Why the hell would you bring up a comparison like that?
Besides getting all the history wrong even his last statement doesn't make any sense. "if they consider themselves a separate people they have the right do so but not on the basis of nazism". A quick Wikipedia search on the definition of nazism will make it very clear that by no means Ukraine is a nazi state. In fact, Russia shares overwhelmingly more commonalities with fascism and by extension with nazism as compared to Ukraine. If he is referring to the Azov battalion, that wasn't a thing before 2014 when HE invaded Crimea sparking nationalist reactions. And it's not like Russia hasn't its share of extreme right and nazi groups. As usual, dictators complain about problems they create
Stalin was an ALLY of the NaZis when they both attacked Poland in 1939 and only became their enemy when attacked by Hitler!-Stalin was on the side of the NaZis for two years during the first years of the war.-Pootler spews hypocritical nonsense when he calls others NaZis---Ukrainians fought both the NaZis AND the RuZZians during WW2--this is why he calls Ukrainians NaZis.--it is also a bogieman word for his sheeple.
@@WangAiHuaBoth sides knew it was just a calm before the storm in ww2, and both prepared for invasion of each other, but allies was a more pressing issue at the time, and stalin did not know about how evil the nazis were, but he did know they were evil, however everyone was against the ussr so might as well get a temporary ally instead of a bigger threat
@@Isbnsyw26yeb6 No!---That is INCORRECT---Stalin knew that the NaZis were just as evil as they were! Stalin SUPPORTED the NaZi regime and ASSISTED them in taking Poland and in providing them the resources that they needed for their war machine! From 1939 to 1941 The RuZZians SUPPORTED Hitler and his war AGAINST the allies!--Your copium does not work! Stalin furthermore attacked Finland and the Baltic States!--What was that about?
Thanks for the great video. The overall ideas are correct. However, I'd like to correct some of them. Cossacks were not a "people." A cossack was closer to a viking where it was more like a profession or a path of life. The name comes from Turkic languages and means "free young men". The cossacks originally were a lot like the knights errant in western Europe, just the eastern type. They were mostly young men of noble origins who would not inherit their fathers estate, so they went out to seek employment through fighting, given that they knew how to fight. They went out into the steppe around southeastern Ukraine and southern Russia and earned their living through guarding traders and raiding the Tartar and Ottoman lands to their south. Oftentimes, they'd also be employed by the Polish state as mercenaries, and eventually, some of them were integrated into the Polish army. After a while, they started to form cities in the inhospitable steppe as they acquired wealth and women through their work and raiding. They also formed their own form of government - the Sich. The Sich was democratic form of government where the fighting men would choose a Hetman to rule over them. The Ukrainians base their national myth and state on the Zaporizhian Sich, which was autonomous for a short while, so they are the "proto Ukranian state". Most of the Cossacks were east Slavs, but they did not discriminate by ethnicity. There is a Ukranian joke that states, "If you believe in god and drink vodka, you're a cossack," and it is pretty much how they chose who could join. The Cossacks were employed many times as mercenaries by the Europeans, and over the late middle ages, a lot of mercenaries who ran out of work joined the Sich because they always had use for fighting men. After the 30-years war, for example, orders within the Zaporizhian sich were given in German due to an influx of German mercenaries. As far as the Russian state, it was not called "Russia" until the 18th century, and the whole myth about Russia being the successors of the Rus was started by Peter the 1st with the help of a Ukranian priest Prokopenko, in order to find some unifying factor to an empire that was held together mostly by the strength of Moscows arms. Ivan the 4th just proclaimed Moscow to be the 3rd Rome and defenders of the Orthodox faith after the fall of Constantinople and all of that without permission of the Byzantine orthodox church. Ukrainian by the way is a lot more similar to Polish by the way (I speak both), and funnily enough Portugese and Spanish are different enough for speakers of one to not understand the other.
Ukraine was not called Ukraine until the 19th century, so Russia is still your senior. Also, it was called Russia in the 17th century, not the 18th, and the genealogy between Kievan Rus and Russia was established much earlier, as Moscow's founders Daniel and Yuri Dolgoruky traced their lineages to Alexander Nevsky and the Princes of Novgorod. All of this predates Peter by centuries.
About the Spanish and Portuguese language you are a bit wrong. Our language have a more than 80% percent of lexical similarity. It's the Portuguese accent the problem. Sounds like a mix of Russian and French. The writing is very easy
@@dwl3006 Ukraine (the name itself is known since 12th cetury), moreover, from Army of Zaporizhya times written documents we know that they called themselves also Ukraine and Rus, quite interchangeably often
They are fakes of course!--One is the Treaty of Pereiaslav--the original conveniently does not exist (unless hidden somewhere in the Kremlin) only a RuZZian version copy--Pootler tried to give this copy of a copy, as if it means something. RuZZia --then still called the Muscovian Empire, has broken every agreement it ever made including the Budapest Memorandum!
@@luigimrlgaming9484 Mate, you do realise the “east slavs” shit is linguistic, not geographic. Is it difficult to look up basic shit? Or does that require using the 2 brain cells left in your head
I'm deeply grateful for this video, thank you. We always need people like you keeping History clean of Dictators mucking around with it. Sadly, a fact as old as time.
There are two distinct timelines to consider: one historical and the other archaeological. According to Russian archaeologists, when Rurik purportedly journeyed from Novgorod to Kyiv, archaeologically, Novgorod did not yet exist. Conversely, archaeological evidence indicates that Kyiv predated Rurik's arrival 9th century, with cultural layers dating back to the 6th century. Additionally, Rurik's status as a legendary figure lacks conclusive evidence, with mentions primarily found in the Tale of Bygone Years, authored some 200 years after his supposed death, and not corroborated by cross-sources.
You won’t believe it, but Putin hasn’t told everything yet... In Russia, almost before the revolution of 1917, this calendar was used as an unofficial calendar (after its abolition by Peter 1 about 300 years ago): ua-cam.com/video/mwUUwyH6IQQ/v-deo.html There is a lot of material evidence of this. According to this calendar, the year is now 7532 in Russia. Aren't you interested in who kept this calendar, how they lived, and why official history doesn't tell us anything about it? So Putin still has something to tell people.🙂
You are correct--the tale of a mythical "Rurik" was spun by the Kremlin centuries later to lend "credibility" to Muscovian aspirations to take over Rus' and later Rome(Constantinople)--the Muscovian Khans called themselves, not just "imperator" (emperor), but "Tsar"( short for tsisar--Caesar --i.e. emperor of Rome).
@@МашаМарьина-у6с No matter what Pootler says it is in vain as he lies so much that petty well everyone know the truth is the opposite. RuZZian saying--You can never be absolutely certain of anything being true until it has been denied by the Kremlin!
@@turkoositerapsidi I can. The Muscovite current ethnonym - "Russia" comes from a Greek form "Rosia" (the Greek form of writing "Rus'"). Moreover, the ethnonym "Russian" is an adjective (actual national ethnonyms in Ukrainian/Russian languages are all nouns - like the Ukrainian "Rusyn"/"Ruthenian") that was used first as a religious designation (for Orthodox Christian believers), not a national one. This is because the Slavic pidgin dialect that Muscovites now speak - as well as the ethnonym of Ukrainians that Muscovy stole - are originally foreign to Muscovy.
@@avenger4027 I see. If it became something eastern christians of the area called themselves, is this the reason why moskovites started to call themselves as rus as well? Someone said me russians called themselves russian, but the person claimed that they did not call themselves moskovites, I do not know if that was just propaganda tho.
@@turkoositerapsidi Yes. "Russian" originally was a religious designation. It became a national one only when Peter the First's court historians begun trying to tie Muscovy to Rus'. Muscovites used to call themselves Muscovites before Peter the Great; foreigners also called Muscovites Muscovites. Writings of the likes of Voltaire and Marx survive, where even foreigners far from Muscovy openly express their incredulity at Muscovy trying to tie itself to Rus' (Voltaire said that they (the French and Europeans) only knew of Rus' centered in Kyiv - he should know, Anna Yaroslavivna married a French king) and Marx outright said that Muscovy had no claim to the "era of Norman glory" (meaning Rus' - of course, Normanism is a discredited fairy tale now, but even with it, it's clear that Muscovy had nothing to do with Rus'). Instead, according to Marx, Muscovy was born from the bloody muck of the Mongolo-Tatar slavery - and later tried to steal the history of the actual Rus'. Obviously, Soviet communists have not released this work of Marx - "Secret Diplomatic History Of The Eighteenth Century" - in the Soviet Union, due to the fact that Marx's words were as true as they were scathing in regards to Muscovy.
@@avenger4027"Russia" doesn't come from Greek "Rosia". Russia or Rusia or Russie comes from the word Русия wich was used before the name Росия/Россия became more prevalent
20:25 OUN B wanted to collaborate with Germans, but when Stepan Bandera declared independence of Ukraine short after Germany attacked USSR, Germans arrested him and put him in concentration camp, after that OUN B and its military part UIA fought soviets Germans and polish partisans. I’m not denying the ethnic cleansing but I just think they weren’t German collaborators. Also many of poles were removed from lands taken by the ussr and send to poland
@@CRI_PL Dorko--they weren't SS--only Germans were allowed to be SS, not even all Germans at that--they were merely UNDER the SS--you confuse an SS division (the soldiers and command were SS) with a division of the SS (under the SS---with SS officers).
@@CRI_PL Those are different. SS brigades are not UPA, they fought for the germans while UPA fought both the germans and the soviets. They also retreated with the germans and finally escaped to western countries to avoid prosecution.
Italians are Romans claiming Italians are not Romans is like claiming Athenians and Spartans are not Greek it is like claiming that Britain is not English because heads up all of these had different cultures and languages. Are Iranians no longer Persians they have a drastically different culture language and government from their ancient counterparts they where ruled by Arabs. I’m sorry but no that is not an argument and that’s trying to strip people of their history, the Roman people didn’t suddenly disappear when the capital fell. Now I disagree with Putin but Russia dose have history with the ancient Slavic peoples claiming a modern state dose not have a connection to its ancient peoples is ludicrous and can easily be argued for the invasion and conquest of those lands. I’ll give you an example Poland disappeared from the face of the earth for hundreds of years occupied by Russians and Germans dose that suddenly make them no longer connected to the kingdom of Poland or Its history because if that’s the case the Germans and Russians have just as much of a claim to Poland as the modern polish people.
Your framing is dishonest in several places in order to force a disagreement or correction where there isn't one. Choosing Rurik as the start of Russian history is entirely understandable. Rurik was invited to rule Novgorod and then sent his kinsman Oleg to Kiev where he established the Kievan Rus. This is where Russia and the Russian people get their name from. The Rurikid dynasty would be the first dynasty of Russia. If you want to talk about lying by omission, you omitting that Ivan IV was a Rurikid is certainly an example of it. Of course Ivan being a Rurikid is relevant to the claim that Russian history starts with Rurik. This is no different to when Americans make reference to Jamestown. If someone says the settlement of Jamestown was the beginning of US history, most wouldn't see it necessary to disagree. Putin also clearly stated Rurik was a varangian. It's not like he was trying to hide that fact. The terms linguists use to describe old and dead languages should not be used as a discrete language. The Kievan Rus did not 'mainly speak old east Slavic'. There was no such thing as 'old east Slavic'. They spoke a variety of closely related languages and dialects that modern linguists have grouped into 'old east Slavic'. Putin also didn't claim they spoke modern Russian. He said they spoke "one and the same language". You can say this is a simplification, but it is the exact same simplification you made when you said they 'mainly spoke old east Slavic'. Saying they spoke the same language is meant to give legitimacy to the claim that this region and people share a history. The people of that region 'mainly' speaking languages that are mostly mutually intelligible to the point modern linguists group them together seems to support that notion. Saying Russian and Ukrainian are similar is a vast understatement. This concept is hard for English speakers to understand as the closest English relatives commonly spoken, Dutch and German, are very clearly distinct languages from English. Russian and Ukrainian are mutually intelligible. They are so mutually intelligible that a Russian speaker and a Ukrainian speaker can have a conversation with each other without much difficulty. They are so similar linguists disagree on were in history to put the split between Russian and Ukrainian. The portion where Putin says "From this time the centralized Russian state began the strengthen" is him talking about the process which he states began after 988 baptism of Russia. He didn't claim that there was suddenly a centralized state, rather it's the beginning of that process. A few seconds later he says "The centralized Russian state began to take shape." If you're going to be pedantic and say that the Iberians were not Spanish and those early Slavs were not Russian, then you must be consistent. You can't say "These people were also known as Ruthenians". If the central Iberians that would one day make up the Spanish can't be called Spanish and the eastern Slavs that would one day make up the Russians can't be called Russians, then the group called Ruthenians can't be called Ukrainians. The Intermarium was not "a new form of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". You're really stretching to say the Polish military action in Czechoslovakia while Germany was invading Czechoslovakia doesn't amount to coordination. 'They just took advantage'. C'mon. Are you saying there was no communication between Germany and Poland during these simultaneous invasions? Of course there was some level of coordination. There were certainly Polish collaborators in German occupied Poland. In their clashes within the EU, when Poland has used the rhetoric of also wanting to receive reparations from Germany for WW2, Israel has brought up these Polish collaborators. It's also silly to say it was just as bad on the Soviet side. While it was horrible, there weren't camps and squads in the same way there were on the German side. The lands Putin is referring to Lenin giving Ukraine are certain lands east of the Dnieper. At the time they were included with the Ukrainian SSR much of the land east of the Dnieper was majority Russian, and some of it still is. When Putin says 90% spoke Russian, they did. Ukrainian was most's first language, but most also spoke Russian. This fact would indeed be a 'fundamental' of the Russian Ukraine relationship from the eyes of the post Soviet Russian leadership. Putin didn't claim that Russia could have prevented the Soviet collapse, he merely said Russia was an active participant in the collapse. He says this to point out that Russia was ready to move on to a new era. That it was willing to let go of power. Russia could have made the collapse a lot more painful than it was, but several key figures chose not to. Read up on the Soviet government during the collapse of the union. It's a very interesting moment in history. The hyperbole with the Sudetenland. C'mon dude. Putin saying "We have no interest in Poland" when answering a question is not even the same category of statement as 'this is the last territorial demand I have'. These statements are not 'eerily similar'. One is declaiming an interest and the other is justifying an annexation. Is rhetoric around every national use of force or territorial dispute equivalent to the Sudetenland? Different nations, different circumstances, different actions, different statements. Most of this video is you getting pedantic to reject a general point or choice of focus on Putin's part, or being general to reject specific points Putin made as being to narrow. Along with a fair amount of you putting words in his mouth. It's one thing to put forward a competing narrative. It's one thing to attempt to correct the record. It's another thing to do what you've done here. I think the average person wouldn't understand Putin's account of Russian history more after watching your video. They will not understand why he told the history the way he did, in fact they will think he said things he didn't.
As russian, and I can refute the statement that at the moment Russian and Ukrainian are almost the same language. Without knowledge of Ukrainian, I can only superficially understand it
"Are you saying there was no communication between Germany and Poland during these simultaneous invasions? Of course there was some level of coordination." You have to bring proofs for making such accusations, Poland had always claimed that land to be their and Czechs it to be their.
@@littlefinger4509 So that the Germans and Poles could identify each other and not fight each other in their invasions of Czechoslovakia there was communication. This is basic logistics.
@@uselessrex1579 Your anecdote means very little. So you speak Russian? Is Russian your first language? Is Russian the primary language you speak day to day? What part of Russia is your family from? All of this will modify your personal ability to understand Ukrainian. Eastern Ukrainian and southern Russian are very similar. The further north you go in Russia and especially the further west in Ukraine you go, the less in common these languages will have. That being said, your statement that you can only superficially understand Ukrainian is a testament to how close they are. An English speaker will not even superficially understand a German speaker.
"Cossacs are nomadic east slavs who originate from steppe lands" What? They were free people, runaway peasants, bandits, and other adventurers who flocked to the outskirts of the state from all around. "It's considered to be the year of establishment of the Russian state in 862 when Novgorod people invited a varangian prince Rurik from Scandinavia to reign." And then you telling us that he's lying because it's not truth, cause Rurik was swede. Are you ok? He just said prince was varangian (swede). Novgorod Rus considered as Russian state, and Novgorod is a part of Russia. Oleg the Wise was a regent of Rurik, but somehow in your words he is not involved in this. Then you suddenly jump to Ivan the Terrible, but guess what? He was from Rurik family tree! "Famous people from ruthenian history" - Russian history. "Ruthenians and Russians are not the same thing" Really? "The grand dutcy of Lithuania was never called the Lithuanian Russian dutchy" It was, and also as you described. But sure it's Russian propaganda was written by Russian Nationalists, who else? I guess Soviets was nationalists too? "Once again, Ruthenians and Russians are two ethnic groups". Once again, "Ruthenian" termin used by western historics. There's no such termin in historical documents. You know, I can also mention that the term "Ruthenians" began to be actively used in the 19th century by Austro-Hungarian nationalists and later by Nazi Germany to divide Russians into Ruthenians and non-Ruthenians. Didn't watch further; it's too boring. Another historian on UA-cam trying to tell the history of my country from a Western perspective and with a specific agenda.
I would not call Lviv or Vilnius historical polish cities at all. They were not founded by Poles and came under Polands rule only after Poland conquered Galician-Volinian Kingdom (Lviv) and signed a Commonwealth with Lithuanians. Of course after centuries of coexistence in same state, unification policies and restrictions the cities would be largely populated by poles. But the territories themselves were majority Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuanian, etc. or Ruthenian and Lithuanian to borrow an umbrella term from the video. You can also mention Poles and Ukrainians fighting over these territories in 1918, when it was largely local peoples establishing Western Ukraine Peoples Republic and joining Ukrainian Peoples Republic later. It was indeed a messy history for all involved, laying unfortunate backdrop for upcoming ethnic clashes and crimes on both sides.
This video has exactly the same problem & quality as Putin's, the author is biased and gives personal interpretations & assessments instead of facts, omitting everything not convinient to the point of view. The source is likely a wikipedia article, which is fine, though a couple of statesments given are blatantly wrong - should have read more linked articles, duh.
If we mention the OUN and UIA, they were not collaborators. After trying to proclaim the Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State on June 30, 1941 (after the Germans occupied Lviv), the Nazis refused the Ukrainians and began repression against the leaders. For example Stepan Bandera, the leader of the OUN(b), was sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Both organizations fought against all whom they considered to be the occupiers of Ukraine, that is, against the Poles, Germans, and Soviets. According to the definition of the Nuremberg Tribunal, they were representatives of the national liberation movement. If we recall the Volyn tragedy/massacre, it is worth remembering that both sides, the Poles from the Kraiova Army and the Ukrainians from the UIA committed war crimes against the civilian population. However, it is worth understanding that the Poles studied the tragedy much more than the Ukrainians, in their works, they tend to minimize their responsibility and crimes and exaggerate the losses of their own civilian population. While Ukrainians until 2015 paid little attention to those events, due to which the Polish vision of the tragedy/massacre was and is dominant. It must be understood that everyone is guilty, and both committed crimes. But at the same time, neither of them did them at the behest of the Germans, because they considered the liquidation of those who cooperated with the Germans to be the main goal.
If we talk strictly about vohlyn massacre then AK had nothing to do with it until first murders started and the first murder happened on the polish pooulation by OUN, then polish villagers organized themselves and responded to it by massacring some ukrainian village. Only when this ordeal gained momentum AK chimed in. Still OUN was much more effective in their murders with about 100k killed poles and they were extremely brutal with their murders. In response poles killed between 5k to 10k ukrainians. Don't get me wrong i don't want to justify anybody, because if AK would have means they would probably killed more ukrianians, but the brutality of OUN is the main point in the entire controversy. Those weren't simple executions, those were barbaric mutilations. Impaled or beheaded toddlers, unborn ripped out of pregnant women, people skinned alive, ripped out intestines etc. It was extremely brutal and disgusting.
@@jakubw.2779 Ukrainians didn't kill Poles on Polish lands but on occupied Ukrainians lands--this was not the case with RuZZian or Polish invaders of Ukrainian lands. Just like today--Ukrainians are killing RuZZian invaders on Ukrainian lands--these RuZZian murdering imperialists would not be dying in Ukraine had they not gone to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians.
I'm honestly flaberghasted at how many people aren't even questioning that Putin has had literal *years* to tailor his interview topics to ensure maximum discord in Ukraine's supporting nations/allies. People like Russle Brant, Dankula, and other so called libertarian free thinkers just use him to put either anti USA government propoganda or personal bias in general. I have little doubt that both sides have issues but I've had friends in sweden and denmark that were helping against the mercenary 'shadow war' that russia was trying to use to soften up ukraine, so it's hardly something that happened in defense of the separatists
23:16 Putin was saying that more than 90% of the Ukrainians spoke Russian as either a first language or 2nd language as it was and still is common to be bilingual in a country like Ukraine and he was referring to 1990s period just after USSR's collapse
@@gunterhunerbein9510 *by the government. The people pretty much had no problem speaking Russian and was kinda considered a lingua franca since not all of them knew Ukrainian
@user-wj6dt5bq3wThe truth is Ukraine absorb Russian ppl if the same ppl that were Ukrainian 400years ago ancestors only were Ukrainian told the Ukrainian population would be 5million.
I guess Putin did not answer Tucker's question whether Hungary should get a part of the Ukrainian spoils. That was like his toughest question. subscribed
Good point. Fun fact, Hitler was Austrian, and it could be argued that Mozart (from Salzburg) was more German at the time than Austrian. Though they all went to Vienna lol@@John-nb6ep
@@tnndll4294yes, and Ukraine promised friendship with Russia and there was never a deal about ethnocide of Russian people in Ukraine or NATO joining. So don’t tell what Russia recognized or not. The Ukraine was transformed on Russian historical lands into Anti-Russian. Any recognitions or agreements(like the one in Budapest) are not working anymore, since Ukraine started aggressive Anti-Russian policies(against their own citizens and against Russia).
In other comments you said that you know the history of Poland better than the history of Russia and it’s showing. Just from the beginning of the video you can sense the strong anti-Russian bias coupled with some of the classical pro-Polish talking points. If Russian history starts with Moscow then how come they had all those Russian principalities like Tver and Novgorod fighting with each other to reunite all the Russian territories under their rule to begin with. To me it’s the same as saying that history of Japan starts with Tokyo, while completely ignoring Kyoto as well as all the rivalries that all those little feudal Japanese states had with one another only to eventually reunite into one big Japanese state. Imagine a German student learning German history not at least from the Niebelungen medieval song, but from the German reunification of 1871 under Prussian initiative. It doesn’t make sense and it’s limiting to say the least.
Although part of members of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists collaborated with nazi invaders they were not the majority. Painting the whole organization as nazi collaborators is not correct. Also, equating any national anti-soviet movement (in any country, not only in Ukraine) with nazis is old soviet tradition
To talk about some Ukrainian "collaborators" while completely omitting the fact that the ENTIRE Soviet Union collaborated with Hitler for the first few years of the war--with a full out attack on Poland-is twisting the events of the war!
I think we must look at Putin (or any world leader) and examine their actions vs their words. If we see that a leader makes a lot of promises then brakes them, we should realize that he is a villain. Plain and simple. If a rival suddenly mysteriously dies, we may say its just luck, one or twice. But as it becomes a regular event in Russia, we should accept that assassination is part of Putin's play book. After enough lies have pilled up, we must not trust the leader any more. If I read "Russia makes peace deal with Ukraine." I will think, how long until they brake the deal.
The only criticism I have of this, is that you called Wilno (Vilnius) and Daugavpils, historically polish cities, Vilnius wasn't Polish for that long and neither was daugavpils, It's just a mispresentation, They were Latvian and Lithuanian, just occupied by Poland. If I misunderstood or got anything wrong let me know though.
Same with Lviv--Lviv was a Ukrainian city (named in honour of King Daniel's son Lev)--it , much later became under the Lithuanian (Lithuania, Belarus' Ukraine) Commonwealth and then Poland joined this Commonwealth, basically taking over control.
Regarding Vilnius: the number of ethnic Lithuanians in the city between 1916 and 1931 was around 2% and the number of ethnic Poles at that time was around 55% based on wikipedia (many Jews also spoke Polish). Could you explain what do you mean that Poles occupied Lithuanians in Vilnius? If you look at the key architecture buildings in Vilnius (churches, university, etc.) had they been design, financed and owned by Lithuanians? Do we discuss history (in a mutually respectful way) based on facts or wishful thinking? Poles and Lithuanians composed together the nobility of the Commonwealth, which ruled that republic (and opposed Russia). But by no means Vilnius was a Lithuanian city occupied by the Poles. This is a story invented by Prussia/Germany in XIX century to divide the nations (divide et impera) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vilnius#Vilnius_inhabitants_by_ethnicity
By demographics the city has changed alot throughout the years yes, but historically speaking, and culturally speaking it is and was always Lithuanian, it was built BY Lithuanians, the concept made BY Lithuanians, built FOR Lithuanians, whatever happened after the Russian Empire I do not know since I'm not knowledgeable about that era. But despite the demographics it was and is Lithuanian.@@janw5694
And also just to add, ofcourse the Polish population was higher in the city when Poland stole Vilnius from Lithuania during the war against the Reds. Most of Vilnius's Lithuanian population escaped to Kaunas during that time.@@janw5694
That was the first thing that came to mind after watching the original - Putin's History knowledge was very lacking or cherry-picked. Also, the Hitler+PL co-op made me laugh.
You forgot to mention something exceptionally important: when the Soviet Union split, it did so as a result of REFERENDUMS. Effectively, the Baltic Countries, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. split from the Soviet Union as a result of a democratic vote of the people in those areas that was not hindered by the Soviet leadership, but instead it was recognized. The republics that chose to split did so in an official and democratic manner and the resulting countries were officially recognized by the Soviet Union, Russia and all other countries around the Globe. Putin's little propaganda vomit is irrelevant. These countries were freely and officially recognized as independent countries by Putin's predecessors. The people in those countries overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union and were allowed to do so by the Soviets themselves. Even more so, Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia and USA that stipulates that in exchange for Ukraine returning all the nukes it inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia, both Russia and USA will defend it in case it is attacked. Unlike Putin's fairy tale about the promise not to expand NATO, the tri-party treaty between Ukraine, Russia and USA is historical and political fact. But Putin unilaterally broke the treaty back in 2014 and sent a clear sign that he will not abide by any treaty that he doesn't like. One other thing to add. If anyone is wondering all Eastern-European states, including mod of the former Soviet Republics that were part of the USSR, absolutely HATE Russia, the answer is simple. Most of them have had to suffer at the hands of the Russians for hundreds of years. The Russians conquered their lands on several occasions and pillaged, raped and murdered anything remotely related to anything that batted an eye-lid at the Russians. The Russians broke up entire populations by sending the best and the brightest to die in Siberia and forcing the rest to adopt Russian "culture and civilization". And do take into consideration that all this was done during peace time. Russians killed hundreds of millions of innocents. Look at the 22,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia dead and buried at Katyn by the Soviet invaders. Look at Ukraine, where they committed genocide on several occasions - just look up holodomor. Look at all Soviet and/or Communist countries where the Russians spread their filth, where hundreds of millions of political opponents, dissidents or those that were just unlucky to be alive perished.
Ukraine is the homeland of one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, the Trypillian culture, which flourished on its territory about 7,000 years ago. Putin making a case for Kyiv as Russia's homeland based on a 9th century Viking is preposterous.
Oh my god! These are the "facts" Let's clear them up a bit. 1. This genius fucked up with the very first fact. “Kievan Rus” is not a state, but a historical term describing one of the periods in Russian history. It was introduced into historical circulation by the historian Solovyov in the 19th century, in his monograph “History of the Russian State from Ancient Times” Along with him, Soloviev also introduced other terms: “Novgorod Rus'” and “Moscow Rus'”. All of them designated periods of development of one state - Russia. The state founded by Rurik was simply called Rus. Byzantium called it Rosia (Росiя) The Russians themselves began to call themselves this after they adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium. So Rus' became Russia. (Россия) 2. 4:12 The Russian state was founded in 862. The source of this information is the Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Russian Chronicle). It was written in Kyiv in 1110 by the monk Nester. Rurik not only founded the Russian state, he founded the first Russian dynasty. The Rurik dynasty. Oleg was the regent of Rurik's son Igor. Oleg was never the legitimate ruler of Rus'. Rurik was not a Swede. He was Scandinavian. Putin said this. What you are voicing is nonsense that has no basis except the date in one of the Wikipedia versions. 3. 5:10 The oldest mention of Russia is contained in the Tale of Bygone Years (the primary Russian chronicle), as well as in the archives of the Byzantine Empire (it called Rus' - Росiя) It's just a circus -) 4. 6:10 This is not said by the “tsar”, but by Russian (and not only) chronicles of the 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th and other centuries... Where are you getting all this from? Who is your source? ____ Ok, I think this is enough -) This man has no idea what he's talking about.
The only thing I kinda disagree with is the point about Cossacks. They are literally ancestors of Ukrainians originally. So called Russian Cossacks aren’t really related.
Yet Today Russia embodies the spirit of the Rus of old while Ukraine is a Polish clown state. They decided to side with a civilization that is dying. This civilization that is mine isn’t something to celebrate.
As Russian historian I may add some mistakes u've missed: 1) Novgorod in 862 didn't exist. We have no archeological evidence of the existence of this city before 930-s. Putin confused it with the city of Old Ladoga that was the city of Rurik reign (if Rurik existed). 2) The Cossacks indeed wanted more autonomy and the same rights as the Polish nobles. And the Russian tsar promised them these privileges and... then broke his vow - Cossacks autonomy was much lesser then the tsar promised and lasted a few decades. The new tsar Peter I the Great completely destroy the Cossacks autonomy on the Eastern bank of the Dnieper river. Your video also has some small mistakes: 1) Russian historiography claim the Ivan III the Great the first Russian ruler after he conquered Novgorod in 1478 (he was the grandfather of Ivan IV the Terrible). During his rule he conquered most of Eastern Slavic principalities of the North-East. Ivan IV was the first tsar (Russian word of emperor or Ceasar). But we also should remember that the Bolshevik coup in 1917 completely destroy the previous state, the previous culture and annuled all previous history. So the modern Russian state was borned as a result of the collapce of the USSR and the independance for one of its republics. So the origins of modern Russian state is in 1917 or even 1991 not in early Medival era. 2) There was no polonisation or russification in modern terms. Such process is possible only through school education obligatory for everyone. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was destroied in 1795 when the was no mandatory school system in any country in Eastern Europe. So it was not possible to polonize the Rutenians cause the Poles didn't have the tools for that (and I doubt they would bother if they have). 3) The word "Russian" had differnt meaning before the Bolshevik coup - in imperial historiography "Russians" is a synonim for "Eastern Slavs" while the modern Russians called "Greater Russians". The Imperial governement understand the differences between three Eastern Slavic people (they call them "Greater Russian" for modern Russians, "Little Russians" for Ukrainians and Belorussians had the same name) that's why the imperial burocrates created a system of trinity of the "Russian" people. Of course this system was abolished after the fall of the Emprire at February 1917. I should also mention that in previous era in Eastern Slavic languages words "Russian" and "Ruthenian" didn't differ the similar scale (and mainly on the letter in era when 95% of population is illiterate). P.S. I may write my second PhD just by mentioning all mistakes from this interview. Almost each sentence in inacurate. If the student on my department will give this kind of an answer on the exam - he will left the classroom for rateking after 5 minutes. My respect to Tucker Carlson (now Russians used his face during the interview as a meme) who was listening that for one hour. I guess he did it to try save Evan Gershkovich - and the question about the fate of this journalist was the best opening - here Pultin showed his true self for the all Western World. I hope u no longer have no illusions about his real personality.
@@littlefinger4509 yeah, though It was more often than not associated with the Lithuanian state, this caused a great deal of tension between both countries and even a war. This is why lithuania and many others did not aid poland when the germans and soviets invaded
@@neroatlas9121 Ye when nationalism became widespread people couldn't accept the fact that two nations could be from the same place, like in the Polish census during those years there were people that literally defined themselves as "tutejszy" which meant "from here".
@@littlefinger4509 Union of 2 states. Each state with their own capital. At no point was Vilnius ever part of Poland except for a short period before the start of WW2 so it's kinda disingenuous to say it was "kinda both". This is like saying that Krakow is kinda both Lithuanian and Polish. No Pole would ever agree lol.
@@GoDLiKeKakashi I don't mean it as a capital i mean a lot of Poles lived there and people mixed, just like Lithuanians lived on the Polish "side" and it was mixed there too. My family for example was from Grodno and i'm Polish, it wouldn't surprise me if some of my ancestors were Lithuanians tho.
@@Videntis.History yeah, it's just a Muscovite myth and lie in order to claim Rusj legacy. There were five «dialectal zones» back in the Rusj time. It's simply not possible at thst age to keep one and the same language in such Eastern European lands.
Novgorod language separated from early West Slavs and became 4th branch of Slavic family - Nothern Slavic language. It's gone after massacres and Russification.
Thanks for sharing this with us. I do get disturbed by the background music, cause this is heavy history contend and one really needs to focus on the text and images. I would suggest to use Timothy Snyders Videos on the importance & historic development of Ukraine. One ethnic group You mentioned, defiantly deserves far more attention within this whole complex: The Kazaks a 😉😉
In fact, he said almost nothing new that he has not announced on Russian TV before. But I must mention the steps taken to gain psychological dominance that have been heavily used by KGB agent.
I was born under Russian occupation, i was a little boy when soldiers let me go inside the tank, and i was so happy. Same army killed all 4 brothers of my grandmother, from my fathers side, she is 91 now, but still crying, when talks about it. Russians used to put bodies of our fighters in main square and look who will come to put flowers on him, o just saw tears in the eyes, for that they deported to Siberia, most of the deported never even made that 5 week journey in terribly overcrowded place. I have never expected to hear, to live same terror stories again, but hear we are. Blood thirsty Russia is here again. Thanks our government we are in NATO, i Baltic states will never fall under fascist Russia ever again.
Soviet*. You blame everything on us but forget that they were soldiers of YOUR ethnicity too. You forget about your besties UKRANIANS. You forget about others. Blame everything on us it's okay. Just don't fart when we hate you back. And obviously hatred has consequences that we can see real time right now)
@@panapolyEpirus russians as a term didn’t exist long after the city was founded. If we can say someone founded it it were poliany tribe, or according to the legend Kyi, Shchek, Horyv and their sister Lybid.
Finally someone who goes into-depth of what Putin was saying with an unbiased view instead of just laughing at the guy and making nonsense memes just for views. Thank you
Great video I knew most of this but it’s great your educating those who are not as aware on how much Putin lied. More content like this would be awesome.
Stepan Bandera, leader of OUN-UPA, was jailed by Germans as early beginning of July 1941, as they entered the territory of the former soviet republic of Ukraine in the middle of the WWII, and spent all the years of war in german concentration camps. He was exonerated by the Nuremberg tribunal and was never recognised accountable for the crimes committed by nazi germany. He lived in Germany and was killed in Munich by a kgb spy. Ukrainian nationalist organisation held fairly antisemitic views very common to most of the Europe at that time, but didn't participate in Germany's executions of Jews, and they viewed Germans as situational allies against their common ennemy - bolsheviks russia that was nothing else than re-incarnation of imperial russia under the name of soviet union. And remember that back then it's not like germans openly exterminated jews and everybody was aware of that. The extermination of Jews in Auswitz-Birkenau only stated in July 1942.
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, there is also an interview of a Jewish survivor who recalled Ukrainian participants. Also, there is a Polish historian that covered it on UA-cam.
@@linusmayden8465 well you make it sound as if polish side never killed and mass-murdered any Ukrainians, which would be completely false. So I suggest you leave the difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian history of that region aside in the conversation about Bandera and OUN-UPA activities, because at each turn you will find out that it's just an answer to a previous act of aggression from the other side and we will go deep down the rabbit hole. Western parts of Ukraine were under Polish dominance for a while and it was not great for Ukrainians, we have a lot of grievances to vent, so let's just not go there. Antisemtism was a common place in Europe at that time, I recommend that you familiarise yourself with a short work called Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. So participation of some Ukrainian nationals in pogroms is not astonishing. But if you want to single out Ukrainians, you will have to speak about the rest of Europe, too. This was not something unusual and unseen in Europe of the early 20th century. Now to the point. OUN didn't collaborate with german nazis in their goal to kill all the Jews and to establish the domination of the arian race. They wanted their help to etablish an independent state of Ukraine, free from russian bolshevik occupation. Between two evils they chose one that they thought was lesser, that's it. French government also collaborated with nazi germany with the aim to protect its state and its citizens, so why suddenly Ukrainian nationalist movement is judged differently? Because there is the word nationalist in it? Maybe look up the history of the movement and their goals and understand that they were fighting the bolshevisation of Ukraine; where bolsheviks wanted to erase Ukrainian identity, our language, our culture, our people and make us all into russian-speaking homo sovieticus. You have a lot more of learning to do that one video by a Polish historian, I encourage you not to waste your time on commenting on things you have very little understanding of.
@@tetianavarvynska2125 They did collaborate with German Nazis, just because they got betrayed by them, doesn't mean they weren't hestinet to cooperate. The 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was known to have OUN soldiers in it, that is collaboration. "The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist is the first comprehensive and scholarly biography of the Ukrainian far-right leader Stepan Bandera and the first in-depth study of his political cult. In this fascinating book, Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe illuminates the life of a mythologized personality and scrutinizes the history of the most violent twentieth-century Ukrainian nationalist movement: the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Elucidating the circumstances in which Bandera and his movement emerged and functioned, Rossolinski-Liebe explains how fascism and racism impacted on Ukrainian revolutionary and genocidal nationalism. The book shows why Bandera and his followers failed-despite their ideological similarity to the Croatian Ustaša and the Slovak Hlinka Party-to establish a collaborationist state under the auspices of Nazi Germany and examines the involvement of the Ukrainian nationalists in the Holocaust and other atrocities during and after the Second World War. The author brings to light some of the darkest elements of modern Ukrainian history and demonstrates its complexity, paying special attention to the Soviet terror in Ukraine and the entanglement between Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, Russian, German, and Soviet history. The monograph also charts the creation and growth of the Bandera cult before the Second World War, its vivid revivals during the Cold War among the Ukrainian diaspora, and in Bandera's native eastern Galicia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union." This isn't Russian propaganda," they're historical facts even pointed out by this Polish historian and Banderites have openly shown the same sentiment towards the pro-Russian population in Donbass. So don't cry when the Russians spank you for promoting this man.
@@linusmayden8465 what is your point? soviets collaborated with Germany well before OUN did. All the way up to 22 june 1941. And they prosecuted Jews long after nazi germany collapsed. They didn't do it as brutally as nazis during WWII, but being a Jew in soviet union was not a joke. Just ask soviet Jews who fled as soon as the iron curtain fell ;) You seem to be unable to hold two thoughts at the same time.🧐 Antisemtism was a common phenomenon for Europe of before and after WWII. It was not something unique for Ukrainian nationalists. Ukraine was crushed between soviet occupation and german occupation. OUN realised that soviets don't want Ukraine to exist in any independent capacity, so they tried their chances with the other side. It is as simple as that - situational alliance hoping to achieve their political goals - they wanted to establish an independent Ukrainian state. We praise Bandera for precisely that. Not for his antisemitic views. We are capable to differentiate, maybe you can try that too. We don't have holy nationalistic heroes for you, sorry not sorry. Just because of what I said earlier - antisemitism in Europe was common place. And remember that he was exonerated by Nuremberg tribunal. Also maybe try Yad Vashem portal and see for yourself that it says black on white that "the final solution of Jewish problem" shifted towards extermination of Jews AFTER the Barbarossa plan execution.
@@tetianavarvynska2125 Stalin persecuted everyone not just Jews and this treatment wasn't extended under other Soviet leaders, for example Stalin was denounce for his treatment of Tatars in Crimea by other Soviet authorities after his death and were allowed to go back when reforms were initiated. As for the non aggression pact, there were plenty of attempts by the Soviet authorities to react against Hitler with the West but seeing as the British and France gave into his appeasements in Czechoslovakia, it makes perfect sense why they opted out for a "non-aggression pact." "They would do it as brutally as the N@zis did," false the allies saw the Soviet Union was the lesser threat when the goal of Fascists Germany was Lebensraum, complete extermination of Eastern Slavic populations they deemed inferior, which makes Banderites like you as bad as Hitler, the only difference is your kind wasn't allowed to complete their goals. You seem to leave out the most taunting fact that the West teamed up with the USSR not Fascist Germany and their collaborators. Oh for the record more Ukrainians were fighting for the red army then they were for OUN-B, since your kind are so steep into Anti-Communist ideology, it's only fair Putin Decommunizes the region with pro-Russian people and gets it away from Banderites that love to destroy the Soviet legacy along with the land that the Bolsheviks gave to Ukraine.
The Grand duchy of Luthiania was actually called at times the Lithuanian Rus Duchy because some of the nobles there were Ruthenians and descended from the Rus. After the Mongol invasion the western Rus fled to their western neighbours and joined in with them. There were plenty of Ruthenian nobles of Shlachta within the grand duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. For example, in 1612 the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and Muscovy fought a war, and the Polish even took Moscow for a short while, that army was commanded by a Ruthenian general. Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the Hetman of the Zaporizhian sich who fought a bloody rebellion against the Polish and eventually asked Muscovy for help to avoid Polish retribution, thus giving the Zaporizhians autonomy for a while was also part of the Shlachta, or Polish nobility.
In 1612 hetman was Żółkiewski and his family was from masovia . There was Some Ruthenians as hatman but more Nobel man i think want to name them self's as citizen of Rzeczypospolitej of two nations to day translated to Republic or common thing.
19:45 Unfortunatly polish nationalists today refuse to admit this. They go on about how the lands they got in the west were orignally theirs which is nonsense. The areas habve nevr been majority Polish they were for a brief stint majority Kashubian a diffrent slavic people. But before that they were Baltic or Germanic, the slavs originated deep inland.
Carlson and most lay Americans have zero knowledge about European history. They might know about Rome, ancient Greece, Vikings (romantic Hollywood version, not real vikings), Hundred years war and World Wars (but only parts concerning USA.... not even Canada, just USA). Real history buffs might have heard about War of Roses, history nerds know about 30 years war and wise sages might even know names such as Gustavus Adolphus or even Jan Hus. That explains why Carlson just sat there with open mouth and uncritically accepted every bullshit that came out of Putin's mouth and why "patriots" on X and other platforms applaud. Murican ignorance at its finest.
Many such cases, Szczecin for example was founded by the ancestors of Poles the Lechites but became German for a really long time and only became Polish after ww2
It's how it was with cities they were usually ethnically diffrent from the surrounding lands. the cities on the baltic coast were all german while the populations aroudn them were baltic, pommeranian or Kashubian.
Lwow/Lviv grew as a big important city for both peoples, and the two sides engaged in a vicious tug of war for it following WW1, it's only Lviv for the Ukranians now because Stalin forced out all the poles from Lwow as part of his forced resettling/restructuring of Eastern Europes mixed ethnic population areas in such a way that would make Russia the obvious benefactor and Russia's new puppet states easier to control. Hence why Germany's Konigsburg was foricbly remade into Russia's baltic fleet port Kaliningrad.
@@MACTEP_CHOB Lemberg is the German way to say that city's name, just as Lwow is the polish way, Lviv the Ukrainian way, and Lvov the Russian way, and none of the city's people ever wanted to be under Russian control in the first place.
Bro Germany has a better claim to all of Western Europe than Russia has on Ukraine. Context: germanic people settled and basically took over western rome, which means languages like Spanish and French do have germanic backgrounds, this also means the england portion of the UK rightfully belongs to Germany as well as Italy. This is obviously ludicrous and founded on very uneven ground but it gives you a perspective on how bad Putin's argument is.
to be fair about the france comparison, we do often talk about the merovingian as the basis of france, even if it was the frankish kingdom and modern france was only created after the treaty of verdun in 843 . I blame our shitty education system for that .
@@Dont14-r4kwell there was probably more population in western frankia than in the rest (i brlieve that because it was a region that was usually more populated than the rest of europe) wich were speaking romance language (retroactively we would say they were french but its more complicated) but all the ruling elites were german speaking
It's easy to be impressed by someone else's knowledge of anything as long as you know nothing about the topic. The Lotus Eaters podcast discussing the interview is a good example. They had a supposed historian there who didn't even try to do basic historical research and evaluation of Putin's claims. They all just were impressed that Putin could talk about history for an hour. Anyone who know a bit of history can talk about it for an hour.
10:57 again a lie. "Ruthenians" is ONE of MANY(!) LATIN terms for the Rus people. But the people called themselves in their language "Rus" or "Rusin". The lands of this territory were also called "Russiae". In the West Russian language the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called "Великое Князство Литовъское, Руское, Жомоитъское", and there is the word "Ruskoe". The Religion was often called "vera Ruskaya/Ruska". And about the Latin versions. Sometimes this territory was even called "Rossia"(the origin of this term is Greek) like modern Russia. Look at the map of Fra Mauro(1459). It’s ALWAYS THE SAME term in different languages. Russians are Ruthenias, because it has absolutely the same origin. And even the Polish propaganda, wich tried since 16th century to separate the Russian people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the Moscowite Russian state, even they called the Russians from the so called "Muscovy"(Western term) also Ruthenian at the very beginning of the propaganda campaign. There is a historical Polish document from 1517 called "Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis". The author write about the people from the Moscowite Russian state. Now the original text: "Rutheni sunt et Ruthenicum loquuntur". Wich means they are Russians and speak Russian. So even the Russians from "Moscovy" were called in some Latin written documents "Ruthenian". In other documents Russians(like also people of modern Ukraine and Belarus). So about what are you talking in this video?? Please don’t lie, if you don’t know the origin and meaning of this term.
After wating the rest; I woud agree with the more modern history. The Soviets should have gotten rid of the Nazism and Russia shouldn't be honoring the Leftist bastards that screwed over their country on such an astronomical scale. Butvi feel like the Ukr. people would just look up to the Nazis seeing them as "anti-Communst" which they were but were still Socialist trash
How? You mean the Kievan Rus? I That's not the same thing. That's the proper beginning of Russian history, not the Russian state. There was no Russian state before Moscow. The Holy Roman Empire was in effect a German empire but it wasn't Germany. The German Kingdoms of Prussia and Bavaria existed but there was no unified German state. The Principality of Moscow becomes a major player at the end of the 15th century, transforming in to the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Russia truly began as a state in 1547, after Ivan the Terrible created the Tsardom of Russia. Others even put the proclamation of the Russian Empire by Peter the Great as the state's true beginning.
Yes I mean the Kieven Rus. We see it as the same thing, kinda like how the Romans of the Nicean Empire saw them selves as tge same as the Romans from before the Latin saccing of Constantinople
1) He didn't say the Vikings were Slavic. He was emphasizing the Nordic origins of Russia. If you don't agree that the Varangians started Russia in 862, you better go and edit wikipedia to the contrary. I've got a feeling that they won't let you. Clearly a lot of people agree with Putin on how Russia started. I was going to number this list, but I decided to stop at 1 because you failed immediately.
3:28 It`s up for debate. Because they never considered themselves unique nation until recently, and politicians of region always stood up for unification with Ukraine. Yes their language is unique, but if we consider them their nation, then Silesians, Kashubians, Kasaks, and many other dialect groups should be considered their own nations.
Well, should we consider Slovenians a nation? Slovakia? What about any of the central american countries? What about India? What about much of the middle east? Where do you draw a line between a fake country and a real country.
@@epiccrusadr8583ALL countries are an artificial creation. People come together, form a shared identity and eventually call themselves a country. Ukraine has acted as it's own country and has been recognized as such by all other countries (including russia). It has as much a claim to exist as any other nation
FINALLY! Someone did that! American's don't know that Putin actually believe that Ukraine is created by Lenin, ehm... And says that the word Ukraine comes from "border of Russia", but... Ok, screw it, here's what I think about all of this. [10:35] The word Ukraine proved to be used in old russian language in 10-11 century as "near the border" (as well as their smallest currency was hrivna, btw, literally like kopeyka in Russian (which is 1/100 of ruble)), but in terms of a country it used to describe previous Rus' territories in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in 17 century, and Kyiv and closest region was always like... back and forth between Rus' and Lithuanian Kingdom. So they described eastern part as "Ukraine", with meaning that it's near the borber of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. To be more specific, Samuel Grądzki in 1672 in his work "Historia belli cosacco-polonici" wrote: "Margin in Polish kray, therefore Ukraine -- some kind of a province close to the border of the kingdom". And equating nowadays independent Ukraine to Ukraine under USSR control is redundant and degenerate. Who fighted with Poland against Russia then in 1918-ish, if Ukraine doesn't existed, bruh? Yes, Ukraine was annexed by RSFSR (USSR), what the fuck is Putin even talking about? Also you can find it funny that I'm Russian and debunk all of the shit Putin said...
Whatever good there was in a Polish-Ukrainian-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Austria-Hungary, German states and kingdoms, Yugoslavia, the Allies united, the Kalmar Union, etc. can be re-obtained via the European Union with invisible borders and all cultural richness being encouraged, eventually with a peaceful democratic freedom-oriented rump of Russia, leaving asiatic Russia to help bring health, growth, stability to central Asia. The rest seems like raking over cold coals and chipmunks nattering in my opinion.
I am NOT supporting Ukraine or Russia in the war. I'm just showing how Putin lied.
Thanks man❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉
Amazing video
I did hear the polish anthem
Sounds about right
Victory for Free people's
Victory for the innocent Christians.
Ukrainian or Russian.
The Christian Free slavic People's have the same God-given right to live with Peace Prosperity and Freedom as we all do here in the Anglo-American world order.
What pisses me off about "free thinkers," is that they believe they are geniuses for not believing everything their government tells them, but then proceed to believe everything another government tells them, as if that one is incapable of lying.
Yup. My fellow conservatives in the U.S. have lost their damn minds. So everything that Joe Biden and the Democrats say are lies and from the Deep State but everything Putin says "exposes the West" and should be taken as absolute truth? Huh?!
Worse they believe what some random alt-media person of their coresponding political inclination tells them. I swear the meme "Don't trust everything you learn on the internet - Isaac Newton" is missed on them.
they're NPCs
And often times the people who just blindly accept everything their own government tells them are accidentally still closer to the truth than these "free thinkers". Simply by virtue of media having more freedom in the west.
yeah good point😂 that actually is correct
Let's maybe also stress again that _history is not a reason for destruction, pillage, murder, oppression, deportation or genocide_. Just saying.
tsarist Russia, the Soviet Russia & Putin's Russia have one thing in common: IMPERIALISM (which means: destruction, pillage, murder, oppression, deportation or genocide)
in perfect world it isnt, but in reality every nation with borders with other always argues for teritory, its just that russia is one hell of a country that was trying to steal land and others history throughout its history
True, it was the weapons of mass destruction that they didn't find. Oh...wait...Russia.
Yet you guys also get mad when we mention how you guys destroyed yugoslavia, arabia and cyprus using those same reasons... curious.
@@panapolyEpirus hey, Russian troll, go waste someone else's time
A dictator that lies? Noooo..you don't say!
Fr
You really think a dictator would do that? Go on tv and lie?
@@Godzilla00XI know right? Such claims are crazy
Yeah but lot of dumb people are falling for it so
So is Bush Jr. a Dictator?
Caus he lied about WMDs
And then he Invaded
French people actually learn at school that France was founded when Clovis was baptised on Christmas of 498. As a Belgian I always found that kind of funny.
That was when the kingdom of the franks was founded. Are you sure they dont differentiate between france and the franks? Afaik its very commonly understood in modern times that the french are in most parts not descendants of franks.
Oh good to know
Yes we do learn about the franks because the franks ruled our territory for a long time and we can't deny the impact they had on french culture. For Clovis we also learn that him being baptized isn't a verified info and it could have been between 486 and 508
We do not learn that the franks are french they are like a culture which mixed with the population of Gaul ( which was latinized at the time ) progressively became France. When we talk about the beginning of a french state I think we start at the last division of the regnum francorum. Honestly not learning about what's in your territory before your country is weird. It would be like Belgium never learns history before 1830
In Germany, its quite the opposite, we learn that Germany isnt a national state per se, because of its very difficult history, but all the potential foundings are discussed, and yeah, 498 /487 belongs to these years too, as much as 962, 1648, 1871 or 1948 and 1990.
Honestly, great video, but this is all a moot point because Russia recognized Ukrainian independence on December 2nd, 1991. Even if Ukraine was “Russian people on Russian territory” their independence was recognized by you, and must be respected.
Представь если Канада будет анти Великобританией
Рли чел
Берем Канаду Австралию или Мексику
Строим там не дружественные для США базы , представляем ебало США .
@@dwl3006 Ukraine has never made any legal promises to anyone lmao. You keep yapping about that yet the only document that somewhat fits that claim is the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, passed on July 1, 1990, which simply declares that Ukraine just has "intentions" about staying neutral. At the same time the same declaration was passed in Belarus, yet nothing prevented them from joining Russian CSTO and becoming a Russian puppet. Guess what? NATO is not genociding Belarusians because of that right now. There were no real agreements between Russia and Ukraine regarding their neutrality, Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and sovereign nations have freedom of choice. And are seriously blaming Ukraine for pursuing NATO membership after 2014? What is this clownery, Russia has literally stolen Crimea and started a war in the East, what kind of neutrality at that point are you talking about?
And not to mention that all this stuff has nothing to do with Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Just accept that Russia is simply waging a feudal medieval landgrabbing war, they don't give a damn about NATO's "expansion" (that Russia is continuously provoking by their own actions, e.g. Finland and Sweden)
@@dwl3006 Ukraine has never made any legal promises to anyone lmao. You keep yapping about that yet the only document that somewhat fits that claim is the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, passed on July 1, 1990, which simply declares that Ukraine just has "intentions" about staying neutral. At the same time the same declaration was passed in Belarus, yet nothing prevented them from joining Russian CSTO and becoming a Russian puppet. Guess what? NATO is not invading Belarusians because of that right now. There were no real agreements between Russia and Ukraine regarding their neutrality, Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and sovereign nations have freedom of choice. And are seriously blaming Ukraine for pursuing NATO membership after 2014? What is this clownery, Russia has literally stolen Crimea and started a war in the East, what kind of neutrality at that point are you talking about?
And not to mention that all this stuff has nothing to do with Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Just accept that Russia is simply waging a feudal medieval landgrabbing war, they don't give a damn about NATO's "expansion" (that Russia is continuously provoking by their own actions, e.g. Finland and Sweden)
@@IlyaIgnatov-te6njimagine if Canada was anti UK because the UK had already invaded Canada again ten years ago and the Canadians had been fighting against English incursions into their country that had been killing Canadian civilians for 10 years. And the UK had held power in Canada as recently as 1991, so everyone alive still remembers how shitty it was living under the UKs tyrannical rules, so that people alive today wouldn't ever want to go back to living like that. Because many of them already did.
Love that he began with Rurik and the vikings, makes it a lot easier to claim northern Russia and Ukraine as rightfully Swedish claims😜🇸🇪
But you have to share it with Mongols
There was no Sweden in that time.
@@aresnir2725 The point is gone. You missed it.
You're not being charitable to putin. His irrenditism is not based on the ethnicity of a leader or whether russia owned a territory in the past(As a stand alone justification). His irredentism is based off ethnicity, shared culture, etc.
People fail to realize how much of a moderate putin is. While communists, and other political parties were calling for destruction of Ukraine years and years before the special military operation, he was steadfast and didn't budge until the internal pressure built up
Sweden didn't exist til 15th century... but they have claims on Russia as much Russia have claims on Sweden using the same "logic".
Internet vatniks best argument is "but "russia" sounds like "rus" therefore same thing!"
The Rus' were not Russians but Scandinavians. So if Putin was to be honest about his history rant, he should step down and hand it all over to the Scandinavians.
@@agffans5725 only the leaders of the rus were Scandinavians and that was with the rurikid dynasty. The rus existed before then under slavic rulers
@@proudtitanicdenier4300 ... No, the Rus' were an actual tribe living in Scandinavia. Rurik from that tribe was invited to rule, he was not slavic and neither was the Rus' tribe he came from.
@@agffans5725 yeah thats my point. Rurik was invited to rule, before then it had slavic leadership
@@proudtitanicdenier4300
There was no Slavic leadership before Rurik, it was dozens of different competing tribes.
This is why I'm glad Tucker actually interviewed Putin. We actually have a complete statement of the logic he's espousing, which means we can create relevant counters and refutations like this.
But the masses believe him and don't see the refutations.
@@flameguy3416 If they haven't heard the Ukrainian side of things by now, they're purposefully trying to be ignorant and wouldn't listen anyways.
I concur, but for a different reason.
Having listened to Ex-Russians, I had already been exposed to Putin's unique... dribble... method. For so many others though, this would have been the first experience with Putin having to 'argue' something with the press. Those nearly incoherent answers, delivered via broken sentence structures and contradictory points, are the bred and butter of press releases by Putin's government.
I am told by Russian speakers that it is exactly the same in native!
More needed to see that for themselves, so guess some good came from the interview. Perhaps they can come to see the man as rediculous, a clown that can not even answer a simple questoin from a friendly press well. Perhaps they can conclude, like many of us do, that the person lying on camera so obviously isn't to be trusted on the world stage. Although, sadly, not many Americans seem capable of reaching that conclusion.
Also,
There is a saying out there, I can't remember exactly which world leader said it about Starlin, but it is to be forever remembered:
I don't get it, they Lie to our face
We know they are Lying
They know that We know they are Lying
And yet they keep lying right to our face
How do you 'factually counter-point' that very Russian tactic?
which part of that was the actual refutation?
On the other hand there are many many people who will just take Putins word as law and argue with everyone that he is right even though these are clearly lies.
I don’t understand why you call Vilnius a historical Polish city. It was founded by a Lithuanian ruler, was the capital and heart of Lithuania for all of its history and was occupied by Poland in 1919. For all history Lithuania claimed Vilnius as an integral part and capital of their country.
Też tego nie rozumiem, Wilno jest w 100% Litewskie w przeciwieństwie do np Lwowa
You forgot to add: given back to Lithuania by Stalin
true, but by the times of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth it was polonised and Polish was the main language spoken
I dont think the author was trying to act like these territories were Polands and Polands only, but was trying to prove the hypocrisy of Putin, like if Ukraine is russian then these lands are also Polish by his logic
I doubt he actually thinks Poland should regain these lands today
Imagine having to go to the bath room but the guard makes you sit and listen to Putin talk about how a cat sneezed on a banana in 1230 thus giving Russia the right to that land for 3 hours
He only talked about history for 30 minutes, and he wasn’t justifying the invasion by it. His point with the history was to answer a question Tucker never asked but the viewers would probably want an answer to anyways: Are Russians and Ukrainians the same people? According to Putin, the answer is yes.
HEhehe! He managed to commit yet another war-crime while at the same time never even stop talking or even leaving the conference-room. (Which, OK shouldn't be bragged about - but still, quite impressive, eh?) ;-)
@@luigimrlgaming9484why does he kill his own people?
@@andriyka17 He doesn’t
Lmfao.
Not only do I personally find appeal to history utterly bizarre, but Putin manages to fuck it up as well, making his delusional rants baseless
Meh, in tye realm of geopolitics the appeal to history can be incredibly valuable as far context goes. However here it is apperent that the appeal itself was more of a trick, blending truth and falsehood together to form a narrative that can be molded towards your interest
No not really its what you'd find in any history book in eastern,southern europe the only book where you wouldn't find it is in a liberal migrant filled shi* hole like France or Sweden
how will you cope when there is no more ukraine? lol
@@karsaorlong3761 I don’t think we’ll ever know. Why?
How much do you know about history, especially 2oth century history? Very little, I suspect.
"Ruthenian" is an exonym of Latin origin. It's not what the ancestors to modern Ukrainians in those lands would have called themselves.
Rusini was the word they used.
The english Ruthenian is the same word.
Russian is not Ruthenian or Rus.
@@stanisawzokiewski3308 Ruthenia is literally medieval vuIgar-latin name for Rus/sia. Rusini/Rusyns is the name of people living in Ruthenia, nothing to do with 'ukraine' whatsoever.
Revisionists and nato-bot propagandists are IaughabIe.
@@bdleo300 No. Russia was founded by Peter the Great.
Before that there multiple different Rus'es, Moscovite Rus, Novogrodian Rus, White Rus (Belarus), Red Rus (Ukraine) etc.
Peter the Great transformed Moscovia into Russia or rather claimd to be the Tzar of "All-Rus" or in other words of every Rus.
The Moscovites and Novgorodians chose to become the part of this new nation as Russians. But Ruthenian (Belarus and Ukraine) still concidered themselves separate.
Rus=/= Russia.
Just like Germany =/= Germania.
or Turkey =/= turkic.
Русин, у множині - русини, це самоназва предків українців, частково білорусів, хоча вони радше називали себе литвинами, а точніше ліцвінами. I wrote this in ukrainian to convey the phonetics, it is very hard to do when you write in English.
@@bdleo300 man, you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. To convey the phonetics i will write it in ukrainian. Русини - самоназва людей які жили в Русі. Не «русичі», не «росичі» і точно не «рускіє». Були люди «руські» як ті які якимось чином належали до Русі, тобто як прикметник, але самоназва це русини. Це можна особливо яскраво побачити у записах, наприклад, Люблінського сейму, чи довгих перемовин між Короною Польською і волинською шляхтою, там же видно кого волиняни вважають своїм(спойлер, тільки людей які проживають на території нинішньої України, трохи Білорусі)
As a Polish guy, I think it is really cute that you put so many Polish songs in. The interview was clearly very anti-Polish, well anti-history in general but you get my point. I hope it clears some stuff out for the people that still believe in Russian revanchism. Thank you man
Polska gorum
You are nothing but Slavs never forget that Poland
@@Videntis.History
Putin spends an hour rewriting Ukrainian history and insulting the entire Ukrainian nation
Westerns: He said bad things about the Poles!
It sadly shows that primitive demonization of Ukrainian people, works. You could take Ukrainian historical songs, there is many of them, much more than russian, Khorea Kozacky one of best band.
But no, you take it as insult of Poles barely mentioned in his shisoprenic speech... Not that they werent insulted, he insulted all west contries. But this is just a russian tactic, a deliberate confrontation. Everything he said was about Ukrainians.
@@СайберЛінк
So, him saying false information about Poles is anti-ukrainian? You're trying to undermine the bad things he said about Poland by saying it doesn't matter as much as what he said about Ukraine.. The entire world doesn't revolve around Ukraine. Just because someone points out Putin said something bad about something else than Ukraine in an in-general interview doesn't mean they demonize Ukraine. Also, he picked POLISH SONGS for the part that he talks about POLAND. Get a grip on reality, a content creator can use any song he wants in his videos, and it shouldn't matter to you.
@@DullBradtake it easy.
There are people who pretend to be on other side to make them look bad.
They provoke anti ukrainian sentiment by just adding more fuel to fire and get benefit from.
Obviously is hard to see who is who but when you see such generic nickname it comes to you by itself.
You make an excellent point at the end that me and others have overlooked simply because of how absurd every other argument already is: if the basis of Russian occupation of Ukraine is denazification, in what is supposed to be an ideological realignment/reunification and NOT simple colonialism, and the Soviet Union, a century-long institution that was directly antithetical to everything Nazis, failed to do so in their tenure in Ukraine, how can anyone expect the former-KGB dictator to do it right this time? Even if we take EVERYTHING else Putin says at his word, he *still* isn't compelling.
Being compelling is the least he can be for yall’s sorry a**’s, homely a bloodthirsty, backstabbin’, genocidal, bias dictator who’s evil a** still comes at you for open for debate means, at such anti-russian times? don’t you think? 🤦♂️ Such an evil president, oooooohhh noooo, what should we do, this President is so evil, that he’s daring still exchanging words with the world. 🙄
2:28
How 19-century Czech pan-Slavist Karel Havlíček Borovský once said about russians in his essay "Slav and Czech": These gentlemen have started everywhere to say and write "Slav" instead of "Russian", so that later they will again be able to say "Russian" instead of "Slav"...
So, yeah, they practicaly get this goal
Oh, and two centuries before Muscovy pulled the same trick on Ukraine - that current name, "Rosiya"? Stolen from Ukrainian prior ethnonym - "Rusyny"/"Ruthenians".
"I went to Russia as a Slav, and returned from there as a Czech."
@@avenger4027 The most funny thing is that Karel Havlíček Borovský was a panslavist and Russian supporter, before he actually visited Russia. 😀
@@Pidalin Yep. Even the current so-called "allies" of Muscovy mostly hail from countries that are supremely fortunate to have never been under Muscovy's direct yoke. All of the "true friends" of Muscovy, such as Iran, North Korea, China, most of Africa. Pan-Slavism itself was invented in Muscovy and it's no different from the kind of thinking that assumes that all Africans are the same just because they live in Africa or that all Europeans are the same.
@@saranemcova5448 lol, that's a good one!
as a latvian, hearing him say ‘we have no interest’ is extremely meaningless, for so many reasons, one of the most prominent being our shared history. it just shows that he genuinely does not care and wants to maintain the idea that russia is all powerful and everyone else is the bad guy.
As a German, I'd like to add that I think that the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein are all Germans and together, we make Germania. However, i don't want any of these countries to be annexed by Germany, nor do I think we should all sacrifice our own nations for a larger West Germanic Union. All Dutch, Austrians, Swiss, etc are my brothers and I'm honored to be surrounded by such beautiful countries as equals. We are different and yet we are one
Lol try calling a Dutch man German it wont go well
@@yaneyobe3147they are germanic when it comes to cultural heritage but i agree dont call them germans.
@@yaneyobe3147 I know but I say it because we have Lower Saxons in Germany and they're essentially Dutch 😂 and no one can deny that we all used to be part of the HRE at one point. Swiss are Swabians, Austrians are Bavarians, etc etc. I consider them German because their cultures are already part of Germany and the people within them, for the most part, are considered German.
Even britain was mostly germanic, yet your ancestors let France occupy and influence it so much, that nobody in the world knows now what to do with the aggressive expansionism of anglophones.
Yes and You highlighted in this approach problem with particular kind of Russian irredentism.
It’s not just claim for Ukrainians (although that is by far the worst case), even we here in Czechia made this experience as far back as 150 years ago and not forgotten (and actually freshly reminded) since.
As You might imagine some 150 years ago (or about 170 actually) we in Czechia, being under Austria-Hungary had primarily and initially quite different concern. Our forefathers actually fought against germanization of our culture and society (as German at that time was enforced by Austrian bureaucracy).
For that reason some of our intellectuals (journalists, activists of kind etc) got initially to get some support (and inspiration) from biggest Slavic nation in the east.
Several rounds of study and collaboration trips to Russia ensued. The most prominent was the journey political journalist (later jailed by Austria) the Karel Havlíček Borovský (maybe google this dude). He had great impact on Czech society in general and so his trip to Russia transcribed into Czech historic memory as well.
In short: he returned from Russia completelly disgusted. He travelled there with hopes, came back with disappointment and warning.
To TLDR it , I will just paraphrase the most famous quote, quote remembered and quoted frequently since (while it’s kind of difficult to translate the possessives form of verbs he used, I’ll try):
“Russians like to call everything Russian "Slavic", so that they can later call everything Slavic "Russian"“
(Something Czech is actually “Slavic” and when something is Slavic it is immediately called to be Russia (possessive form))
Russian plau this panslavic game till this date with all Slavic nations.
Although we are furthest away (both geographically and linguistically) and poor Ukrainians are closest to them.
THE ANCIENT ROMANS ARE THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY'S ITALIANS. LATIN IS THE ORIGIN OF ROMANCE LANGUAGES.
I love how Putin says that Poland finishing a war that had been started before Hitler came to power is collaborating with Nazis but then quickly glosses over actual collaboration with Nazis (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) as Russia just taking historical lands back.😂
Wich "collaboration"? Hitler wanted the East(he had written it even in "Mein Kampf"). Stalin made a deal to win time. And just took the lands back, the Poles stole from Russia and Austria-Hungary 20 years before. And what is about the Nazi-Polish collaboration in Czechoslovakia? Never heard of Teschen? Please don’t tell me, that it was only a "small land". The size of the territory you divided with the Nazis doesn’t matter. But the fact, that you did it.
@@daco9464 ok so you clearly don’t know what the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact actually was
@@karaltar7914 ok so you clearly don’t know what the Nazi-Polish collaboration from 1934 until 1939 actually was.
@@daco9464 seems like the mustache man’s strategy to shift blame on the partition of chzeckoslovakia worked on people like you lmao
@@karaltar7914 seems like you have 0 arguments. That’s why you can’t live with the fact, that the Poles were big friends of the Nazis. I am sure, you don’t even know how Hitler admired Piłsudski.
Politicians lying???? Whaaaat?
Putin stopped being a politician long ago and became a terrorist.
No shit 😒
“i’m not pro anything I just want to correct history” and the next sentence is “Russian nationalists”
And Rus state started with Novgorod and no there were no Kievan Rus, it was only Rus. Kievan term was invented in the 19th century.
When we talk about Novgorod, we forget two things. Apart from the chronicles, there is no evidence that such a city existed in 862. Archeology indicates that a permanent fortified settlement appeared in the 10th century, that is, after Igor ascended the throne of Prince Rus, with the capital in Kyiv.
Second, after the invasion of the Mongols, Novgorod formed its own state with its own traditions and language (with strong influence of western slavic words). Novgorod was a republic where the prince was elected. In the Volodymyr-Suzdal Principality, and later in the Moscow Principality, there was no Viche tradition. The tradition is similar to the Scandinavian Ting, it was spread throughout the territory of Kievan Rus, except for the northeastern territories, strongly populated by finnic tribes. When Moscow captured Novgorod, it destroyed the population, the local language, and the tradition of electing a prince.
Because of this, the heredity of modern Russia from Novgorod looks strange. Russia has strong absolutist traditions since the times of the Volodymyr-Suzdal Principality. While the population of both Kyivan Rus and Novgorod could choose their rulers, and if they did not like the princes, they expelled them (as was the case, for example, with Yuri Dolgoruky, who was expelled from Kyiv several times by the local population and, according to legend, became the founder of Moscow). And in the case of the fate of the population of Novgorod, well, it is the same as if the Romans, having destroyed Carthage, declared themselves Phoenicians, while preserving their own language and culture, and declared their claims to the Levant.
Так, і взагалі, Рюрік як би легенда на рівні Кия, чи Пржемисла Орача. Є кращі джерела інформації, на кшталт Бертинських анналів. Такі ось відео де людина викриває Московску брехню ліше на половину, ще гірше ніж якби взагалі не викривав, тому що виходить ті хто подивляться, дойдуть к висновку що ця брехня, це версія заходу... Про 850к закарпатьских Русинів взагалі мовчу...
Your argument regarding the historical interpretation of Novgorod and its relationship to modern Russia raises several interesting points worth considering:
Dating discrepancy:
You are correct that archaeological evidence places Novgorod's permanent settlement closer to the 10th century, contrasting with earlier chronicle mentions. However, some historians argue that smaller settlements or trading posts might have existed before, evolving into the documented city. Further archaeological exploration could shed more light on this.
Novgorod's distinctness:
You accurately highlight Novgorod's unique characteristics - elected princes, a distinct language, and republican traditions. This sets it apart from the absolutist tendencies of the Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow principalities.
Questioning heritage claims:
Your analogy of Rome and Carthage effectively presents the problematic aspects of claiming direct lineage from Novgorod while disregarding its specific cultural and political traits.
Complexity of historical inheritance:
It's crucial to remember that modern Russia's heritage is complex and multifaceted. Influences from various historical entities, including Kyivan Rus, Novgorod, and the Vladimir-Suzdal/Moscow principalities, all contribute to its cultural and political make-up. Attributing absolute dominance to any single source is an oversimplification.
Additional perspectives:
While your interpretation offers valuable insights, other perspectives exist. Some historians emphasize the continuities between Kyivan Rus and Muscovite Russia, despite Novgorod's differences. Additionally, cultural influences from Novgorod arguably persisted despite the city's subjugation by Moscow.
Further exploration:
To delve deeper into this topic, consider exploring these avenues:
Research works on the specific historical periods and entities involved.
Consult different historical interpretations and academic debates.
Analyze primary sources like chronicles and archaeological findings.
Remember, historical interpretations are dynamic and evolve with new discoveries and perspectives. Engaging with diverse viewpoints fosters a richer understanding of complex historical narratives.
@@henrikfox8960
There was not a continuity rather than a discontinuity between Muscovy and Rus-Ukraine! In 1169 Yuri Dolgorucky and his son Andriy Boholubsky attacked Kyiv, sacked it and slaughtered its inhabitants!
There is not such thing as "Kyivan Rus". The real name of that country was "Rus'. Moscovia changed it's name to "Rossia" in 18 century (and it remains till now).
"Holy Roman Empire" collapsed, "Rossia" managed to survive. Both countries are took names of existing in past countries to justify claims for territory.
@@avishnevsky7394 That is just not true. Already in the 16 century foreign sources called the country with the capital in Moscow as Russia. For example, the book "Of the Russe Commonwealth" By Giles Fletcher in 1591. Read that book and throughout that book the word "Russia" was used as the name of the country
I agree with most of the arguments in this video, except the language. When I, Ukrainian, speak Ukrainian, people from Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Chekh Republic easily make sense of my words. But not Russians. They are very different from us both linguistically and mentally. I might be biased, I acknowledge it. You can check it yourself: give Russian any text or example of speech in Ukrainian, and ask him, what is it about. Do the same with Pole or Slovak. You'll see the difference
I think its because Ukrainian and Belarusian have very similar vocabulary with Polish, but gramatically speaking they are Eastern Slavic languages just like Russian. Idk, Im not linguist.
@@Kretek this division of Slavic languages seems to be more geographic than linguistic.
You are correct---RuZZian, unlike the other Slavic languages was artificially created in the 18th century and imposed on its sheeple who spoke a DIFFERRENT native language at home. RuZZian was like an Esperonto--no one's native language.
@@Kretek
Of course you are not a linguist--yet you comment---Ukrainian, Belarus'ian and Polish are natural native Slavic languages each distinct, but of course similar because of common ancient roots.
RuZZian is totally DIFFERENT in that it is an ARTIFICIALLY created language---INSTEAD of using one of the many local native languages in the Muscovian Empire,--INSTEAD of using French which most of the Muscovian elite spoke, INSTEAD of Using Ukrainian or Belarus'ian (quite a lot of speakers), it was decided to make up a NEW language "worthy of a great empire" and so Old Church Slavonic( a dead language from Old Bulgarian) was chosen as the base--they took all of the words they could from it and added new words--much like Esperonto and then forced the sheeple (who spoke a DIFFERENT one of the many native languages at home) to learn it.
@@AlexA-eg7gz
Some one made it up and everyone parrots it--the labelling is really not that significant!
I can certify that "Austro-Hungarian general staff is an actual meme in Ukraine
Is Thalerhof also a meme ?
@@MACTEP_CHOB Thalerhof was concentration camp not only for poles and rusophiles, but also for some Ukrainians.
This is one of anti-historical theories in Russia how Ukrainians appeared. There is also a theory that Bolsheviks "created" ukrainians. Different russian imperialists believe in one of two theories depends on their attitude towards communism.
@@Nick_Avarage Who called themselves Rusins (Ruthenians), yes
@@MACTEP_CHOB Yes, Ukrainians called themselves like that till the 19th century.
25:24 The January Uprising lasted 1863-64. The uprising you're talking about is The November Uprising lasting 1830-31. But that's the only thing. A very good and interesting material full of facts and very helpful for someone uniformed. As a Pole I approve and I have to say you did pretty well with the pronunciation of Polish names. Good job on the whole video
Actually, there are a lot of other problems, and oftentimes, this video only points out information that the content creator felt relevant but that Putin left out. That really is not the same as lying.
@@ltdike123 Calling Grand Duchy of Lithuania a Russian-Lithuanian Duchy is a lie. The same applies to Cossacks wanting to be a part of Russia. Mostly these were extra facts which were necessary to fully understand the topic but there was also some needed info on topics he wasn't right about.
@@goodmorning8526 I'm not going to argue with you. I am very sure of myself. You said yourself "Mostly these were extra facts which were necessary to fully understand the topic". I mostly agree. The weight placed on this extra information is, in my opinion, subjective and open to interpretation. I'm more than willing to admit that Putin's telling of history is skewed towards serving his political agenda, I'm just really tired of people acting like the whole thing is fabricated from an alternate universe or something. That's how the media treats it.
@@ltdike123 I respect you and the way you say it. I agree he told the truth in many places just not mentioning some facts to make the whole story better align with the scenario he was going for. It was selective truth with a few lies. And I fully agree that it's not a made up story based on unrealistic scenarios from his head. I get your point of view and why you feel like that. A constructive criticism is always good and you did it in a very respectful way. I appreciate it and I even agree with some of your points.
3:41 In the russian Federation there really are Don Cossacks who consider themselves a separate people from the russians. But most of them consider themselves russians, and in general this ethnic group was destroyed by the Bolsheviks, and put in one Soviet mess, same with Kuban cossaks, whose ancestors were Ukrainians.
And the Ukrainian Zapoirozhian Cossacks never had much in common with the Don Cossacks, you can't talk about them as one ethnic group, the Moscow sources and European, French for example, knew this already in the 17th century.
Zaporozhian Cossacsk for Ukraine, is same as Teutonic order for Prussians
“A surprise to be sure but a welcome one” - -chancellor- Emperor Palpatine
I bet you browse plebbit.
I mean every country is going to go as far back as they can to establish the beginning of the states identity. I didn't take his statement to mean actual "state" was founded but more of the beginnings of the future national identity. Just as the 13 colonies or Jamestown in America was not the first U.S. state but it is the accepted beginnings of the future state of America as a country.
Yeah, but no American says America began in the 1600s, we all say it started on July 4, 1776
@@Videntis.History I agree but I don't think he was saying that the modern state started exactly. It may have been translated that way but it is true that the people group of Russia and Ukraine had they're roots established with the king.
@@danielwatcherofthelord1823yeah true it is as translated so idk what is differebt
@@Videntis.History either way I could be wrong about it. As far as the war goes, I know Russia is perceived as the aggressor in the conflict but I really do believe the American NATO coalition knew how to push Putin to act on behalf of Russia and therefore, Russia could be labeled the belligerent in the conflict. U.S. would never allow a country directly next to its border to fall into an alliance with another power that was actively hostile against America. I mean the Cuban Missile Crisis is an almost comparable situation of America actively preventing the Soviets from delivering arms to its Cuban ally so America knows Russia was never going to just allow expansion to its border. The media wants to make us choose side A or B without nuance and to paint everything with a broad brush. Zelensky good, Putin bad but obviously that is too reductive of a view because both parties have good and bad parts to them so I say all I'm saying because I believe we need to balance the narrative that's being blasted at us continously. Thanks for having a dialoque with me, Videntis! I enjoy your videos regardless of my opinions in the comment section!
@@danielwatcherofthelord1823Bullshit. Eastern European countries keep joining NATO because Russia keeps breaking treaties and invading countries it said it wouldn't. Georgia and Chechnya are prime examples. There was talk of DISBANDING NATO as there was no need for it anymore but the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, annexation of territory and the funding of pro-secession groups put a stop to that. Finland didn't have plans to join NATO but Russia forced the issue. Poland is massively increasing its military spending because of Russia.
Zelensky has been called out on his government's corruption numerous times, as well as on the presence of multiple far-right elements in the military that are only now being properly dealt with. The shelling of civilians in Donbass is something the international community has condemned Ukraine for (though it is no where near a genocide as Russian propagandists claim).
Regardless if surrounding countries joined other alliances the U.S. would have no right to invade another nation. That helps prove Russia is in the wrong. Why the hell would you bring up a comparison like that?
Besides getting all the history wrong even his last statement doesn't make any sense. "if they consider themselves a separate people they have the right do so but not on the basis of nazism". A quick Wikipedia search on the definition of nazism will make it very clear that by no means Ukraine is a nazi state. In fact, Russia shares overwhelmingly more commonalities with fascism and by extension with nazism as compared to Ukraine. If he is referring to the Azov battalion, that wasn't a thing before 2014 when HE invaded Crimea sparking nationalist reactions. And it's not like Russia hasn't its share of extreme right and nazi groups. As usual, dictators complain about problems they create
Stalin was an ALLY of the NaZis when they both attacked Poland in 1939 and only became their enemy when attacked by Hitler!-Stalin was on the side of the NaZis for two years during the first years of the war.-Pootler spews hypocritical nonsense when he calls others NaZis---Ukrainians fought both the NaZis AND the RuZZians during WW2--this is why he calls Ukrainians NaZis.--it is also a bogieman word for his sheeple.
@@WangAiHuaBoth sides knew it was just a calm before the storm in ww2, and both prepared for invasion of each other, but allies was a more pressing issue at the time, and stalin did not know about how evil the nazis were, but he did know they were evil, however everyone was against the ussr so might as well get a temporary ally instead of a bigger threat
@@WangAiHuaAnd the ukrainians did not fight the nazis
@@WangAiHuaThe ukrainians had been promised independence by the nazis
@@Isbnsyw26yeb6
No!---That is INCORRECT---Stalin knew that the NaZis were just as evil as they were!
Stalin SUPPORTED the NaZi regime and ASSISTED them in taking Poland and in providing them the resources that they needed for their war machine!
From 1939 to 1941 The RuZZians SUPPORTED Hitler and his war AGAINST the allies!--Your copium does not work!
Stalin furthermore attacked Finland and the Baltic States!--What was that about?
Thanks for the great video. The overall ideas are correct. However, I'd like to correct some of them.
Cossacks were not a "people." A cossack was closer to a viking where it was more like a profession or a path of life. The name comes from Turkic languages and means "free young men".
The cossacks originally were a lot like the knights errant in western Europe, just the eastern type. They were mostly young men of noble origins who would not inherit their fathers estate, so they went out to seek employment through fighting, given that they knew how to fight.
They went out into the steppe around southeastern Ukraine and southern Russia and earned their living through guarding traders and raiding the Tartar and Ottoman lands to their south. Oftentimes, they'd also be employed by the Polish state as mercenaries, and eventually, some of them were integrated into the Polish army.
After a while, they started to form cities in the inhospitable steppe as they acquired wealth and women through their work and raiding. They also formed their own form of government - the Sich.
The Sich was democratic form of government where the fighting men would choose a Hetman to rule over them. The Ukrainians base their national myth and state on the Zaporizhian Sich, which was autonomous for a short while, so they are the "proto Ukranian state".
Most of the Cossacks were east Slavs, but they did not discriminate by ethnicity. There is a Ukranian joke that states, "If you believe in god and drink vodka, you're a cossack," and it is pretty much how they chose who could join.
The Cossacks were employed many times as mercenaries by the Europeans, and over the late middle ages, a lot of mercenaries who ran out of work joined the Sich because they always had use for fighting men. After the 30-years war, for example, orders within the Zaporizhian sich were given in German due to an influx of German mercenaries.
As far as the Russian state, it was not called "Russia" until the 18th century, and the whole myth about Russia being the successors of the Rus was started by Peter the 1st with the help of a Ukranian priest Prokopenko, in order to find some unifying factor to an empire that was held together mostly by the strength of Moscows arms.
Ivan the 4th just proclaimed Moscow to be the 3rd Rome and defenders of the Orthodox faith after the fall of Constantinople and all of that without permission of the Byzantine orthodox church.
Ukrainian by the way is a lot more similar to Polish by the way (I speak both), and funnily enough Portugese and Spanish are different enough for speakers of one to not understand the other.
Ukraine was not called Ukraine until the 19th century, so Russia is still your senior. Also, it was called Russia in the 17th century, not the 18th, and the genealogy between Kievan Rus and Russia was established much earlier, as Moscow's founders Daniel and Yuri Dolgoruky traced their lineages to Alexander Nevsky and the Princes of Novgorod. All of this predates Peter by centuries.
Ошибочка , в те века не было Украины
About the Spanish and Portuguese language you are a bit wrong.
Our language have a more than 80% percent of lexical similarity.
It's the Portuguese accent the problem. Sounds like a mix of Russian and French.
The writing is very easy
@@ReimuHakurei-b6i Украина как раз тогда была, а вот россии не было
@@dwl3006 Ukraine (the name itself is known since 12th cetury), moreover, from Army of Zaporizhya times written documents we know that they called themselves also Ukraine and Rus, quite interchangeably often
I want to see the docs Putin shared with Carlson
They are fakes of course!--One is the Treaty of Pereiaslav--the original conveniently does not exist (unless hidden somewhere in the Kremlin) only a RuZZian version copy--Pootler tried to give this copy of a copy, as if it means something.
RuZZia --then still called the Muscovian Empire, has broken every agreement it ever made including the Budapest Memorandum!
Just some letters, google it.
that was money :D
Those were the documents with American president’s faces printed on them. I think, those are called US dollars
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦
Thank you for taking the time to do this; I'm so angry with people that think Putin was dropping "history truth bombs"
I thought it was so funny that putin kept calling all east slavs Russians
*forgets how he excluded Poles from Russians*
@@luigimrlgaming9484Mate, he said “east slavs” Polish people are west slavs
@@mylerwilson4879 Poland is part of Eastern Europe, therefore it is East Slavs by my definition. Western Slavs are Czechia and Slovenia
@@luigimrlgaming9484 Mate, you do realise the “east slavs” shit is linguistic, not geographic. Is it difficult to look up basic shit? Or does that require using the 2 brain cells left in your head
@@luigimrlgaming9484Poland goes more west than Slovakia. Poles are west Slavs. Ethnically and geographically.
I didn't know there was a tiny, unique population of West Slavs in eastern Germany named Sorbs. You learn something new everyday.
I'm deeply grateful for this video, thank you. We always need people like you keeping History clean of Dictators mucking around with it. Sadly, a fact as old as time.
There are two distinct timelines to consider: one historical and the other archaeological. According to Russian archaeologists, when Rurik purportedly journeyed from Novgorod to Kyiv, archaeologically, Novgorod did not yet exist. Conversely, archaeological evidence indicates that Kyiv predated Rurik's arrival 9th century, with cultural layers dating back to the 6th century. Additionally, Rurik's status as a legendary figure lacks conclusive evidence, with mentions primarily found in the Tale of Bygone Years, authored some 200 years after his supposed death, and not corroborated by cross-sources.
You won’t believe it, but Putin hasn’t told everything yet...
In Russia, almost before the revolution of 1917, this calendar was used as an unofficial calendar (after its abolition by Peter 1 about 300 years ago): ua-cam.com/video/mwUUwyH6IQQ/v-deo.html
There is a lot of material evidence of this. According to this calendar, the year is now 7532 in Russia. Aren't you interested in who kept this calendar, how they lived, and why official history doesn't tell us anything about it? So Putin still has something to tell people.🙂
You are correct--the tale of a mythical "Rurik" was spun by the Kremlin centuries later to lend "credibility" to Muscovian aspirations to take over Rus' and later Rome(Constantinople)--the Muscovian Khans called themselves, not just "imperator" (emperor), but "Tsar"( short for tsisar--Caesar --i.e. emperor of Rome).
@@МашаМарьина-у6с
No matter what Pootler says it is in vain as he lies so much that petty well everyone know the truth is the opposite.
RuZZian saying--You can never be absolutely certain of anything being true until it has been denied by the Kremlin!
@@МашаМарьина-у6с
We know what Pootler says--that RuZZia existed even before the dinosaurs, so the whole world is rightfully his!
@@WangAiHua By the way, Putin has not even hinted to you yet about what I have presented here. And you've already lost your mind.😁😁😁
I first time see a western man who knows history and difference between “russian” and “ruthenian”
Are you ukrainian? Could you tell what the difference is in original language? If you have time.
@@turkoositerapsidi I can. The Muscovite current ethnonym - "Russia" comes from a Greek form "Rosia" (the Greek form of writing "Rus'"). Moreover, the ethnonym "Russian" is an adjective (actual national ethnonyms in Ukrainian/Russian languages are all nouns - like the Ukrainian "Rusyn"/"Ruthenian") that was used first as a religious designation (for Orthodox Christian believers), not a national one. This is because the Slavic pidgin dialect that Muscovites now speak - as well as the ethnonym of Ukrainians that Muscovy stole - are originally foreign to Muscovy.
@@avenger4027 I see. If it became something eastern christians of the area called themselves, is this the reason why moskovites started to call themselves as rus as well?
Someone said me russians called themselves russian, but the person claimed that they did not call themselves moskovites, I do not know if that was just propaganda tho.
@@turkoositerapsidi Yes. "Russian" originally was a religious designation. It became a national one only when Peter the First's court historians begun trying to tie Muscovy to Rus'.
Muscovites used to call themselves Muscovites before Peter the Great; foreigners also called Muscovites Muscovites. Writings of the likes of Voltaire and Marx survive, where even foreigners far from Muscovy openly express their incredulity at Muscovy trying to tie itself to Rus' (Voltaire said that they (the French and Europeans) only knew of Rus' centered in Kyiv - he should know, Anna Yaroslavivna married a French king) and Marx outright said that Muscovy had no claim to the "era of Norman glory" (meaning Rus' - of course, Normanism is a discredited fairy tale now, but even with it, it's clear that Muscovy had nothing to do with Rus'). Instead, according to Marx, Muscovy was born from the bloody muck of the Mongolo-Tatar slavery - and later tried to steal the history of the actual Rus'. Obviously, Soviet communists have not released this work of Marx - "Secret Diplomatic History Of The Eighteenth Century" - in the Soviet Union, due to the fact that Marx's words were as true as they were scathing in regards to Muscovy.
@@avenger4027"Russia" doesn't come from Greek "Rosia". Russia or Rusia or Russie comes from the word Русия wich was used before the name Росия/Россия became more prevalent
20:25 OUN B wanted to collaborate with Germans, but when Stepan Bandera declared independence of Ukraine short after Germany attacked USSR, Germans arrested him and put him in concentration camp, after that OUN B and its military part UIA fought soviets Germans and polish partisans. I’m not denying the ethnic cleansing but I just think they weren’t German collaborators. Also many of poles were removed from lands taken by the ussr and send to poland
Galicien SS
@@CRI_PL
Dorko--they weren't SS--only Germans were allowed to be SS, not even all Germans at that--they were merely UNDER the SS--you confuse an SS division (the soldiers and command were SS) with a division of the SS (under the SS---with SS officers).
Writing in one comment scumbag stepan bandera with capital letters and Poland/Poles with minor makes me want to vomit.
@@CRI_PL Those are different. SS brigades are not UPA, they fought for the germans while UPA fought both the germans and the soviets. They also retreated with the germans and finally escaped to western countries to avoid prosecution.
@@dieros666 oun b też mordowało żydów i Polaków w współpracy z niemcami
Italians are Romans claiming Italians are not Romans is like claiming Athenians and Spartans are not Greek it is like claiming that Britain is not English because heads up all of these had different cultures and languages.
Are Iranians no longer Persians they have a drastically different culture language and government from their ancient counterparts they where ruled by Arabs.
I’m sorry but no that is not an argument and that’s trying to strip people of their history, the Roman people didn’t suddenly disappear when the capital fell.
Now I disagree with Putin but Russia dose have history with the ancient Slavic peoples claiming a modern state dose not have a connection to its ancient peoples is ludicrous and can easily be argued for the invasion and conquest of those lands.
I’ll give you an example Poland disappeared from the face of the earth for hundreds of years occupied by Russians and Germans dose that suddenly make them no longer connected to the kingdom of Poland or Its history because if that’s the case the Germans and Russians have just as much of a claim to Poland as the modern polish people.
EXACTLY.
Iranian refers to nations speaking an Iranian language kurds, balochs and persians etc
you have made a flaw in your response Britain is not English seeing as Scots and Welsh do not call themselves English
I’m not saying they aren’t their ancestors, but they aren’t the same people
@@Videntis.History expand
OMG DEBOOOONKED ITS DEBOOOONKED
Your framing is dishonest in several places in order to force a disagreement or correction where there isn't one.
Choosing Rurik as the start of Russian history is entirely understandable. Rurik was invited to rule Novgorod and then sent his kinsman Oleg to Kiev where he established the Kievan Rus. This is where Russia and the Russian people get their name from. The Rurikid dynasty would be the first dynasty of Russia.
If you want to talk about lying by omission, you omitting that Ivan IV was a Rurikid is certainly an example of it. Of course Ivan being a Rurikid is relevant to the claim that Russian history starts with Rurik.
This is no different to when Americans make reference to Jamestown. If someone says the settlement of Jamestown was the beginning of US history, most wouldn't see it necessary to disagree.
Putin also clearly stated Rurik was a varangian. It's not like he was trying to hide that fact.
The terms linguists use to describe old and dead languages should not be used as a discrete language. The Kievan Rus did not 'mainly speak old east Slavic'. There was no such thing as 'old east Slavic'. They spoke a variety of closely related languages and dialects that modern linguists have grouped into 'old east Slavic'.
Putin also didn't claim they spoke modern Russian. He said they spoke "one and the same language". You can say this is a simplification, but it is the exact same simplification you made when you said they 'mainly spoke old east Slavic'.
Saying they spoke the same language is meant to give legitimacy to the claim that this region and people share a history. The people of that region 'mainly' speaking languages that are mostly mutually intelligible to the point modern linguists group them together seems to support that notion.
Saying Russian and Ukrainian are similar is a vast understatement. This concept is hard for English speakers to understand as the closest English relatives commonly spoken, Dutch and German, are very clearly distinct languages from English. Russian and Ukrainian are mutually intelligible. They are so mutually intelligible that a Russian speaker and a Ukrainian speaker can have a conversation with each other without much difficulty. They are so similar linguists disagree on were in history to put the split between Russian and Ukrainian.
The portion where Putin says "From this time the centralized Russian state began the strengthen" is him talking about the process which he states began after 988 baptism of Russia. He didn't claim that there was suddenly a centralized state, rather it's the beginning of that process. A few seconds later he says "The centralized Russian state began to take shape."
If you're going to be pedantic and say that the Iberians were not Spanish and those early Slavs were not Russian, then you must be consistent. You can't say "These people were also known as Ruthenians". If the central Iberians that would one day make up the Spanish can't be called Spanish and the eastern Slavs that would one day make up the Russians can't be called Russians, then the group called Ruthenians can't be called Ukrainians.
The Intermarium was not "a new form of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
You're really stretching to say the Polish military action in Czechoslovakia while Germany was invading Czechoslovakia doesn't amount to coordination. 'They just took advantage'. C'mon. Are you saying there was no communication between Germany and Poland during these simultaneous invasions? Of course there was some level of coordination.
There were certainly Polish collaborators in German occupied Poland. In their clashes within the EU, when Poland has used the rhetoric of also wanting to receive reparations from Germany for WW2, Israel has brought up these Polish collaborators.
It's also silly to say it was just as bad on the Soviet side. While it was horrible, there weren't camps and squads in the same way there were on the German side.
The lands Putin is referring to Lenin giving Ukraine are certain lands east of the Dnieper. At the time they were included with the Ukrainian SSR much of the land east of the Dnieper was majority Russian, and some of it still is.
When Putin says 90% spoke Russian, they did. Ukrainian was most's first language, but most also spoke Russian. This fact would indeed be a 'fundamental' of the Russian Ukraine relationship from the eyes of the post Soviet Russian leadership.
Putin didn't claim that Russia could have prevented the Soviet collapse, he merely said Russia was an active participant in the collapse. He says this to point out that Russia was ready to move on to a new era. That it was willing to let go of power. Russia could have made the collapse a lot more painful than it was, but several key figures chose not to. Read up on the Soviet government during the collapse of the union. It's a very interesting moment in history.
The hyperbole with the Sudetenland. C'mon dude. Putin saying "We have no interest in Poland" when answering a question is not even the same category of statement as 'this is the last territorial demand I have'. These statements are not 'eerily similar'. One is declaiming an interest and the other is justifying an annexation. Is rhetoric around every national use of force or territorial dispute equivalent to the Sudetenland? Different nations, different circumstances, different actions, different statements.
Most of this video is you getting pedantic to reject a general point or choice of focus on Putin's part, or being general to reject specific points Putin made as being to narrow. Along with a fair amount of you putting words in his mouth.
It's one thing to put forward a competing narrative. It's one thing to attempt to correct the record. It's another thing to do what you've done here. I think the average person wouldn't understand Putin's account of Russian history more after watching your video. They will not understand why he told the history the way he did, in fact they will think he said things he didn't.
Damn bro whrote a whole book in the comments💀
As russian, and I can refute the statement that at the moment Russian and Ukrainian are almost the same language. Without knowledge of Ukrainian, I can only superficially understand it
"Are you saying there was no communication between Germany and Poland during these simultaneous invasions? Of course there was some level of coordination."
You have to bring proofs for making such accusations, Poland had always claimed that land to be their and Czechs it to be their.
@@littlefinger4509 So that the Germans and Poles could identify each other and not fight each other in their invasions of Czechoslovakia there was communication. This is basic logistics.
@@uselessrex1579 Your anecdote means very little. So you speak Russian? Is Russian your first language? Is Russian the primary language you speak day to day? What part of Russia is your family from? All of this will modify your personal ability to understand Ukrainian.
Eastern Ukrainian and southern Russian are very similar. The further north you go in Russia and especially the further west in Ukraine you go, the less in common these languages will have. That being said, your statement that you can only superficially understand Ukrainian is a testament to how close they are. An English speaker will not even superficially understand a German speaker.
"Cossacs are nomadic east slavs who originate from steppe lands" What? They were free people, runaway peasants, bandits, and other adventurers who flocked to the outskirts of the state from all around.
"It's considered to be the year of establishment of the Russian state in 862 when Novgorod people invited a varangian prince Rurik from Scandinavia to reign." And then you telling us that he's lying because it's not truth, cause Rurik was swede. Are you ok? He just said prince was varangian (swede). Novgorod Rus considered as Russian state, and Novgorod is a part of Russia.
Oleg the Wise was a regent of Rurik, but somehow in your words he is not involved in this.
Then you suddenly jump to Ivan the Terrible, but guess what? He was from Rurik family tree!
"Famous people from ruthenian history" - Russian history.
"Ruthenians and Russians are not the same thing" Really?
"The grand dutcy of Lithuania was never called the Lithuanian Russian dutchy" It was, and also as you described. But sure it's Russian propaganda was written by Russian Nationalists, who else? I guess Soviets was nationalists too?
"Once again, Ruthenians and Russians are two ethnic groups". Once again, "Ruthenian" termin used by western historics. There's no such termin in historical documents.
You know, I can also mention that the term "Ruthenians" began to be actively used in the 19th century by Austro-Hungarian nationalists and later by Nazi Germany to divide Russians into Ruthenians and non-Ruthenians.
Didn't watch further; it's too boring. Another historian on UA-cam trying to tell the history of my country from a Western perspective and with a specific agenda.
The CCCP was a way of russians to colonize the other "republics"
I would not call Lviv or Vilnius historical polish cities at all. They were not founded by Poles and came under Polands rule only after Poland conquered Galician-Volinian Kingdom (Lviv) and signed a Commonwealth with Lithuanians. Of course after centuries of coexistence in same state, unification policies and restrictions the cities would be largely populated by poles. But the territories themselves were majority Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuanian, etc. or Ruthenian and Lithuanian to borrow an umbrella term from the video.
You can also mention Poles and Ukrainians fighting over these territories in 1918, when it was largely local peoples establishing Western Ukraine Peoples Republic and joining Ukrainian Peoples Republic later. It was indeed a messy history for all involved, laying unfortunate backdrop for upcoming ethnic clashes and crimes on both sides.
But would you call Berlin a Polish city? Obviously not
Yet it was founded by poles
This video has exactly the same problem & quality as Putin's, the author is biased and gives personal interpretations & assessments instead of facts, omitting everything not convinient to the point of view. The source is likely a wikipedia article, which is fine, though a couple of statesments given are blatantly wrong - should have read more linked articles, duh.
@user-wj6dt5bq3w When has he pretended to be an objective historian?
If we mention the OUN and UIA, they were not collaborators. After trying to proclaim the Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State on June 30, 1941 (after the Germans occupied Lviv), the Nazis refused the Ukrainians and began repression against the leaders. For example Stepan Bandera, the leader of the OUN(b), was sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Both organizations fought against all whom they considered to be the occupiers of Ukraine, that is, against the Poles, Germans, and Soviets. According to the definition of the Nuremberg Tribunal, they were representatives of the national liberation movement. If we recall the Volyn tragedy/massacre, it is worth remembering that both sides, the Poles from the Kraiova Army and the Ukrainians from the UIA committed war crimes against the civilian population. However, it is worth understanding that the Poles studied the tragedy much more than the Ukrainians, in their works, they tend to minimize their responsibility and crimes and exaggerate the losses of their own civilian population. While Ukrainians until 2015 paid little attention to those events, due to which the Polish vision of the tragedy/massacre was and is dominant. It must be understood that everyone is guilty, and both committed crimes. But at the same time, neither of them did them at the behest of the Germans, because they considered the liquidation of those who cooperated with the Germans to be the main goal.
If we talk strictly about vohlyn massacre then AK had nothing to do with it until first murders started and the first murder happened on the polish pooulation by OUN, then polish villagers organized themselves and responded to it by massacring some ukrainian village. Only when this ordeal gained momentum AK chimed in. Still OUN was much more effective in their murders with about 100k killed poles and they were extremely brutal with their murders. In response poles killed between 5k to 10k ukrainians. Don't get me wrong i don't want to justify anybody, because if AK would have means they would probably killed more ukrianians, but the brutality of OUN is the main point in the entire controversy. Those weren't simple executions, those were barbaric mutilations. Impaled or beheaded toddlers, unborn ripped out of pregnant women, people skinned alive, ripped out intestines etc. It was extremely brutal and disgusting.
@@jakubw.2779 your claim "..100k killed poles.." is unrealistic
@@jakubw.2779 I condemn those atrocities. And regardless on who committed them, no greater idea can justify them.
@@jakubw.2779
Ukrainians didn't kill Poles on Polish lands but on occupied Ukrainians lands--this was not the case with RuZZian or Polish invaders of Ukrainian lands.
Just like today--Ukrainians are killing RuZZian invaders on Ukrainian lands--these RuZZian murdering imperialists would not be dying in Ukraine had they not gone to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians.
I like how you used Polish patriotic songs, including an anthem of Poland, as a soundtrack to this video ;)
I'm honestly flaberghasted at how many people aren't even questioning that Putin has had literal *years* to tailor his interview topics to ensure maximum discord in Ukraine's supporting nations/allies. People like Russle Brant, Dankula, and other so called libertarian free thinkers just use him to put either anti USA government propoganda or personal bias in general.
I have little doubt that both sides have issues but I've had friends in sweden and denmark that were helping against the mercenary 'shadow war' that russia was trying to use to soften up ukraine, so it's hardly something that happened in defense of the separatists
How to know if a russian is lying? -- When he opens his mouth.
23:16 Putin was saying that more than 90% of the Ukrainians spoke Russian as either a first language or 2nd language as it was and still is common to be bilingual in a country like Ukraine and he was referring to 1990s period just after USSR's collapse
As if the Russian language was very much encouraged.
@@gunterhunerbein9510 *by the government. The people pretty much had no problem speaking Russian and was kinda considered a lingua franca since not all of them knew Ukrainian
@@ExPraetorianGuard-dl1pz yes ,my words
@user-wj6dt5bq3wThe truth is Ukraine absorb Russian ppl if the same ppl that were Ukrainian 400years ago ancestors only were Ukrainian told the Ukrainian population would be 5million.
90% of US speaks English but it no longer belongs to England.
I guess Putin did not answer Tucker's question whether Hungary should get a part of the Ukrainian spoils.
That was like his toughest question.
subscribed
Or does Germany deserve Austria. Not that it was asked.
Good point. Fun fact, Hitler was Austrian, and it could be argued that Mozart (from Salzburg) was more German at the time than Austrian.
Though they all went to Vienna lol@@John-nb6ep
@user-wj6dt5bq3w Russia already recognized Ukraine in 1991.
@@tnndll4294yes, and Ukraine promised friendship with Russia and there was never a deal about ethnocide of Russian people in Ukraine or NATO joining. So don’t tell what Russia recognized or not. The Ukraine was transformed on Russian historical lands into Anti-Russian. Any recognitions or agreements(like the one in Budapest) are not working anymore, since Ukraine started aggressive Anti-Russian policies(against their own citizens and against Russia).
In other comments you said that you know the history of Poland better than the history of Russia and it’s showing. Just from the beginning of the video you can sense the strong anti-Russian bias coupled with some of the classical pro-Polish talking points. If Russian history starts with Moscow then how come they had all those Russian principalities like Tver and Novgorod fighting with each other to reunite all the Russian territories under their rule to begin with. To me it’s the same as saying that history of Japan starts with Tokyo, while completely ignoring Kyoto as well as all the rivalries that all those little feudal Japanese states had with one another only to eventually reunite into one big Japanese state. Imagine a German student learning German history not at least from the Niebelungen medieval song, but from the German reunification of 1871 under Prussian initiative. It doesn’t make sense and it’s limiting to say the least.
Although part of members of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists collaborated with nazi invaders they were not the majority. Painting the whole organization as nazi collaborators is not correct.
Also, equating any national anti-soviet movement (in any country, not only in Ukraine) with nazis is old soviet tradition
so many Ukrainians wanted to collaborate with nazi Germany that Germans created an SS unit composed of Ukrainians
ua-cam.com/video/Wrmea8AW4cU/v-deo.html
To talk about some Ukrainian "collaborators" while completely omitting the fact that the ENTIRE Soviet Union collaborated with Hitler for the first few years of the war--with a full out attack on Poland-is twisting the events of the war!
ua-cam.com/video/Wrmea8AW4cU/v-deo.html
The OUN-B weren't really "Nazi collaborators", they they were almost as bad as the Nazis
I think we must look at Putin (or any world leader) and examine their actions vs their words.
If we see that a leader makes a lot of promises then brakes them, we should realize that he is a villain. Plain and simple.
If a rival suddenly mysteriously dies, we may say its just luck, one or twice. But as it becomes a regular event in Russia, we should accept that assassination is part of Putin's play book. After enough lies have pilled up, we must not trust the leader any more.
If I read "Russia makes peace deal with Ukraine." I will think, how long until they brake the deal.
The only criticism I have of this, is that you called Wilno (Vilnius) and Daugavpils, historically polish cities, Vilnius wasn't Polish for that long and neither was daugavpils, It's just a mispresentation, They were Latvian and Lithuanian, just occupied by Poland. If I misunderstood or got anything wrong let me know though.
Same with Lviv--Lviv was a Ukrainian city (named in honour of King Daniel's son Lev)--it , much later became under the Lithuanian (Lithuania, Belarus' Ukraine) Commonwealth and then Poland joined this Commonwealth, basically taking over control.
Vilnius was actually Yiddish majoity before the Russian pogroms.
Regarding Vilnius: the number of ethnic Lithuanians in the city between 1916 and 1931 was around 2% and the number of ethnic Poles at that time was around 55% based on wikipedia (many Jews also spoke Polish). Could you explain what do you mean that Poles occupied Lithuanians in Vilnius? If you look at the key architecture buildings in Vilnius (churches, university, etc.) had they been design, financed and owned by Lithuanians? Do we discuss history (in a mutually respectful way) based on facts or wishful thinking? Poles and Lithuanians composed together the nobility of the Commonwealth, which ruled that republic (and opposed Russia). But by no means Vilnius was a Lithuanian city occupied by the Poles. This is a story invented by Prussia/Germany in XIX century to divide the nations (divide et impera)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vilnius#Vilnius_inhabitants_by_ethnicity
By demographics the city has changed alot throughout the years yes, but historically speaking, and culturally speaking it is and was always Lithuanian, it was built BY Lithuanians, the concept made BY Lithuanians, built FOR Lithuanians, whatever happened after the Russian Empire I do not know since I'm not knowledgeable about that era. But despite the demographics it was and is Lithuanian.@@janw5694
And also just to add, ofcourse the Polish population was higher in the city when Poland stole Vilnius from Lithuania during the war against the Reds. Most of Vilnius's Lithuanian population escaped to Kaunas during that time.@@janw5694
That was the first thing that came to mind after watching the original - Putin's History knowledge was very lacking or cherry-picked.
Also, the Hitler+PL co-op made me laugh.
Bro put the parentheses in the wrong place 💀
True. The correct title would have been:
"Debunking" Putin's history
@@Wendeta-hq2cp real I meant uhh commas I think
@@bussysagginfourteeneightyeight
It's apostrophe actually. 🤣👍
@@Wendeta-hq2cp whoops 🤭
Thanks for keeping us informed, man!! Seeing people fall for his bullshit pisses me off
You forgot to mention something exceptionally important: when the Soviet Union split, it did so as a result of REFERENDUMS. Effectively, the Baltic Countries, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. split from the Soviet Union as a result of a democratic vote of the people in those areas that was not hindered by the Soviet leadership, but instead it was recognized. The republics that chose to split did so in an official and democratic manner and the resulting countries were officially recognized by the Soviet Union, Russia and all other countries around the Globe.
Putin's little propaganda vomit is irrelevant. These countries were freely and officially recognized as independent countries by Putin's predecessors. The people in those countries overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union and were allowed to do so by the Soviets themselves. Even more so, Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia and USA that stipulates that in exchange for Ukraine returning all the nukes it inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia, both Russia and USA will defend it in case it is attacked. Unlike Putin's fairy tale about the promise not to expand NATO, the tri-party treaty between Ukraine, Russia and USA is historical and political fact. But Putin unilaterally broke the treaty back in 2014 and sent a clear sign that he will not abide by any treaty that he doesn't like.
One other thing to add. If anyone is wondering all Eastern-European states, including mod of the former Soviet Republics that were part of the USSR, absolutely HATE Russia, the answer is simple. Most of them have had to suffer at the hands of the Russians for hundreds of years. The Russians conquered their lands on several occasions and pillaged, raped and murdered anything remotely related to anything that batted an eye-lid at the Russians. The Russians broke up entire populations by sending the best and the brightest to die in Siberia and forcing the rest to adopt Russian "culture and civilization". And do take into consideration that all this was done during peace time. Russians killed hundreds of millions of innocents. Look at the 22,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia dead and buried at Katyn by the Soviet invaders. Look at Ukraine, where they committed genocide on several occasions - just look up holodomor. Look at all Soviet and/or Communist countries where the Russians spread their filth, where hundreds of millions of political opponents, dissidents or those that were just unlucky to be alive perished.
Ukraine is the homeland of one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, the Trypillian culture, which flourished on its territory about 7,000 years ago. Putin making a case for Kyiv as Russia's homeland based on a 9th century Viking is preposterous.
Norman theory is a joke to you ? Then go and tell Germans they`ve got everything wrong.
@MACTEP_CHOB
Non sequitur. A 7000 years in situ civilization trumps any Ruski carpetbaggers claim.
@MACTEP_CHOB
Non sequitur. 7000 years of continuous Ukrainians presence trumps any carpetbagger claim. Poo-tin's version of history is a POS lie.
@@MACTEP_CHOB
Non sequitur
Oh my god! These are the "facts"
Let's clear them up a bit.
1. This genius fucked up with the very first fact.
“Kievan Rus” is not a state, but a historical term describing one of the periods in Russian history.
It was introduced into historical circulation by the historian Solovyov in the 19th century, in his monograph “History of the Russian State from Ancient Times”
Along with him, Soloviev also introduced other terms: “Novgorod Rus'” and “Moscow Rus'”. All of them designated periods of development of one state - Russia.
The state founded by Rurik was simply called Rus.
Byzantium called it Rosia (Росiя)
The Russians themselves began to call themselves this after they adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium.
So Rus' became Russia. (Россия)
2. 4:12
The Russian state was founded in 862.
The source of this information is the Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Russian Chronicle).
It was written in Kyiv in 1110 by the monk Nester.
Rurik not only founded the Russian state, he founded the first Russian dynasty. The Rurik dynasty.
Oleg was the regent of Rurik's son Igor.
Oleg was never the legitimate ruler of Rus'.
Rurik was not a Swede. He was Scandinavian. Putin said this.
What you are voicing is nonsense that has no basis except the date in one of the Wikipedia versions.
3. 5:10
The oldest mention of Russia is contained in the Tale of Bygone Years (the primary Russian chronicle), as well as in the archives of the Byzantine Empire (it called Rus' - Росiя)
It's just a circus -)
4. 6:10
This is not said by the “tsar”, but by Russian (and not only) chronicles of the 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th and other centuries...
Where are you getting all this from? Who is your source?
____
Ok, I think this is enough -)
This man has no idea what he's talking about.
Why do you spend your time to teach some ignorant westoid? They only understand the language of total war
you have no idea what are you talking about
@@zinnsoldat6493prove it
The Ukrainian government would disagree with you that the Rusyns are a unique cultural group. In fact Kyiv is actively trying to assimilate them
I’m not supporting Ukraine
@@Videntis.History Yes you are .
@@PeterAndrewGrantPAGim not, if anything, I support Poland
@@Videntis.History Stop lying lil bro
@@cajunpowerabout?
When you call medieval Rus "Ruthenian", you are obviously a propagandist.
The only thing I kinda disagree with is the point about Cossacks. They are literally ancestors of Ukrainians originally. So called Russian Cossacks aren’t really related.
When KYIV was established in now called moscow only frogs were croaking!!!
Yet Today Russia embodies the spirit of the Rus of old while Ukraine is a Polish clown state. They decided to side with a civilization that is dying. This civilization that is mine isn’t something to celebrate.
@@shonewarrior2178 keep on croaking!!!
@@shonewarrior2178 what's with the obsession with Poland? No, Ukraine is a Ukrainian state as far as we all know. Keep coping
Claiming that Ukrainians are originally Russians even though the Ukrainians came into existence first is bold
Ukraine didn’t really exist before Russia
Elaborate @@Videntis.History
ruthenians and russians coexisted@@Anbopro
How can Putin think he is an expert in this history when he says things like "for some unknown reason they..." I am pretty sure they know the reason.
As Russian historian I may add some mistakes u've missed:
1) Novgorod in 862 didn't exist. We have no archeological evidence of the existence of this city before 930-s. Putin confused it with the city of Old Ladoga that was the city of Rurik reign (if Rurik existed).
2) The Cossacks indeed wanted more autonomy and the same rights as the Polish nobles. And the Russian tsar promised them these privileges and... then broke his vow - Cossacks autonomy was much lesser then the tsar promised and lasted a few decades. The new tsar Peter I the Great completely destroy the Cossacks autonomy on the Eastern bank of the Dnieper river.
Your video also has some small mistakes:
1) Russian historiography claim the Ivan III the Great the first Russian ruler after he conquered Novgorod in 1478 (he was the grandfather of Ivan IV the Terrible). During his rule he conquered most of Eastern Slavic principalities of the North-East. Ivan IV was the first tsar (Russian word of emperor or Ceasar).
But we also should remember that the Bolshevik coup in 1917 completely destroy the previous state, the previous culture and annuled all previous history. So the modern Russian state was borned as a result of the collapce of the USSR and the independance for one of its republics. So the origins of modern Russian state is in 1917 or even 1991 not in early Medival era.
2) There was no polonisation or russification in modern terms. Such process is possible only through school education obligatory for everyone. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was destroied in 1795 when the was no mandatory school system in any country in Eastern Europe. So it was not possible to polonize the Rutenians cause the Poles didn't have the tools for that (and I doubt they would bother if they have).
3) The word "Russian" had differnt meaning before the Bolshevik coup - in imperial historiography "Russians" is a synonim for "Eastern Slavs" while the modern Russians called "Greater Russians". The Imperial governement understand the differences between three Eastern Slavic people (they call them "Greater Russian" for modern Russians, "Little Russians" for Ukrainians and Belorussians had the same name) that's why the imperial burocrates created a system of trinity of the "Russian" people. Of course this system was abolished after the fall of the Emprire at February 1917.
I should also mention that in previous era in Eastern Slavic languages words "Russian" and "Ruthenian" didn't differ the similar scale (and mainly on the letter in era when 95% of population is illiterate).
P.S. I may write my second PhD just by mentioning all mistakes from this interview. Almost each sentence in inacurate. If the student on my department will give this kind of an answer on the exam - he will left the classroom for rateking after 5 minutes.
My respect to Tucker Carlson (now Russians used his face during the interview as a meme) who was listening that for one hour. I guess he did it to try save Evan Gershkovich - and the question about the fate of this journalist was the best opening - here Pultin showed his true self for the all Western World. I hope u no longer have no illusions about his real personality.
27:00 Germany is not culturally homogenous, Bavarian and Austrian are essentially the same people, north germans and bavarians are not.
20:26 i'd like to correct the vilinus part. As it was historically lithuanian rather than polish, but just a minor point.
It was kinda both
@@littlefinger4509 yeah, though It was more often than not associated with the Lithuanian state, this caused a great deal of tension between both countries and even a war. This is why lithuania and many others did not aid poland when the germans and soviets invaded
@@neroatlas9121 Ye when nationalism became widespread people couldn't accept the fact that two nations could be from the same place, like in the Polish census during those years there were people that literally defined themselves as "tutejszy" which meant "from here".
@@littlefinger4509 Union of 2 states. Each state with their own capital. At no point was Vilnius ever part of Poland except for a short period before the start of WW2 so it's kinda disingenuous to say it was "kinda both". This is like saying that Krakow is kinda both Lithuanian and Polish. No Pole would ever agree lol.
@@GoDLiKeKakashi I don't mean it as a capital i mean a lot of Poles lived there and people mixed, just like Lithuanians lived on the Polish "side" and it was mixed there too.
My family for example was from Grodno and i'm Polish, it wouldn't surprise me if some of my ancestors were Lithuanians tho.
Old East Slavic didn't exist. People in Novgorod and Kyjiv spoke different languages.
Wait really?
@@Videntis.History yeah, it's just a Muscovite myth and lie in order to claim Rusj legacy. There were five «dialectal zones» back in the Rusj time. It's simply not possible at thst age to keep one and the same language in such Eastern European lands.
@@пккThe original birch bark letters of the Novgorodians are freely read by Polish schoolchildren without an interpreter
@@sergeyKN115 Yes, because Novgorodian is not Muscovite
Novgorod language separated from early West Slavs and became 4th branch of Slavic family - Nothern Slavic language. It's gone after massacres and Russification.
Thanks for sharing this with us. I do get disturbed by the background music, cause this is heavy history contend and one really needs to focus on the text and images. I would suggest to use Timothy Snyders Videos on the importance & historic development of Ukraine. One ethnic group You mentioned, defiantly deserves far more attention within this whole complex: The Kazaks a 😉😉
In fact, he said almost nothing new that he has not announced on Russian TV before. But I must mention the steps taken to gain psychological dominance that have been heavily used by KGB agent.
I am tired, as a history teacher, arguing with nationalists online. Let them believe what they want.
I was born under Russian occupation, i was a little boy when soldiers let me go inside the tank, and i was so happy. Same army killed all 4 brothers of my grandmother, from my fathers side, she is 91 now, but still crying, when talks about it. Russians used to put bodies of our fighters in main square and look who will come to put flowers on him, o just saw tears in the eyes, for that they deported to Siberia, most of the deported never even made that 5 week journey in terribly overcrowded place. I have never expected to hear, to live same terror stories again, but hear we are. Blood thirsty Russia is here again. Thanks our government we are in NATO, i Baltic states will never fall under fascist Russia ever again.
Soviet*. You blame everything on us but forget that they were soldiers of YOUR ethnicity too. You forget about your besties UKRANIANS. You forget about others. Blame everything on us it's okay. Just don't fart when we hate you back. And obviously hatred has consequences that we can see real time right now)
In 862 Novgorod did not exist. There are no archeological evidence of it. Moreover it was founded by people who came from Kyiv.
Я живу в Новгороде , тут есть твои археологические эвиденсы. Копай ,изучай, хуйни не неси
Kyiv was the first city made by Russians (well, rather Slavs.)
@@panapolyEpirus russians as a term didn’t exist long after the city was founded. If we can say someone founded it it were poliany tribe, or according to the legend Kyi, Shchek, Horyv and their sister Lybid.
What if Patagonia became Welsh?
Start with the Falklands.
What will the world be like in a couple centuries when there are no more Western Europeans?
Finally someone who goes into-depth of what Putin was saying with an unbiased view instead of just laughing at the guy and making nonsense memes just for views. Thank you
20:20 "Wilno" was not a historically Polish city.
it was amxed olish=lithuaniancithy.
Great video I knew most of this but it’s great your educating those who are not as aware on how much Putin lied.
More content like this would be awesome.
Stepan Bandera, leader of OUN-UPA, was jailed by Germans as early beginning of July 1941, as they entered the territory of the former soviet republic of Ukraine in the middle of the WWII, and spent all the years of war in german concentration camps. He was exonerated by the Nuremberg tribunal and was never recognised accountable for the crimes committed by nazi germany. He lived in Germany and was killed in Munich by a kgb spy. Ukrainian nationalist organisation held fairly antisemitic views very common to most of the Europe at that time, but didn't participate in Germany's executions of Jews, and they viewed Germans as situational allies against their common ennemy - bolsheviks russia that was nothing else than re-incarnation of imperial russia under the name of soviet union. And remember that back then it's not like germans openly exterminated jews and everybody was aware of that. The extermination of Jews in Auswitz-Birkenau only stated in July 1942.
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, there is also an interview of a Jewish survivor who recalled Ukrainian participants. Also, there is a Polish historian that covered it on UA-cam.
@@linusmayden8465 well you make it sound as if polish side never killed and mass-murdered any Ukrainians, which would be completely false. So I suggest you leave the difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian history of that region aside in the conversation about Bandera and OUN-UPA activities, because at each turn you will find out that it's just an answer to a previous act of aggression from the other side and we will go deep down the rabbit hole. Western parts of Ukraine were under Polish dominance for a while and it was not great for Ukrainians, we have a lot of grievances to vent, so let's just not go there.
Antisemtism was a common place in Europe at that time, I recommend that you familiarise yourself with a short work called Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. So participation of some Ukrainian nationals in pogroms is not astonishing. But if you want to single out Ukrainians, you will have to speak about the rest of Europe, too. This was not something unusual and unseen in Europe of the early 20th century.
Now to the point. OUN didn't collaborate with german nazis in their goal to kill all the Jews and to establish the domination of the arian race. They wanted their help to etablish an independent state of Ukraine, free from russian bolshevik occupation. Between two evils they chose one that they thought was lesser, that's it. French government also collaborated with nazi germany with the aim to protect its state and its citizens, so why suddenly Ukrainian nationalist movement is judged differently? Because there is the word nationalist in it? Maybe look up the history of the movement and their goals and understand that they were fighting the bolshevisation of Ukraine; where bolsheviks wanted to erase Ukrainian identity, our language, our culture, our people and make us all into russian-speaking homo sovieticus.
You have a lot more of learning to do that one video by a Polish historian, I encourage you not to waste your time on commenting on things you have very little understanding of.
@@tetianavarvynska2125 They did collaborate with German Nazis, just because they got betrayed by them, doesn't mean they weren't hestinet to cooperate. The 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was known to have OUN soldiers in it, that is collaboration. "The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist is the first comprehensive and scholarly biography of the Ukrainian far-right leader Stepan Bandera and the first in-depth study of his political cult. In this fascinating book, Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe illuminates the life of a mythologized personality and scrutinizes the history of the most violent twentieth-century Ukrainian nationalist movement: the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Elucidating the circumstances in which Bandera and his movement emerged and functioned, Rossolinski-Liebe explains how fascism and racism impacted on Ukrainian revolutionary and genocidal nationalism. The book shows why Bandera and his followers failed-despite their ideological similarity to the Croatian Ustaša and the Slovak Hlinka Party-to establish a collaborationist state under the auspices of Nazi Germany and examines the involvement of the Ukrainian nationalists in the Holocaust and other atrocities during and after the Second World War. The author brings to light some of the darkest elements of modern Ukrainian history and demonstrates its complexity, paying special attention to the Soviet terror in Ukraine and the entanglement between Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, Russian, German, and Soviet history. The monograph also charts the creation and growth of the Bandera cult before the Second World War, its vivid revivals during the Cold War among the Ukrainian diaspora, and in Bandera's native eastern Galicia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union." This isn't Russian propaganda," they're historical facts even pointed out by this Polish historian and Banderites have openly shown the same sentiment towards the pro-Russian population in Donbass. So don't cry when the Russians spank you for promoting this man.
@@linusmayden8465 what is your point? soviets collaborated with Germany well before OUN did. All the way up to 22 june 1941. And they prosecuted Jews long after nazi germany collapsed. They didn't do it as brutally as nazis during WWII, but being a Jew in soviet union was not a joke. Just ask soviet Jews who fled as soon as the iron curtain fell ;)
You seem to be unable to hold two thoughts at the same time.🧐
Antisemtism was a common phenomenon for Europe of before and after WWII. It was not something unique for Ukrainian nationalists. Ukraine was crushed between soviet occupation and german occupation. OUN realised that soviets don't want Ukraine to exist in any independent capacity, so they tried their chances with the other side. It is as simple as that - situational alliance hoping to achieve their political goals - they wanted to establish an independent Ukrainian state. We praise Bandera for precisely that. Not for his antisemitic views. We are capable to differentiate, maybe you can try that too. We don't have holy nationalistic heroes for you, sorry not sorry. Just because of what I said earlier - antisemitism in Europe was common place. And remember that he was exonerated by Nuremberg tribunal. Also maybe try Yad Vashem portal and see for yourself that it says black on white that "the final solution of Jewish problem" shifted towards extermination of Jews AFTER the Barbarossa plan execution.
@@tetianavarvynska2125 Stalin persecuted everyone not just Jews and this treatment wasn't extended under other Soviet leaders, for example Stalin was denounce for his treatment of Tatars in Crimea by other Soviet authorities after his death and were allowed to go back when reforms were initiated. As for the non aggression pact, there were plenty of attempts by the Soviet authorities to react against Hitler with the West but seeing as the British and France gave into his appeasements in Czechoslovakia, it makes perfect sense why they opted out for a "non-aggression pact." "They would do it as brutally as the N@zis did," false the allies saw the Soviet Union was the lesser threat when the goal of Fascists Germany was Lebensraum, complete extermination of Eastern Slavic populations they deemed inferior, which makes Banderites like you as bad as Hitler, the only difference is your kind wasn't allowed to complete their goals. You seem to leave out the most taunting fact that the West teamed up with the USSR not Fascist Germany and their collaborators. Oh for the record more Ukrainians were fighting for the red army then they were for OUN-B, since your kind are so steep into Anti-Communist ideology, it's only fair Putin Decommunizes the region with pro-Russian people and gets it away from Banderites that love to destroy the Soviet legacy along with the land that the Bolsheviks gave to Ukraine.
The Grand duchy of Luthiania was actually called at times the Lithuanian Rus Duchy because some of the nobles there were Ruthenians and descended from the Rus.
After the Mongol invasion the western Rus fled to their western neighbours and joined in with them. There were plenty of Ruthenian nobles of Shlachta within the grand duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.
For example, in 1612 the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and Muscovy fought a war, and the Polish even took Moscow for a short while, that army was commanded by a Ruthenian general.
Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the Hetman of the Zaporizhian sich who fought a bloody rebellion against the Polish and eventually asked Muscovy for help to avoid Polish retribution, thus giving the Zaporizhians autonomy for a while was also part of the Shlachta, or Polish nobility.
In those days, only the gentry were Poles, Bogdan Khmelnitsky gentry, Dmitry (Baida) Vishnevetsky was also a regiment of gentry
It was never called Lithuanian Rus Duchy. Bulbash, go back to farming potatos.
In 1612 hetman was Żółkiewski and his family was from masovia . There was Some Ruthenians as hatman but more Nobel man i think want to name them self's as citizen of Rzeczypospolitej of two nations to day translated to Republic or common thing.
19:45 Unfortunatly polish nationalists today refuse to admit this. They go on about how the lands they got in the west were orignally theirs which is nonsense. The areas habve nevr been majority Polish they were for a brief stint majority Kashubian a diffrent slavic people. But before that they were Baltic or Germanic, the slavs originated deep inland.
Carlson and most lay Americans have zero knowledge about European history. They might know about Rome, ancient Greece, Vikings (romantic Hollywood version, not real vikings), Hundred years war and World Wars (but only parts concerning USA.... not even Canada, just USA). Real history buffs might have heard about War of Roses, history nerds know about 30 years war and wise sages might even know names such as Gustavus Adolphus or even Jan Hus. That explains why Carlson just sat there with open mouth and uncritically accepted every bullshit that came out of Putin's mouth and why "patriots" on X and other platforms applaud. Murican ignorance at its finest.
It's funny how Lviv is a historically Polish city yet it's founded by Ukrainians
Many such cases, Szczecin for example was founded by the ancestors of Poles the Lechites but became German for a really long time and only became Polish after ww2
It's how it was with cities they were usually ethnically diffrent from the surrounding lands. the cities on the baltic coast were all german while the populations aroudn them were baltic, pommeranian or Kashubian.
Lwow/Lviv grew as a big important city for both peoples, and the two sides engaged in a vicious tug of war for it following WW1,
it's only Lviv for the Ukranians now because Stalin forced out all the poles from Lwow as part of his forced resettling/restructuring of Eastern Europes mixed ethnic population areas in such a way that would make Russia the obvious benefactor and Russia's new puppet states easier to control.
Hence why Germany's Konigsburg was foricbly remade into Russia's baltic fleet port Kaliningrad.
Lviv was Lemberg, that`s Austria
@@MACTEP_CHOB Lemberg is the German way to say that city's name, just as Lwow is the polish way, Lviv the Ukrainian way, and Lvov the Russian way, and none of the city's people ever wanted to be under Russian control in the first place.
Bro Germany has a better claim to all of Western Europe than Russia has on Ukraine.
Context: germanic people settled and basically took over western rome, which means languages like Spanish and French do have germanic backgrounds, this also means the england portion of the UK rightfully belongs to Germany as well as Italy. This is obviously ludicrous and founded on very uneven ground but it gives you a perspective on how bad Putin's argument is.
Nice point.
So russia belongs to Mongolia?
@@baird5682 *_yes_*
@@baird5682 no point there, especially not I Q point... but I guess Germany belongs to Huns....
This is actual stupidity, no offense
You could've gave a better example.
@@bdleo300 using putin logic, yes.
to be fair about the france comparison, we do often talk about the merovingian as the basis of france, even if it was the frankish kingdom and modern france was only created after the treaty of verdun in 843 . I blame our shitty education system for that .
True to that, the Frankish Empire was more Franco-German than French.
@@Dont14-r4kwell there was probably more population in western frankia than in the rest (i brlieve that because it was a region that was usually more populated than the rest of europe) wich were speaking romance language (retroactively we would say they were french but its more complicated) but all the ruling elites were german speaking
@@mathias9542 which is why it was Franco German, both Germany and French people had some form of power in the empire
And yet, we do not claim the German region of Francony (Franken).
It's easy to be impressed by someone else's knowledge of anything as long as you know nothing about the topic.
The Lotus Eaters podcast discussing the interview is a good example. They had a supposed historian there who didn't even try to do basic historical research and evaluation of Putin's claims. They all just were impressed that Putin could talk about history for an hour.
Anyone who know a bit of history can talk about it for an hour.
I'm not disturbed by the fact that Putin lied, I'm disturbed by the amount of people who cared about it.
10:57 again a lie. "Ruthenians" is ONE of MANY(!) LATIN terms for the Rus people. But the people called themselves in their language "Rus" or "Rusin". The lands of this territory were also called "Russiae". In the West Russian language the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called "Великое Князство Литовъское, Руское, Жомоитъское", and there is the word "Ruskoe". The Religion was often called "vera Ruskaya/Ruska". And about the Latin versions. Sometimes this territory was even called "Rossia"(the origin of this term is Greek) like modern Russia. Look at the map of Fra Mauro(1459). It’s ALWAYS THE SAME term in different languages. Russians are Ruthenias, because it has absolutely the same origin. And even the Polish propaganda, wich tried since 16th century to separate the Russian people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the Moscowite Russian state, even they called the Russians from the so called "Muscovy"(Western term) also Ruthenian at the very beginning of the propaganda campaign. There is a historical Polish document from 1517 called "Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis". The author write about the people from the Moscowite Russian state. Now the original text: "Rutheni sunt et Ruthenicum loquuntur". Wich means they are Russians and speak Russian. So even the Russians from "Moscovy" were called in some Latin written documents "Ruthenian". In other documents Russians(like also people of modern Ukraine and Belarus). So about what are you talking in this video?? Please don’t lie, if you don’t know the origin and meaning of this term.
"Keep it short"
Below 30 minutes is short. There are debunks of this interview that go for two hours if you're interested though.
@@kingofaesthetics9407 watched it
As ive taken to sayings, "you knew nothing of russian history before the putin interview, now you know less"
This is BS. Russia existed long before Moscow was a major city.
After wating the rest; I woud agree with the more modern history. The Soviets should have gotten rid of the Nazism and Russia shouldn't be honoring the Leftist bastards that screwed over their country on such an astronomical scale. Butvi feel like the Ukr. people would just look up to the Nazis seeing them as "anti-Communst" which they were but were still Socialist trash
Damn that is a lotta typos
How? You mean the Kievan Rus? I That's not the same thing. That's the proper beginning of Russian history, not the Russian state. There was no Russian state before Moscow. The Holy Roman Empire was in effect a German empire but it wasn't Germany. The German Kingdoms of Prussia and Bavaria existed but there was no unified German state. The Principality of Moscow becomes a major player at the end of the 15th century, transforming in to the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
Russia truly began as a state in 1547, after Ivan the Terrible created the Tsardom of Russia. Others even put the proclamation of the Russian Empire by Peter the Great as the state's true beginning.
Yes I mean the Kieven Rus. We see it as the same thing, kinda like how the Romans of the Nicean Empire saw them selves as tge same as the Romans from before the Latin saccing of Constantinople
1) He didn't say the Vikings were Slavic. He was emphasizing the Nordic origins of Russia. If you don't agree that the
Varangians started Russia in 862, you better go and edit wikipedia to the contrary. I've got a feeling that they won't let you. Clearly a lot of people agree with Putin on how Russia started. I was going to number this list, but I decided to stop at 1 because you failed immediately.
He is clearly full of bs. UA-cam turned into TV style of propaganda. Pathetic and sad.
3:28 It`s up for debate. Because they never considered themselves unique nation until recently, and politicians of region always stood up for unification with Ukraine. Yes their language is unique, but if we consider them their nation, then Silesians, Kashubians, Kasaks, and many other dialect groups should be considered their own nations.
Well, should we consider Slovenians a nation? Slovakia? What about any of the central american countries? What about India? What about much of the middle east? Where do you draw a line between a fake country and a real country.
@@CausticSpaceslovakia and slovenia dont really have a history but from a modern perspective most people would say yes
Its more of a argument of if a country is of a nation or is a artificial creation
@@epiccrusadr8583ALL countries are an artificial creation. People come together, form a shared identity and eventually call themselves a country. Ukraine has acted as it's own country and has been recognized as such by all other countries (including russia). It has as much a claim to exist as any other nation
FINALLY! Someone did that! American's don't know that Putin actually believe that Ukraine is created by Lenin, ehm... And says that the word Ukraine comes from "border of Russia", but... Ok, screw it, here's what I think about all of this.
[10:35] The word Ukraine proved to be used in old russian language in 10-11 century as "near the border" (as well as their smallest currency was hrivna, btw, literally like kopeyka in Russian (which is 1/100 of ruble)), but in terms of a country it used to describe previous Rus' territories in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in 17 century, and Kyiv and closest region was always like... back and forth between Rus' and Lithuanian Kingdom. So they described eastern part as "Ukraine", with meaning that it's near the borber of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. To be more specific, Samuel Grądzki in 1672 in his work "Historia belli cosacco-polonici" wrote: "Margin in Polish kray, therefore Ukraine -- some kind of a province close to the border of the kingdom".
And equating nowadays independent Ukraine to Ukraine under USSR control is redundant and degenerate. Who fighted with Poland against Russia then in 1918-ish, if Ukraine doesn't existed, bruh? Yes, Ukraine was annexed by RSFSR (USSR), what the fuck is Putin even talking about?
Also you can find it funny that I'm Russian and debunk all of the shit Putin said...
What? Ukraine has existed as a country in various forms for ages. Scythia, the 6th century Antae, Oium, even in antiquity.
When you think you don’t know what your talking about, remember this blud exists 🙄
Whatever good there was in a Polish-Ukrainian-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Austria-Hungary, German states and kingdoms, Yugoslavia, the Allies united, the Kalmar Union, etc. can be re-obtained via the European Union with invisible borders and all cultural richness being encouraged, eventually with a peaceful democratic freedom-oriented rump of Russia, leaving asiatic Russia to help bring health, growth, stability to central Asia. The rest seems like raking over cold coals and chipmunks nattering in my opinion.
If you see history with 21th century thinking then it should be Polish-Belorussian- Russian-Ukrainian-Lithuanian Commonwealth ;)
Putler lies as usual.
Putin just described his last game in CK3 for 2 hours