Timothy Snyder ─ Ukraine and Russia in a Fracturing Europe

Skip ahead to main speaker at 1:54
Timothy Snyder is the Bird White Housum Professor of History at Yale University, specializing in the history of central and eastern Europe. He received his B.A. from Brown University and his doctorate from the University of Oxford, where he was a British Marshall scholar at Balliol College. He has also held fellowships in Paris, Warsaw, and at Harvard, where he was an Academy Scholar. A frequent guest at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, he has spent about ten years in Europe. He speaks five and reads ten European languages. Among his publications are five award-winning books, all of which have been translated: Nationalism, Marxism, and Modern Central Europe: A Biography of Kazimierz KellesKrauz(1998); The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (2003); Sketches from a Secret War: A Polish Artist’s Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine (2005); The Red Prince: The Secret Lives of a Habsburg Archduke (2008); and Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010). Bloodlands has won ten awards including the Emerson Prize in the Humanities, a Literature Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and the Leipzig Award for European Understanding. It has been translated into twenty-five languages, was named to twelve book-of-the-year lists, and was a bestseller in four countries. Most recently Snyder helped the late Tony Judt compose a thematic intellectual history, entitled Thinking the Twentieth Century (2012), which is appearing in fourteen translations. Snyder is also the coeditor of two volumes: Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration Controls in Europe and North America (2000) and Stalinism and Europe: Terror, War, Domination, (2014). He is at work on four books: a study of the Holocaust, a biography of Marx, a global history of eastern Europe, and a family history of nationalism. His scholarly articles have appeared in Past and Present, the Journal of Cold War Studies, and a number of other journals; he has also written for The New York Review of Books, Foreign Affairs, The Times Literary Supplement, The Nation, and The New Republic as well as for The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers. He takes regular part in conferences on Holocaust education and sits on the editorial boards of the Journal of Modern European History and East European Politics and Societies. He is a member of the Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and sits on the advisory councils of the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research, the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, and other organizations.

[@randoomday1520]

Fascinating that this lecture already mentions everything about Russian public discourse, that most people only became aware of in 2022. Wish I had seen this 6 years earlier when it came out.

[@nicoedel5606]

yes, all the kremlin's agenda was there.

[@KreuzbergerNaechte]

Excellent lecture and yet so little views and likes on youtube. Shows, in my humble opinion, our growing problem with a lack of education and curiosity of people in history and politics. Sad.

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@Kreuzberger There are 58,544 views today, 25 September 2022. Do you remember roughly how many there were when you posted "1 year ago," presumably before the war started? I came across this while going through a Timothy Snyder series called "The Making of Modern Ukraine." Here's the first one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHvGq3-irNVgmpo *Well worth watching.*

[@royalwins2030]

This is incredible listening to this in March 2022. This was very predictive. Amazing.

[@gsandy5235]

This is an amazingly insightful analysis of the current Russian situation.

[@infantiltinferno]

1:09:55 Cassandra with a sense for comedic timing. As a person who was thoroughly in the "Putin is a calculating pragmatic"-camp, I have to concede that his streak continues and mine has ended.

[@minka6]

He is always right....listening to it in July 2022

[@UkeTube]

Excellent lecture. Thanks for the recording.

[@frankgerards1796]

putins affiliation with german is well in line with Illin being a "german philosopher writing in Russian"

[@chriscastelot1875]

Interesting and thought provoking.

[@lspeace6640]

Great lekture….more please

[@ukiz]

about new "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact". "Poland’s parliamentary speaker, Radoslaw Sikorski, has been quoted as saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to Poland’s then leader in 2008 that they divide Ukraine between themselves." I believe Hungary was ok with it.

[@knightalexius593]

After WWII Poland was shifted to the west. But the population did not follow or returned such that a high percentage in West Ukraine is Polish. That is another component of Ukraine in addition to the extreme nationalists with an aversion against ethnic Russian Ukraines. Ukraine and Belarus ultimately got the additional territory taken from Germany and meant for the whole Soviet Union. Thus Ukraine is very large now.

[@ukiz]

@@knightalexius593 we have to be larger. We lose to novadays Poland very big chunk, also russia got from ukraine even bigger ethnic ukrainians land, like all novadays Poland maybe. We never forget it.

[@phil__K]

@@knightalexius593 wtf are you talking about there are no Poles left in west Ukraine

[@eottoe2001]

There is probably a lot to his arguments but the big reason for Russian taking over Crimea was that it was a warm water port and a strategic port for the Russian navy. When the EU, the US and NATO made a play for the Ukraine they didn't take that into account and that woke the bear. The other problem that the Russians were vocal about was that they didn't understand the US Bush Chaney policy to destabilize the Mideast and Africa willy-nilly.

[@sicariochoarovin9643]

Timothy Snyder has marvellous insight into Putin’s behaviour. Nevertheless I’m cautious about ascribing too much credit to Ilyin’s influence. Perhaps more accurately Putin’s use of Ilyin could be seen as a rather shallow attempt at self-justification by a criminally minded thug, which is what Putin appears to be. Criminals often justify their bad behaviour by claiming they were forced to commit crimes by others’ bad behaviour. 1:27:37

[@edwardkasimir8016]

Nice talk, unfortunately tarnished by the horrid "Right?" tic.

[@ArchonLicht]

Very interesting and insightful. One thing bothered me though - speaking of corruption mr. Snyder said "Russia is down there with Ukraine, Bangladesh etc". I don't know much about Bangladesh, but I'm having serious doubts that Ukraine has a level of corruption that is as low as Russia's. The corruption perception ratings that are used to "evaluate" this are very much imprecise given how much tolerance to corruption is present in Russia and how much intolerance (and general media hype) for corruption is in Ukraine - which impacts perception a lot, therefore producing results that speak nothing about a level of corruption itself, but rather of a level of intolerance to corruption - which is almost the opposite of what's measured.

[@wanderer3586]

+Saur You are saying that you have "doubts that Ukraine has a level of corruption that is as low as Russia's." I think you mean "as high as Russia's". My feeling is that before 2014 they were pretty much on the same level and while intolerance towards corruption in Ukraine is somewhat higher now, there are not enough reliable mechanisms to deal with it on institutional level. In Russia, while corruption in upper echelons of power is a way of life and is legendary, there are tough mechanisms to deal with corruption on lower levels, as a way of appeasing population. The bottom line is i would not go far as saying that Ukraine is a better corruption-wise. There is an attempt to deal with, time will tell if them make a progress.

[@ArchonLicht]

+Wanderer They never were the same. Russia is huge country controller centrally by small number of checkists/KGBsts from Moscow who use local mafia to control regions. It controls the corruption in satellite countries and places like Afghanistan. Ukraine has nothing like that. In fact it used to be one of the satellites, with local mafias operating under Moscow ones. Russia can say "fuck off" to any international organizations and states, it has power and resources. It can do things like raiding "Hermitage Capital Management" fund and getting people like Magnitsky (he is the famous one but just how many more like him were there?) practically murdered or in other ways silenced. Horizon Capital case is a big fuck you to US - and they weren't afraid to do this. Imagine what they can do to local companies, even very big ones (well, we all know where Hodorkovskiy has spent his recent years, and that he was only released to preach pro-russian bullshit when the Ukraine/Crimea campaign was started). Ukraine is not nearly that.

[@ArchonLicht]

+Wanderer One more indicator - the change of leaders. Not happening in countries like Russia (where Putin has essentially his 4-th presidential term, since being PM he was in total control of "president" Medvedev), Syria (where Assad jr inherited power from Assad senior, who in his turn took it by coup d'etat), Kazakhstan (where Nazarbajev is in charge since 1990), or, well, North Korea, where Kim John *... well, you know. Again - nothing like that in Ukraine, not even same party in charge (like China) or anything like that - quite the opposite, with Kuchma and after it was east/west/east/west cycles with Kuchma/Yushchenko/Yanukovych/Poroshenko being more less pro-russian/anti-russian/pro-russian/anti-russian etc.

[@wanderer3586]

+Saur To me all these features are of authoritarian and aggressive regime, which may or may not go with corruption. Same as democratic states with power succession may or may not be corrupted. Democracy does offer some failsafes against corruption, but i would still separate concentrated power with no succession from corruption.

[@ArchonLicht]

+Wanderer Well that's exactly the thing: you think this is authoritarism like in USSR - but it isn't. I was born in USSR, and it wasn't this - chekists's Russia is much more of a corrupt plutocracy than for example China-like authoritarian regime - but it also has many features of authoritarism that give checkist mafia more power, but don't make them significantly less corrupt (even though dealing with extensive foreign policies would require more of a state-oriented thinking - but they don't seem to have it, and therefore all the mess Russia is in nowadays). Modern Russia looks to me as a mix of a bit of democracy, big chunk of stalinism kind authorcacy (which is Russia's legacy) and even bigger chunk of drug cartel like greedy mafia...

[@vinzholton]

One of the original thinkers on Russia!

[@visionforall]

Yw

[@markstuber4731]

I am sure there where people who thought about Russia decades before he was even born. smh

[@paulamkguensrial7524]

He is biased in several topics, particularly about the soviét famine of 1933.

[@frankgerards1796]

can u be not biased about holocaust or the holodomor ? u think its the ukrainians own fault they were starving besides having a very good harvest ?

[@paulburgess22]

What is the substantial point about his bias about the Soviet Ukrainian famine? I'm curious.

[@randallsmith5631]

Ivan Ilyin's (1883-1954) is being resurrectied by Putin

[@uroboroh]

Athena, not Aphrodite, comes from Zeus's skull ;-)

[@brendalandes1813]

Very interesting. .As a speaker I would advise him to stop using the word “right” after every 2 nd sentence. Many American lecturers do this,,

[@user-gd6jr8cn6o]

This lecture is interesting in some ways. But for understanding the content for non American people I have to translate some definitions from American to normal language. 1. International laws is American lawlessness and dictate. Which the USA imposes to all World. 2. Succession problem in Russia is the inability of the United States to make a coup in Russia. 3. The EU is American colony. For this reason conflict between Russia an EU is only part of conflict between Russia and the USA. Russia for more than 70 years has been trying help Western Europe to get Independence after WW2. It is a long story.

[@BlutoandCo]

😂 All russian lies Russia has been invading Europe for over 70 years Russia has attacked Europe for over 70 years Russia has done nothing for Europe (or the world) since 1917!

[@vladakovbasa8329]

some of the questions from the audience didn't age well...

[@johnadam2885]

Can we also say that Trump has similar fascist thinking when he tried to organise a coup ?

[@Brix96]

The speaker continually refers to Russias problems,Russia has 30% of the worlds raw materials including being the second largest Gold producer plus oil and Gas, it has billions in it`s foreign reserves in the state bank,While the U S A is 30 trillion dollars in debt,might i suggest it is the U S A has a problem Mr Snyder should be concerned about.

[@DonaldJUnruh]

Aa

[@felipearbustopotd]

It took western technology to extract the oil and it takes western technology for Ruzzia to optimally function. Could or would Ruzzia function without western technology SURE, but at what cost to their economic might? It's been reported that the amount of forced landings by commercial jets in Ruzzia is on the up. No doubt down to the lack of western maintenance / technology? As far as who is in ( more ) trouble, I would say both. One has the technical knowledge and equipment vs the other that has the raw resources. Surely it would be sensible for both parties to work like hand in glove? Cooperate with each other for mutual benefits. It worked untill Pootin invaded Ukraine for the second time. Let's us hope we can once again find harmony for the sake of our species.

[@Brix96]

What nonsense you write Ruissia put up the first Satellite and the first man in space also had a Space Station before the U S done far more to defeat nazi germany 8 out of every 10 Germans killed were killed in Russia the T 34 Tank was the most Sucessfull in the second world war plus how do you think they extracted Gas and Oil during trhe cold war how do you think they Build the modern fighter planes Which are at least comparable to 5the Latest U S fighter planes and by the way Russia has had Hypersonic Missiles in Service for 5 or 6 years now the U S A does`nt have any. do some reading before you write such nonsense.@@felipearbustopotd

[@deodeo9856]

*UKRAINE* AND RUSSIA - ARE *DIFFERENT COUNTRIES !*

[@jonathanwatkins222]

So, putin picks and chooses what he wants to use from Ilyin; most christian fascists in America pick and choose what is meaningful for them in the Bible.

[@masterm9095]

and what about the liberal fascists?

[@michaelweber5702]

@@masterm9095 , yes what about the intolerants running our government right now with Biden . This word fascist is being used too loosely nowadays ...

[@motow3031]

First warning sign an American talking on democracy

[@Dsmith551]

Russia is so interesting to me. Obviously I have nothing but negative feelings for their leaders present or past (except that we can thank Uncle Iosef Vissarianovich for helping us win WWII) or their type of government (whatever tf exactly it can be called), but I've always had a deep and abiding respect for the toughness of the Russian people. They just seem tough as nails. I like to think of myself as a "law office Udarnik" / shock worker type, but those peeps dug canals into freezing soil with their bare hands, or bare hands plus a pickaxe or some shit.

[@dustington1]

Uncle Iosef Vissarianovich not only helped to defeat the nazis but also played a big role in bringing the nazis into the game. WW1 finished with Versaille Treaty which was extremely bad for Germany. British understood that well and tried to amend the treaty to give better deal for Germany. Stalin on the other hand wanted the global victory of Communism tried to alienate the west. He thought Versaille treaty is his chance if Germany France and Britain fights each other in the war they'll be flat on their backs he than attacks them and establishes Communism. And he almost got it right the only problem the war lasted only 6 weeks and did not weaken Germany enough. Luckily it was almost otherwise in addition to germans french and british would be digging canals with bare hands in Siberia

[@MainstreamPoPsucks3]

@@dustington1 There are no proofs that Stalin planned to invade all of europe. Stalin was mainly focusing on establishing socialism in the US. Of course he helped Hitler early on, but the molotov ribbentrop pact was a move in order to buy time and also in order to get some new territories. He supplied oil for german tanks and planes steamrolling France as well.

[@dustington1]

@@MainstreamPoPsucks3 1922 Rapallo treaty kept Germany from signing new Versaille treaty.

[@robhansen6745]

Typical ruSSians THEY ARE like the arsonist playing the fireman....When it comes to most things... BUT when it comes to WW2 they are the embodiment of the definition of the phrase.... arsonist playing the fireman.! 1. First they start ww2 together with Hitler in 1939 2, Then in 1941 they act like victims when they have a falling out with their old buddy hitler... 3. Then they act and present them selfs as liberators when the allied forces defeated hitler's evil in 1945 the same evil war together with Hitler the ruSSians them selfs, instigated and helped Hitler to unleashed unto the rest of the world... 4. Then the RuSSians try to hide the historical facts of their evil acts and the facts they wascollaborators and was working together with Hitlers nazigermany, And how do they do this thay just smokescreen the facts and clame that WW2 started in 1941 and not even calling it WW2 but renaming it to the Great Patriotic War... THE FACTS 1. Hitler and Stalin together attacks Poland on September 1, 1939 fin September 17, 1939 from the east in accordance with the pact with Stalins Buddy Hitler 2. Stalin attacks Baltic States September 25, 1939 3 Stalin's secret orders of how to deal with opposition in Baltics 4 The Katyn Massacre September 17, 1939 5 Soviet and nazi-collaboration 1939 In Moscow in August of 1942, Churchill asked Stalin how he had come to sign the pact with Hitler in 1939. Stalin replied that he thought that England must be bluffing; he knew that Britain had only two divisions that could be mobilized at once, and he thought that Britain must know how bad the French Army was and what little reliance could be placed on it. He could not imagine that Britain would enter the war with such weakness. On the other hand, he said he knew Germany was certain ultimately to attack Russia. He was not ready to withstand that attack; by attacking Poland with Germany he could make more ground, ground was equal to time, and he would consequently have a longer time to get ready. However, none of this was true. To Stalin himself and most Party functionaries, the pact was not a necessity, but a highly congenial alliance. Probably Stalin's most successful propaganda coup of all was the propagation of the myth that Soviet territorial acquisitions in 1939 were designed to establish a forward strategic line in case of a German attack. This tale has received wide acceptance, but eighteen months later when Hitler launched his invasion, virtually nothing had been accomplished in the way of fortifications, defensive lines or military airfields to exploit ground gained by the nazi-soviet Pact. In fact, the national armies of Finland, Romania and the Baltic States would have protected Stalin's flanks. As it was, Finland and Romania were turned into effective allies of the Germans, and the Baltic States provided Hitler with excellent troops. Hitler gained a great deal from the pact. Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort. and all this when inside of the ruSSian controlled USSR other nations like Ukriane, Moldova,Georgia people was starving in extreme poverty... While Hitler was fighting Britain and France, the Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Not only that, but they were helping Hitler to break Britain's blockade by supplying rubber and other essential supplies by transporting them on the Trans-Siberian Railway. It is interesting to note that while Stalin was supplying Hitler with thousands of tons of grain, his own people were starving. It is very clear that what both Hitler and Stalin wanted was the complete dismemberment of Poland. Polish soldiers held captive in the Soviet Union were told that "...by being on good friendly relations with Germany the land would never again be an independent country. Poland is dead forever." Stalin furnished Germany with military co-operation far beyond that which the United States was giving Britain at that time. The German navy was allowed facilities at Murmansk on a scale which contrasts favorably in many ways with restrictions placed on Allied use of the same port between 1941 and 1945.

[@robhansen6745]

AFTER WW2 THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA LIKES TO PRESENT ITSELF AS THE LIBERATORS OF EAST EUROPE... Many Eastern Europeans emigrated to Canada, and when Soviet Union or the Russian language is mentioned, you get a look that says "Hey, we've had enough of them. We were forced to learn Russian...My father spent time in Russian POW camps, so and so was sent to Siberia or was shot..." They are just now throwing off the vestiges of this colonial power. However, in the Soviet press, all was rosy, the Russians were "welcome" everywhere, and interviews were made to show how everyone "loved" the Russians and how they just can't get enough of their wonderful help. Why then so much military activity at the borders? Who is there to shoot at, where is the enemy? The truth was that all the countries would have enjoyed a standard of living close to that of Germany and Finland without this "Soviet assistance," instead they were thrown into poverty and incarceration within their own country or Siberia, or worse. Like the old saying goes, "with friends like that who needs enemies?» Russian noe - Stalinist Hypocrites like Putin and most every other Russian spend their lives cheating, betraying, conning, and deceiving. But despite this disgusting pattern of behavior, RuSSians still feel entitled to point out (or invent) the most minor mistakes in others-and they’ll point them out repeatedly, to negate & excuse all of their own horrible actions. This should not surprise: Russia and Russians are immune to breaking whatever is needed AND TO LEI ABOUT ANY HISTORICAL FACTS to achieve their Machiavellian ends of global expansionism of the Russkiy Mir also know as the Russian world. Russian propaganda convivially overlooks is that Stalin and Hitler started ww2 be invading Poland together and splitting it up between themselves.. Also let us not forget the fact the it was the Stalin and RuSSia that made it possible for Hitler to build up his naziarmy by giving him iron-ore and other need goods from 1939-1941 the soviet union was the strongest and most important partner of nazigermany ..It was only after June 1941 when Hitler turned on his good buddy Stalin and attacked the USSR that Stalin came running to the wast for help and the west said yes ok we will let you fight with us they did this well knowing that Stalin helped Hitler build his army and also because the west was thinking in terms like my enemy's enemy is my friend policy and tactic Russians living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I really think that the Russians aren’t the ones to lecture Ukraine and Ukrainians about fascism, or anytihng ealse for that matter, especially since RuSSians was the ones that signed the pact with the-devil [nazigermany] and started World War II… and even today RuSSia are still glorifying Stalin,”. Hitlers good buddy in 1937-1941 Hitler and Stalin started ww2 together when the invaded Poland. Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. Secret protocols of the treaty defined the territorial spheres of influence Germany and Russia would have after a successful invasion of Poland On September 1,1939 Hitler's forces invaded Poland from the west. According to plan, Soviet troops invaded Polish territory from the east on September 17. Poland surrendered on September 27. The next day Poland was partitioned according to the treaty's scheme, ending a brief twenty year period as an independent nation. Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. Secret protocols of the treaty “In fact, the nazisoviet Pact as the kick-off for World War II is probably the most surprising scenario that anyone could have imagined," "That’s how you have to view it from the perspective of August 1939. The world was absolutely dumbstruck by this deal.” Those twin agreements did in fact set the stage for the start of World War II. Within days of signing the pacts, now confident that the Soviets would not oppose him, Hitler invaded Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany, and the war was underway. Hitler gained a great deal from the pact that STALIN AND HITLER made (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) The Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort. and all this when inside of the ruSSian controlled USSR other nations like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia people were starving in extreme poverty... The agreements continued Nazi-Soviet economic relations and resulted in the delivery of large amounts of raw materials to Germany, including over 900,000 tons of oil, 1,600,000 tons of grain and 140,000 tons of manganese ore. During both the first period of the 1940 agreement (February 11, 1940 to February 11, 1941) and the second (February 11, 1941 until the Pact was broken), Germany received massive quantities of raw materials, including over- 1,600,000 tons of grains 900,000 tons of oil 200,000 tons of cotton 140,000 tons of manganese 200,000 tons of phosphates 20,000 tons of chrome ore 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans 500,000 tons of iron ores 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron 2,000 kilograms of platinum In August 1940, Soviet imports comprised over 50% of Germany's total overseas imports, which declined at this time to 20.4 thousands of tons.. The trade relations ended when Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The various items that the USSR has sent to Germany from 1939 to 1941 in a significant amount, can be substituted or obtained by increased imports from other countries. - Without Soviet deliveries of these major items, Germany could barely have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory, even with more intense rationing

[@Basu117]

Very insightful lecture, hats off to Mr Snyder once again. The amount of Russian trolls and propaganda shills in the comments on the other hand is disturbing.

[@deteodoru]

As I recall Putin’s reading is rather didactic so, to bd sure, if something smells like it could cut deep, hd would surely use it. But it is rather hard to assume that someone with so little mastery of the entities Nader his control such abstract philosophical history and its concrete application is hard to imagine. Bd that as it may, he surely would use it after-the-fact to seem erudite to his associates, an issue about which he is ax obsessive as was Dtalin!

[@deodeo9856]

*eurasion union* UKRAINE IS NOT IN THIS UNION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@gomey70]

He knows that. He's talking about what Ilyin wrote. Maybe you misunderstood. These aren't his opinions.

[@charlesmyre7016]

Overall what prompted me to comment is that both communism and fascism has to be justified for occurring in Russia. Communism was to occur in the West and Ilyin, according to Snyder, justified fascism not occurring because of the idea of Russia’s virgin birth. Which brings me to the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one sees. The prevalence of Eastern Orthodox religious overtones in the whole discussion. Ilyin attempts to transforms Christian theology into a political philosophy. Intellectuals are now the ones that inherit Elijah’s mantle and now fulfill the role of the Old Testament prophets. It will be an intellectual hearing God’s voice who will anoint the next ‘David’, thus solving the law of succession. Eastern Orthodoxy permeates everything in life and in death. It is ‘holistic’ and a way of life, and as such, society. To secularize it would border on heresy. America’s founding as well, has its Christian overtones. Puritan came came to an uncorrupt land to establish the ‘city on the hill’ away from European corruption. Snyder was interesting, but somehow inadequate which I can’t put into words, due to my ignorance. An interesting topic would be how other Eastern Orthodox countries have handled ‘Western assimilation (Greece, Romania, etc) without losing their ‘salt of the earth, their saltiness’.There is an ‘angst’ in Russia as well as the West about where we go from here - to ‘posthumanism’ ?

[@TheNoblot]

Time and space / De Gaulle 1967 borders for israel 1917/ same as 2016/2022. perhaps in 1917 they knew about the 1967 borders for israel the fact of explanation & contraction: explanation: making 2003 bush another fact in time & space : now 2022. History repeats itself as Hitler "new soviet Union " time expansion contraction: One reality replays and old reality with the same purpose on the same lands in time & space as history & memory goes . Perhaps a new interpretation of time & space .

[@danrobbins7165]

Not a fan. In point of fact bolshevism was really another form of fascism anyway. The point of view of communism is really quite egalitarian, however, the form this took in Russia after WWI, was fascism. I found the lecture interesting.

[@jamesmartello1]

Makes me even more distrustful of Russia.

[@kangaroo1888]

The people of Bolivia are more scared of the USa Russia may or may not tried to influence the USa but it was not a coup .How many has America been involved in since 1945 ? Who owns South America !

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

I don't think that categorizing Russia or Ukraine as fascist is either helpful or accurate. It's a label which carries too much of an "electric charge" so to speak. It digs up a large number of questions and clarifications that simply waste time. It also scares people and makes the accused side look like they can't be reasoned with. I like Snyder a lot, and I have read "Bloodlands" and I enjoyed it, but I don't think he's on point here. He's muddying the waters, actually, which I think it's something he does NOT want to do.

[@Roman_person_handl]

Not Kiev but Kyiv !!!!!!!!!!!!

[@hotrodjones74]

Some of the ideas here don't fully add up. The idea of Russia as a victim is something I've sensed recently. Which in a way Russia is a victim and generally on the defense. The Mongol invasion, the Napoleonic war and both world wars. Afghanistan doesn't quite fit in that calculation though. Russia has massive strategic problems, which is what makes security a main concern for Moscow. The speech was interesting nonetheless. Honestly who knows to what extent Putin has read this Ivan Ilyn guy and for what purpose. Many people read Hitler's book Mein Kampf out of curiosity or to understand history. This doesn't make them Nazis. Russia isn't fascist at all. The closest thing to it I've seen are the nationalistic racist soccer fans. They're idiots and the general population doesn't agree with them.

[@yaceya]

>Many people read Hitler's book Mein Kampf out of curiosity or to understand history. This doesn't make them Nazis. What about people who quote Hitler's Mein Kampf in their presidential speeches? (Putin didn't "just read" Ilyin and even if he himself doesn't understand it deeply the point is that "Eurasian" ideology directly stems of Ilyin's fascism) And if for you "Afghanistan doesn't quite fit" it just means that you didn't understand the idea - before Ilyn's death there were many wars that looked even less plausibly "defensive" then Afghanistan war, but the point is that in this worldview you do see all of them as "defensive". This is the point that you have to accept in order to replicate Kremlin behavior. In addition, I don’t think that you grasped “on defense” when you used among your examples Napoleonic Wars. In the context of this speech “on defense” means against everybody else. Moreover, we know that not only Russia was fighting Napoleon along with Britain, just as in WW2, Russia was switching sides, so British case of being “on defense” against Napoleon is much stronger than Russian. But the point here is that setting ideology around “we are always on defense against enemy” is not one that allows to build a democracy, it’s a narrative needed to build fascism. And finally, Mongol invasion did not put Moscow "on defense" either. Moscow quickly gave up and then extended its power under the rule of Mongols - so some other poor schmucks from other Rus cities were unsuccessfully on defense. Against Mongols and Moscow. Mongol invasion put Moscow on the biggest offense. This example is not terribly “fitting” just as well as Afghanistan case. The point of the talk is to show how Moscow ideology is “to feel that they are on defense”. Always. And this allows to build a very specific ideology which explains why you need to create hot zones on your borders (which is somehow addressing the security concerns you’ve mentioned)

[@kazkaskazkas8689]

That "general population" seems to be at least compliant enough to follow through with their leadership's plans. But there is also a very enthusiastic fraction of society that can live in dirt and at the same time be proud and supportive of their military greatness.

[@iaintulloch3399]

De

[@antikotocerepa]

He is taking incredibly long to get to the point. I dont like that

[@mactiva1]

Disney Channel as an alternative for you =)

[@antikotocerepa]

I actually watch the disney channel!

[@mactiva1]

What are you doing here then?

[@antikotocerepa]

Don't be an intellectual snob. Just because I don't like Snyder's particular presentation style, which as I said, is taking too much time to get to the point, that doesn't mean I am in some way intellectually inferior and should therefore refrain from watching content like this. It was meant as constructive criticism, which I'm entitled to. Snyder's content is excellent, I just though he could have maybe used less time and words to present it. Also, it's not mutually exclusive with loving cartoons :)

[@mactiva1]

Sorry, you just don't get it ). T.Snyder summarized what happend in East European politics and history in 20th century in approx. 1 hour. It is pretty good job in getting to the point. It has being a lot of events happenign in this time and he mentioned the really needed onces. Long story short. He is very focused onto the point. As an European I am very surprised of such a good knowledge of European history by an American. Your comment seemed absurd to me, so I was sarcastic about your comment. I don't watch cartoons, don't comment them, and don't critisize them because I am not interested in and am not an expert in the topic.

[@davidhowse884]

Thinking about Ilyin's view of the big Leader emerging, in 2022 I now think of Zelensky coming from about nowhere to be a charismatic Leader. Only it is a democratic path, somewhat ironic.

[@knightalexius593]

Snyder is an ideologue, not a historian. When I realised that I read his bloodlands more perceptively.

[@frantad945]

I've heard it a few times that he's an ideologue. I just didn't understand his ideology. Can you explain to me what you mean? I really want to understand that, I don't want to have a war of words on the Internet here.

[@knightalexius593]

@@frantad945 The way Snyder defended the 2014 coups in Ukraine without caring much about the facts, although he is a historian, first gave me the idea that the book bloodlands has an anti-communist intention, associating Nazism and Communism and suggesting that not only Nazi-Germany but also the Soviet Union was racist. His ideology seems to be US exceptionalism.

[@frantad945]

@@knightalexius593 Of course, it always depends on what angle you want to look at the world. I see a revolution in Ukraine from a country in which there was a similar revolution when I was younger, and I know that it was also interpreted differently. Fortunately, we had a revolution without bloodshed. We are now in the EU, NATO and we have a better future. In my country, the Communists also executed farmers who did not want to leave their land. That is why I believe that this happened in Ukraine before the war as well. I don't think Snyder described the Russians as racists, I think he described them as ideologues who wanted to suppress the people of Ukraine in a brutal way. The Nazis were racists, that's clear. US exceptionalism? As far as I know, Snyder is quite critical of the system that exists in the United States. For me, Snyder is a man who really was in my country, Ukraine in Poland and writes from his own experience in our countries. I was very interested in the history of Central Europe, World War II and he filled in a lot of missing pieces. For example, I never really understood why there were partisans in Ukraine who fought against the Soviets after World War II. Synder explained it well. That is, as I wrote at the beginning. It depends on what angle you look at his books. When you start reading them with the idea that the author is US exceptionalism, the meaning of those books is different than when you read them as a person living in a country where something similar has happened in the past.

[@annuki8795]

Russian Vegetables the best vegetables in the world.

[@deodeo9856]

*THIS MAN DON'T KNOW ABOUT BASIC TOPICS*

[@user-nj6xn5iw1k]

ukraine is a polish word which stands for 'near margin', that is how the polish called present day western ukraine. the real name of ukraine is Malorossiya, which had been with Russia for centuries before the place was renamed to ukraine

[@robhansen6745]

Was there OSCE and UN observers in the Crimea ? NO!!!!! The Crimean parliament did formally invited OSCE election monitors, but the OSCE does not send anyone because of its stance that the vote is "illegal". After the elections observers from the OSCE have already been blocked from entering Crimea shots were fired by pro-Russian troops. Russia sent its own observers it sent 24 MPs to observe the referendum and eight election officials to oversee the vote. hahahaha Why the Crimean referendum is illegal--- !!! Arguments about ethnicity also overlook the central question: who owns the territory that constitutes Crimea? The answer is unambiguous: the Ukraine does. If people living in Crimea want to be Russian citizens, they can move to Russia - and that’s the right recourse. By voting for annexation to Russia, these would-be Russians are actually trying to take the territory away from Ukraine to give it to Russia. Their objective - and, of course, Russia’s, too - is not just to make these people Russian citizens but to take Ukrainian land, and it cannot be justified by a referendum about the preferences of those who live in Crimea today. It’s a matter of international law: territory cannot be annexed simply because the people who happen to be living there today want to secede. If that were the case, then under international law, any geographically cohesive group could vote on independence. That would mean the Basques should be free from Spain and France, and the Kurds would have an independent nation; the large community of Cubans living in Miami could vote to separate from the United States. If a referendum were the right way to decide these issues, Russia ought to be holding a referendum to determine the future of Chechnya. Of course, it isn’t. International law is unambiguous on how countries should decide the fate of disputed territories like Crimea. Countries can acquire territory by discovering uninhabited land, signing a treaty www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/crimean-referendum-illegal-international-law On 15 November, 2016 the UN's human rights committee adopted a resolution entitled "Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)." This is the first UN document to recognize Russia as an occupying power, and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol - as occupied territory. SO NO NOT CRIMEA IS NOT RUSSIAN uatoday.tv/politics/russia-as-official-temporary-occupier-of-ukrainian-crimea-pros-cons-and-whys-806971.html

[@robhansen6745]

Russians need to study history and stop believe the Kremlins falsification of Ukrainian and Russian history and look at the time line and facts.. UKRAINIAN NATION has been around since 898. In the 11th century, Kievan Rus' aka Ukraine was, geographically, the largest state in Europe Also Ukrainian Cossack had its own Rada (parliament / government) and was self governing until 1783 when Catharine sent her lover Potemkin to annex Cossack Ukrainian lands.. First of all Russia as a state never showed its ugly head to the world before 1721 when Peter proclaimed a new nation and a new capital for the new nation and he called it Russia... Peter did this after Treaty of Frederiksborg (1720), and the Russo-Swedish Treaty of Nystad (1721) and after the battle of Poltava... On July 27 every year Kyiv celebrates the anniversary of when Kyivan Rus was baptized by Prince Volodymyr the Great in 988. In reaction, Vladimir Legoyda, head of the information department of the Russian Orthodox Church, criticized Ukraine’s attempts to call Prince Volodymyr the Great the “baptizer of Ukraine and a local leader.” The medieval Principality of Moscow wouldn’t be founded until nearly 300 later. So if Kyiv was baptizes by Prince Volodymyr the Great in 988 and The medieval Principality of Moscow did not show its ugly head before 300 years later how can Moscow and Russia clam Ukraine and Kiev never existed hahahaha Before Peter Moscow and Novgorod and other city's was principality's or city sates if you like and the most known was the Grand Duchy of Moscow From 1283-1547 Grand Principality of Moscow members citys of the Grand Principality was the citys of Novgorod, Moscow,rayzan ,suzdal ,vologoda.. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow1547-1721 Tsardom of Muscovy In 1648 under the Tsardom of Muscovy the Ukrainian leader, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, offered to ally Ukraine with the Russian tsar, Aleksey I. Aleksey's acceptance of this offer, which was ratified in the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654 This was not Ukraine or Bohdan Khmelnytsky, offering it them self to Russia this was an agreement that both independent nations will go together and fight the Polish that was at the time invading Ukraine and Russia...and nothing more than that. In this agreement the Cossacks also accepted to look upon the tsar as the protecting monarch and did pay some small money for the help and alliance in fighting the Polish.. But this was not giving up Ukrainian lands to the tsar nor did they give up their own Cossacks Rada (parliament) or the right to self governance.. It was more a deal like Canada, Australia, Scotland, New Zealand ect ect ect has to day with England they look up on English monarch as their monarch But still are a independent nation and lands with self governance and their own parliaments and leaders of state.. Russian Empire 1721-1917 (when Peter proclaimed a new nation called Russia WHY proclaimed a new nation if this so called nation already existed ??) The Russian Empire (Pre-reform Russian orthography: Россійская Имперія, Modern Russian: Российская империя, translit: Rossiyskaya Imperiya) was a state that existed from 1721 until overthrown by the short-lived liberal February Revolution in 1917. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire Also Ukrainian Cossack had its own Rada (parliament / government) and was more or less self governing until 1783 when Catharine sent her lover Potemkin to annex Cossack Ukrainian lands.. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_Great#Reign_.281762.E2.80.931796.29 The lands was after that under brutal occupation by Moskali scum until 1917 bolshevik revolution until 1991 So based on this facts the Russia state has only had annexed control in Ukraine for 134 years That is fare less then what all Russians think In the 11th century, Kievan Rus' aka Ukraine was, geographically, the largest state in Europe, becoming known in the rest of Europe as Ruthenia (the Latin name for Rus'), especially for western principalities of The name "Ukraine", meaning "in-land" or "native-land" usually interpreted as "border-land", first appears in historical documents of 12th century and then on history maps of the 16th century period. Greater Rus'" was used to apply to all the lands ruled by Kyiv, including those that were not just Slavic, but also Uralic in the north-east portions of the state. So Ukraine and Kyiv is from the 11th century and was self governing until 1783 when Catharine sent her lover Potemkin to annex Cossack Ukrainian lands and it remand occupied until 1917 when some of the lands (not all ) became free until 1921 and was once more become forcefully under brutal occupation by the Bolshevik Soviets aka Moscow scum .. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#Kievan_Rus.27 Ukraine has existed more or less as far back as Kyiv has been a city.. Ukraine however has from time to time ,also maintained a semi-independent republic in Zaporozhia, and a colony on the Russian frontier in Sloboda Ukraine. The Battle of Konotop in 1648 took place during the period of Ukrainian history that is generally referred to as the Ruin. This was the time after the death of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, during which many power struggles within the Cossack elite took place. Arguably, these power struggles were instigated by The Grand Duchy of Moscow aka Tsardom of Moscow in an effort to undermine the authority of the Cossacks and self governed of the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian Cossack state. The 1648 Ukrainian Cossack (Kozak) rebellion or Khmelnytsky Uprising, which started an era known as the Ruin The Cossack state, the Cossack Hetmanate, usually viewed as the modern Ukraine and this was why back in 1648 So how can you come up with Ukraine as a state first existed in 1918,__???? Together with a number of other battles between East Slavs, such as Battle of Orsha, the Konotop battle was with a few exceptions an abandoned topic in Russian Imperial and in Soviet historiography. This attitude towards this event is explained by the fact that it dispelled some Russian propaganda positions about the unity of East Slavs, in particular the ones about "eternal friendship of Russian and Ukrainian peoples" and about "natural desire of Ukrainians for union with Russia". But this is nothing more than Moscow spin doctors propganda and historical fact twisted to the point of falsification of historical facts and truth,, For all the skill and the bravery of the Cossacks - especially those defending Konotop - it still remains a bitter victory. A victory that did not have any significant impact on the course of Ukrainian history, where fratricidal war of the Ruin and personal ambitions of treacherous hetmans prevailed. As such, the Konotop battle remains a classic example of the battle and war Russia lost when trying too assert its dominance over Ukraine ,, But in the end Ukrainians lost the war and become under Moscow hegemony control and brutal domination.. And lets not forget the brutal Russification process that Russia has done and is still trying to do, and even today Ukraine is still fighting the Moscow attempts to subdue Ukraine and it lands and people.. But the result is still that Ukraine fights the Russian hords and its attempts of hegemony control of Ukraine . Ukraine has never really been Russian. Any more than Norway is Swedish or Danish just because Norway was forcefully taking into an union with Sweden and Denmark and for some time under brutal Swedish and Danish occupation and rule dose not make Norway into Swedish or Danish lands ... Norway like Ukraine was just a politically and military occupied nation for some time in its history that's all.. Norway has been from time to time under Swedish and Danish occupation and even some Norwegian city's was built by Swedish and Danish occupier's But that doesn't mean that Sweden or Denmark owns Norway or the Norwegians are Swedish or even Danish ANY MORE THEN Russian owns Ukraine or that Ukrainians are Russians ....!!! More Russian leis about Ukrainians the Historian Andrey Zubov says Banderites are an example of the great lie of the Soviet system about Ukraine SEE LINK UNDER euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/23/historian-andrey-zubov-banderites-are-an-example-of-the-great-lie-of-the-soviet-system/

[@MainstreamPoPsucks3]

The real name of Ukraine is UKRAINE. The real name of russia is Muscovy. Russians are moscovites and have nothing to do with Kiev in the early middle ages.

[@robhansen6745]

Evidence that Russia is lying about history !! In 12th century the land is first mentioned as Ukraine. Russia does not exist.. Nobody heard about Moscow and Russia at that time. Learn more impressive historical facts. The Chronicle includes several components: Lavrentian Chronicle, the Tale of Bygone Years, Chernihiv, Kyiv, Galician-Volhynian Chronicles which described the events from 860’s to 1292’s. Sources of the chronicles are diverse: Palatine chroniclers, palatine letters, ambassadors’ reports, military tales, stories of bystanders, the Greek chronicles and so on. Ukraine is mentioned for the first time in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign against Polovtsy in 1185. Many sources identify Kyivan Rus with Ukraine. In some versions, such as Ermolaevsky list (1189-1213 years), Ukraine is called Krajina (country), in Kyiv chronicles - Galich Ukraina. Also, the name ‘Ukraine’ is mentioned in connection with the death of Pereyaslav Knyaz Volodymyr Glebovich, later in the description of events during Galician-Volyn Knyaz Danylo Romanovych regiment. Something like that. What historical data will help to clarify Ukraine and Russia backgrounds. Higher education institutions: the Russian Academy of Sciences was founded in 1724, Moscow University in 1755. Ostroh Academy was founded in 1576 in Ukraine, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy was established in 1615 and Lviv University in 1661. First printed ABC book in Ukraine was published in 1574 in Lviv, and in the Tsardom of Russia it happened 60 years later in 1634. Religion: Kyiv Metropolia was founded in the year 988, and Moscow Patriarchate only in 1458. Kyiv Metropolia is 460 years older than Moscow ones. Capitals: Kyiv is one among the oldest cities in Europe and was founded in 482, while Moscow was founded in 1147 by Yuriy Dolgoruky, the son of Volodymyr Monomakh. So, Kyiv is older than Moscow by 665 years. The first monarch who was crowned in the Tsardom of Russia was Ivan the Terrible in 1547, and in Ukrainian lands it was the first king of Rus’ Daniel of Galicia in 1253. Mongol yoke: Kyiv lost the Mongolian yoke in 1363 after the Battle of Blue Waters; Moscow lost yoke in 1480 after great standoff on the Ugra river, and Muscovy paid tribute to the Crimean khan till 1700, including the first years of Peter the Great reign. Name: For the first time, the term ‘Ukraine’ was found in the chronicles in the year 1187. Term ‘Russia’ was found only during the reign of Ivan the Terrible 400 years later. Last, but not the least, famous Ukrainian Pylyp Orlyk is the author of one of the first constitutions in the world. On April 5th, 1710 he was elected as a hetman. On the same day he announced a ‘Pacts and Constitutions of Rights and Freedoms of the Zaporizhian Host’. Worth mention, that the U.S. constitution was adopted in 1787. In France and Poland it was adopted in 1791. What historical facts you should know on Ukraine and Russia origins. 1. A state called Muscovy Peter the Great renamed in Russia in the 18th century, in 1721. (so todays Russia did not show its ugly head before 1721 before that it was muscoviya ) 2. The tribe called Mokshas named their river Moskva, and the translation of the title from the Moksha language sounds like ‘dirty water’. In any other languages of the world there is no translation for the word ‘Moscow’. The word ‘Kremlin’ has Tatar roots and stands for fortifications on the hill. 3. In the Middle Ages all European cartographers wrote and marked the frontier of Europe along the borders of Rus (Rus is a territory of present-day Ukraine). Muscovy is Ulus, with its Finnish people, has always been a part of the Horde, and was referred to Asia by Europe. 4. Muscovy (Russia) paid tribute to the Crimean Khan, its sovereign ruler and master, who was the legal successor of the Golden Horde, until 1700. Tsar of Muscovy met Crimean ambassador on Poklonnaya Hill, put him onto the horseback, walked on foot himself leading the horse with the Crimean ambassador to the Kremlin, put him on his throne, and stood up in front of him on his knees. 5. In 1610, in Muscovy Borys Godunov (Murza Gudun) ended the Genghisids dynasty (Genghis Khan’s relative), and Olexiy Koshka from the Finnish family of Kobyliny was enthroned, and the church gave him the surname Romanov, who allegedly came from Rome to rule Muscovy. 6. Catherine the Great, after the occupation of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (territory of Belarus), the last free state of Kyiv Rus’, in 1795, ordered to name Finno-Ugric tribes of Muscovy Great Russians, and Ukrainians (true Rus citizens)- Little Russians. 7. No one has ever seen the original agreement on the reunification between Muscovy and Ukraine, allegedly signed by B. Khmelnitsky and Tzar A. Romanov. 8. For several centuries, archaeologists have been looking for artifacts, confirming the authenticity of the Battle of Kulikovo, but so far without success. But they pitch a yarn about the victory of Dmitry Donskoi over Mamai until now. 9. Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk regions of Russia are former Slavo-Ruthenian Principalities, and Finno-Ugric Muscovy had nothing to do with this, until Muscovy-Horde occupied them in 1462, in 1478 and in the 1654. And in other areas of Russia (Muscovy) Slavic tribes and peoples have never lived. 10. Golden Horde and her daughter Muscovy are the only countries in the world that enslaved their own people. This explains why rich in natural resources Muscovy falls behind the European countries with lack in natural resources. After all, the effectiveness of the free people is much higher than the slaves. The myths of the Russian national consciousness suffered a new blow! First, the study of the gene pool of the Russian people, conducted by Russian scientists in 2000-2006 showed that genetically Russian are not Slavs, but true-born Finns, that have no difference from Mordovians. According to the information from the Moscow-based Center of Lev Gumilyov, Russian scientists for the first time in history conducted Russian gene pool research and were shocked by the results! These studies also fully confirmed that the Russians are not Slavs, but only Russian-speaking Finns. Results of the mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that another Russian nearest relatives, except the Finns from Finland are Tatars: Russians are on the same genetic distance of 30 conventional units from the Tartars, which separate them from the Finns! Russian scientists ended the issue concerning myth of the ‘Slavic roots of Russians’: there is nothing from Slavs in Russians! There is only Slavic Russian language, but it has 60-70% of non-Slavic language, so Russian people are not able to understand the language of the Slavs, although the true Slav understands any language because of the similarity of Slavic languages (except Russian). There are Russians in Russia, but not Rus. There always was and will be only Kievan Rus ! empr.media/culture/history/first-mentioned-ukraine-russia-not-exists/

[@robhansen6745]

RUSSIANS ARE NOT SLAVIC IT IS A MYTH !!! HER IS SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIANS ARE NOT SLAVIC AND ARE INFACT FINNO-UGRIC/ SAMI MIX WITH MONGOLIANS kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJmymHybg8uoZ7s Sorry buddy but fact are facts !!! even if your friends from Finland dont like it it is still DNA and it is hard core evidence and even if Russians dont like the truth the truth is the truth like it or not ... it is a fact !!! Russians don’t like the truth but the truth is the truth like it or not ... it is a fact !!! Russians are no more Slavic then the Finnish are ethnic Scandinavian even if Finland is in Scandinavia they are NOT ethnic Scandinavians like Norwegians, Danish and Swedish people... in-fact they are Finno-Ugric and related ethnically to Hungarians and Estonians.. Take a look at this map and you will see even today the Finno-Ugric tribes are 90% in what today is Russia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_peoples#/media/File:Fenno-Ugrian_people.png Russians er nothing more then confused descendants of Finno-Ugric tribes that assimilated with Mongolians, back in the day… when the golden horde controlled all of what is todays Russian lands …Russians must have some sort of dimwit Syndrome thinking they are from Ukrainian Kiev Russ and Slavic background.. The DNA study of today's so called Russians shows that the historical facts are that Russians are Mongoloid / Finno-Ugric descendants and NOT Slavic like Ukrainians and Polish people ... The DNA evidence proves that Russians with out a doubt are Mongoloid / Finno-Ugric descendants .. Mongolian blood in Russians see link kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJ7MiqSmiZWtqKc THE R1a explanation for dummy's Russians have is R1a-Z93 and is the main Asian branch of R1a. Western and Northern European and also western Ukrainians have R1a -Z284 falls under the root R1a1a1* (M417), and Russians have the R1a1q-M458 ( Finno Ugric ) and the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup R1a-Z93 (Mongolian )… So this proves Russians are of Asian and Finno Ugric bold NOT Western Europeans.. The name ‘Moskovia’ where todays Russia really comes from .. is the key for proper understanding… up until the early 1700s, most maps, government documents and all other records throughout the territory of present-day Russia proclaimed themselves “Moskovia” (Muscovy). All the people considered themselves Moskovites. But Russians like Peter the Great trying to kick-start their country into contemporary Europe, Peter the Great searched for a more imposing pedigree (the word “Moscow” means “swampy or dark waters” in the ancient Finno-Ugric language). (Most of that area around Moscow and even todays St Petersburg was back them swamp lands.. Russians er nothing more then Mongolians with Down Syndrome thinking they are from Kiev Russ and Slavic background when the DNA study of today's so called Russians shows that the historical facts are they they are Mongoloid / Finno-Ugric descendents and NOT Slavic... The Y-DNA Haplogroup N confirming their Uralic origin and Mongolian origin Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup R1a-Z93 and is the main Asian branch of R1a. and its offshoots are very common and the dominant gen among Russian men. Studies have found the ethnic Russian frequency of R1a high as 62.7 percent, with an average of 46.7% of Russians in the "Russia-DNA Project" include R1a1, R1a1a, R1a1a1g, and R1a1a1g2. Mongolian blood in Russians SEE LINK kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJ7MiqSmiZWtqKc Mongols founded Russia or Muscovy (1328) SEE LINK kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXTLh3t4gbKaebc Mongols established Mighty Russia SEE LINK kzbin.info/www/bejne/raHRZpJ6fqiqa6s Russia, the successor of Mongol Empire SEE LINK kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaeshml7rrWDkLs RuSSian myth about Ukraine and Crimea kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH7Km4ybqdFnprM Mongols founded Russia or Muscovy (1328) kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXTLh3t4gbKaebc See link how Russia hijacked Ukrainian history www.euromaidanpress.com/2014/05/14/how-moscow-hijacked-the-history-of-kyivan-rus/

[@ralphvalente9807]

All proceeds of all books written by insurrectionist, used to cover litigation fees, should be handed over to Ukraine to aid in its rebirth.

[@elenadhyansky6466]

Profound nonsense!!!!!!!!

[@jozefluptak3962]

USA fascists of NATO must retreat of all WARSAW pact countries and there will be a peace in EUROPA as Usa promised to GORBACOV.