[Puffer Fish]

Here is a short history of Ukraine I was able to piece together. It explains why Ukraine never really culturally absorbed into Russia.


Russia was united rather late in history.

What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history.

The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas.

But at some point Muscovy (today Moscow) developed and became a powerful focal point.

Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs.

The kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia can be seen as an early precursor to the later "Russian" nation, in which Kiev and Muscovy were united, but this shattered from the Mongol invasions beginning in 1236.

In 1328, Muscovy first began to expand. By 1464 it was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Muscovy began to conquer the north. Novgorod was captured in 1478 by Muscovy king Ivan III in 1478.
By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine.

Kiev was conquered by Lithuania in 1362. Lithuania controlled most of Ukraine by 1399. It was then not long after that Lithuania and all its territory became, in 1569, absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian union, in which Poland dominated.

It would not be until 1503-1518 that Muscovy took Kiev, but they did not hold western half of Ukraine, and did not hold Kiev for very long, but continued to hold the eastern 40 percent of Ukraine.

Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland for over 350 years, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire. The Ukrainian territory was divided between Pland and Russia from the mid-1600s to 1792. This was during a critical period of national identity development, which explains why Ukraine did not develop a Russian identity. In fact Ukraine never really developed a national identity in the same sense as other nations.

Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide.

I'd also argue that Kiev, being further south, began developing earlier, that the area of Ukraine had more population. Yet another reason it was not as quickly absorbed.

Russia was able to get Kiev in 1667 after the conclusion of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) after Poland was financially weakened from its long fight in the "Northern wars" (1655–1660) with Sweden. This marked the rise of Russia as a European power.

The Ottomans (Muslim) controlled the southern third of Ukraine after 1667, although the Crimean Khanate (Muslim) had controlled a smaller sliver of territory along the coast from the 1520s.

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. This history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.

[ThirdTerm]

Muscovy (13th to 16th centuries) was a recent development in Russian history. Russia's historical claim to Ukraine is based on Kievan Rus' that existed in today's Ukraine from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. It was a country of the Rus' who are ancestral to modern Russians. There were no clear distinctions between Ukrainians and Russians, who were collectively called the Rus'.

[Rich]

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification.

This is just not correct.

This history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.

It would be more accurate to say this lie or this false historical narrative has fueled hatred and bigotry against Russians.

The Soviet Union had a policy of forced Ukrainianisation, All children were taught in Ukrainian, including Odessa, which was simply not a Ukrainain city at the time of the Revolution. There nothing anti Ukrainian about the collectivastion policy. This is an absurd accusation, its like accusing Churchill's government policies as being driven by hated of Bengalis, just because 3 million Bengalis ended up starving to death. The Soviet leadership at the end of the nineteen twenties considered themselves to be in an existential war, just the same as Churchill did.

The big difference between Churchill and Stalin was that Stalin wasn't as much as a racist as Churchill. If 3 million British people had been starving to death I'm pretty sure stopping the famine would have been a major priority for Churchill, where as Stalin wouldn't have cared if the deaths had been Russians / Kazakhs or even Georgians. From the perspective of the Soviet leadership the deaths of the Holdomor were entirely the responsibility of the Ukrainians, in the same way that many Zionists see the deaths in Gaza are entirely the responsibility of the Gazans. We dehumanise the Gazans by labeling them as terrorists. Stalin would have called them spies, wreckers and saboteurs.

The complete about turn on Ukrainianisation was because of what the Soviet leaders saw as rebellion and treachery. But this was what Soviet policy was like. It could turn over night on sixpence. That last sentence is not entirely accurate. The perceptive would be alert for the signs of a coming change of policy. There was to be another period of aggressive Ukrainianisation under Petro Shelest.

[Negotiator]

Wtf how are developments from the 16. century "recent" ?

Russia is pretty much just as old as for example France or Germany, and actually older than the UK, which only started in 1066. Unlike the later countries, though, it started very small and grew ever since, while France, Germany and Great Britain started pretty close to their current size already. Well actually Germany has shrunk a lot, but whatever.

Russia, China and India are all huge countries with a lot of different cultures and also a lot of different languages in them. That can all work perfectly fine as long as the different cultures are respected within the country. All three countries prove that.

I would argue that if a state terrorizes an ethnic group on their territory, like the turks terrorize their kurds, that this gives that group of people the right to split from the country that tries to get rid of them, and have their own.

But I just dont see how that would ever apply to Russia in regards to the ukrainians. All "evidence" given is completely riddiculous and doesnt withstand investigation. The russian leadership didnt intentionally start a famine.

Why would you ever intentionally start a famine ? The german nazis didnt murder russians (including ukrainians) intentionally, systematically, and by the millions by starting some famine. They simply stole the food. Thats how one would of course actually murders people intentionally through starvation, and not by starting a famine.

China of course infamously managed to start a famine by giving bad commands, driven by ideology. But even China didnt actually want to start a famine. A famine on your territory is a huge catastrophe that damages the name of any leadership. You dont want a famine on your territory if you want to stay a popular politician.

So thats not what happened during the Holdomor. There simply wasnt enough food for everyone. Instead of sitting on their hands and not do anything, which probably would have maximized the number of victims of starvation, the soviet leadership decided that the peasants would be sacrificed. Is that a great descision ? Not by any means. But what else are you supposed to do when theres a famine ? There are literally no good choices anymore. Without sufficient food, people are gonna die.

By the way, Ukraine never existed before 1991. Before that point, ukrainians have always been part of the Rus and later Russia.

Also, what was Ukraine in 1991 covered far more than the core lands dominated by ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine are dominated by ethnic russians; these parts are likely to be taken back by the russians now, for obvious reasons. There are also some parts of Ukraine in 1991 that have been traditionally part of Poland, Hungary, and Romania, and have the corresponding minorities. Who get just as much suppressed by the ukrainians as ethnic russians.

[Rich]

But I just dont see how that would ever apply to Russia in regards to the ukrainians. All "evidence" given is completely riddiculous and doesnt withstand investigation. The russian leadership didnt intentionally start a famine.

They weren't Russian.

The longest serving leader of the Soviet Union was a Georgian.

The second longest serving leader was a Ukrainian.

Stalin and Brezhnev were the two leaders responsible for ending two of the big three periods of Ukrainianisation. Neither were Russians. Neither were Russian nationalists. Neither made any attempt to Russify the Soviet Union's top leadership. Both came to power as the candidates of the bureaucracy. They were both concerned with the consolidation and the stabilisiation of the Soviet State, not with the glorification of Russia.

[Puffer Fish]

They weren't Russian.

The longest serving leader of the Soviet Union was a Georgian.

The second longest serving leader was a Ukrainian.

Your arguments are mostly unreasonable. Those leaders would have never been able to stay in power if it were not for a circle of core supporters, more than half of whom were Russian. And at least a large percentage of these supporters had to have supported the decision these leaders made, concerning something as big as Ukraine. In a way, it was not really a decision only all just coming from one leader.

It may be true that a disproportionate number of the Party leadership were non-Russians (including ethnic Jews who did not entirely share all of the same Russian cultural identity), but still, more than half of the party leaders and those who held enough to have been capable of ejecting Stalin were Russian.

Although it's hard to say for sure or find any specific evidence, it's doubtful that the Soviet decision regarding Ukraine were all and entirely the complete idea and decision of Stalin. Leaders rarely ever make sweeping policy decisions unless they know those decisions will be agreeable to another big group of people.
Saying that it was Stalin's decision, therefore the decision was not made by Russians, is disingenuous. Though I will grant that the leader being himself non-Russian may have factored into the decision. The answer may not be entirely black & white.

[Puffer Fish]

Wtf how are developments from the 16. century "recent" ?

"Recent" is a relative word.

If you want to compare to France, for example, Charlemagne's kingdom was from 768-814.
William the Conqueror died in 1087.
France was not able to eject Norman (English) holdings over territory in France until 1223, and even afterwards.
The 100 years war (between England and France) did not end until 1475.
The modern nation of France was taking form and the Bourbon dynasty had already established itself before 1500.
The height of the Renaissance was from the 1490s to 1520s.

[Potemkin]

Your arguments are mostly unreasonable. Those leaders would have never been able to stay in power if it were not for a circle of core supporters, more than half of whom were Russian. And at least a large percentage of these supporters had to have supported the decision these leaders made, concerning something as big as Ukraine. In a way, it was not really a decision only all just coming from one leader.

It may be true that a disproportionate number of the Party leadership were non-Russians (including ethnic Jews who did not entirely share all of the same Russian cultural identity), but still, more than half of the party leaders and those who held enough to have been capable of ejecting Stalin were Russian.

Although it's hard to say for sure or find any specific evidence, it's doubtful that the Soviet decision regarding Ukraine were all and entirely the complete idea and decision of Stalin. Leaders rarely ever make sweeping policy decisions unless they know those decisions will be agreeable to another big group of people.
Saying that it was Stalin's decision, therefore the decision was not made by Russians, is disingenuous. Though I will grant that the leader being himself non-Russian may have factored into the decision. The answer may not be entirely black & white.

Well, that convinced me. How could I have been so blind? Thanks for enlightening me with your ignorant babbling, @Puffer Fish!

[Puffer Fish]

Well, that convinced me. How could I have been so blind? Thanks for enlightening me with your ignorant babbling, @Puffer Fish!

Some of your arguments seem stupid, like they came from an impatient and immature 12 year old, and just plain intellectually lazy.

You're giving me the impression that your views are based on easy oversimplifications and emotions, detail and logic being too complicated and troublesome.

[Potemkin]

Some of your arguments seem stupid, like they came from an impatient and immature 12 year old, and just plain intellectually lazy.

You're giving me the impression that your views are based on easy oversimplifications and emotions, detail and logic being too complicated and troublesome.

[Puffer Fish]

Russia is pretty much just as old as for example France or Germany, and actually older than the UK, which only started in 1066.

But the history of the modern Russian state does not really begin until 1478 to 1518, when the kingdom of Muscovy begin reaching a considerable size. And in terms of being influential in Europe, Russia did not really become a great power until around 1650, at least.

[Negotiator]

The point I was making was about the age of the culture itself though, not about its influence, which is a completely subjective category anyway, and one could very much claim that Russia never had much influence in Europe.

The main interactions Russia had with Europe is after all that first Napoleon then the german Kaiser then Adolf Hitler wanted to conquer Russia, or at least large parts of it.

[litwin]

Here is a short history of Ukraine I was able to piece together. It explains why Ukraine never really culturally absorbed into Russia.


Russia was united rather late in history.

What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history.

The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas.

But at some point Muscovy (today Moscow) developed and became a powerful focal point.

Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs.

The kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia can be seen as an early precursor to the later "Russian" nation, in which Kiev and Muscovy were united, but this shattered from the Mongol invasions beginning in 1236.

In 1328, Muscovy first began to expand. By 1464 it was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Muscovy began to conquer the north. Novgorod was captured in 1478 by Muscovy king Ivan III in 1478.
By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine.

Kiev was conquered by Lithuania in 1362. Lithuania controlled most of Ukraine by 1399. It was then not long after that Lithuania and all its territory became, in 1569, absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian union, in which Poland dominated.

It would not be until 1503-1518 that Muscovy took Kiev, but they did not hold western half of Ukraine, and did not hold Kiev for very long, but continued to hold the eastern 40 percent of Ukraine.

Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland for over 350 years, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire. The Ukrainian territory was divided between Pland and Russia from the mid-1600s to 1792. This was during a critical period of national identity development, which explains why Ukraine did not develop a Russian identity. In fact Ukraine never really developed a national identity in the same sense as other nations.

Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide.

I'd also argue that Kiev, being further south, began developing earlier, that the area of Ukraine had more population. Yet another reason it was not as quickly absorbed.

Russia was able to get Kiev in 1667 after the conclusion of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) after Poland was financially weakened from its long fight in the "Northern wars" (1655–1660) with Sweden. This marked the rise of Russia as a European power.

The Ottomans (Muslim) controlled the southern third of Ukraine after 1667, although the Crimean Khanate (Muslim) had controlled a smaller sliver of territory along the coast from the 1520s.

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. This history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.

Chinese academic Deng Xize : "No more Mongol-Muscovy style empire: Thoughts on the war in Ukraine, The global reaction to the war in Ukraine in fact shows that such empires will no longer be tolerated."​

The Mongol-Muscovy style empire could be defined as a dominating, rapacious empire upheld by violence, especially unruly violence, and exhibiting three prominent characteristics.


First, it uses unruly violence as a regular means of resolving international disputes. While violence is common and sometimes necessary in political or social governance, rules have been set for its use under a modern lawful democratic system. Unlike in ancient times, the use of violence now comes under heavy restrictions and is “predictable”. Such an evolution also applies to international relations.


But why is the Mongol-Muscovy empire more violent, more dominating and more rapacious than other politically similar ancient empires, such as the ancient Chinese empire?