Oh, Isa, and to your dynastic lineages (I don't want to quote for it becomes too voluminous):
Beginning from that monk Philotheus, and his patron, Tsar Vasiliy "The One In The Dark" (he was blind), the court of the High Principality of Muscovy began to pursue the goal of becoming the Third Rome. So, they stole the name "Rus'", because they wanted to look like legitimate successors, Stole? It was theirs, as legitimate heirs, Rurikid successors of their ancestor, St Vladimir/Volodymyr.
I am not arguing that the Rurikids who reigned over Suzdal and Ryazan' etc. were not the same family as the ones who were in Kyiv or Chernihiv. What I am saying is that the PEOPLE who lived in the domains ruled by prince Yuriy the Long Hands or by prince Andrei "Bogolubski" (that bloody bastard who burned Kyiv and stole our icon of the Most Holy Mother of God of Vysh'horod) were different from Rusy-Rusyny-Rusychi.
Really? Well according to this map here:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/East_Slavic_tribes_peoples_8th_9th_century.jpg
there is quite a lot of Eastern Slavic tribes running around in what is now Russia (reaching up to Moscow) before the arrival of the Rus' (862), and a number of Turkic Bulgars running around what is now in Ukraine: Kiev was paying tribute to the Turkic Khazars when the Rus' arrived.
The area we are interested in is, on the top right map, the purple Rostov Principality, Great Russia's embryo. The bottom map shows in red "slavic settlements under Varangian [i.e. Rus'] control," east slavonic tribes in grey. The slavs had already gone from wandering tribes to settlers in grads, reaching to what was becoming the principality of Rostov-Suzdal-Vladimir-Moscow, so much that my and Quisling's ancestors knew the land ruled by our Varangian slavisized cousins, i.e. the Rus', as "the realm of towns/kingdom of cities":Garðaríki. Btw, Quisling's and my great-grandmother's homeland got its name as the Northway, Norðvegr. Your homeland (and Putin's homeland) had the name Austrvegr "Eastway," but it didn't stick.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grad_(Slavic_settlement
That pattern and movement predated Rus' rule of Kiev, even before the Rus' reached Kiev, and continued until it reached California.
And yes, the Finns were there, and in Sitka/New Archangel, Mother See of America, even as governors.
Gentics studies, alas, do not blame the Finns for the Russians:the same frequencies of the R1a haplogroup are found among Russians as
It seems the Slavs oozing in Ukraine were oozing in Russia as well.
Btw, everywhere else dynasties determine nations. No Hapsburgs, no Austria. No King of France, no France. No King of Spain, no Spain. Russia is different?
Their names and their toponyms are convincing enough: Merya, Ves', Chud', Tot'ma, Moskva (Finnish for "rotten water"), Ryazan' (Erzya), Murom, Perm', etc. All these toponyms are not Slavic but Finnish.
Chicago, Peoria, Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Illinois, etc. All these toponyms are not English but Amerindian, Algonquian to be exact. But the American Indian and Alaska Native persons only make up .
4% of the just under 13 million in IL. A reason for that is the English, unlike the Rus'/Russians, tended to exterminate before colonizing. The Illinois themselves are just 2,861, now in Oklahoma.
The spelling is French (hence not "Shikago," "Illinoy" etc.). That's because the French came here and ruled the "Pays des Illinois." Southern Illinois still has a lot of French toponyms: the oldest structure in the state still standing is at the Fort de Chartres at Prairie du Rocher, once the capital.
When Illinois became a state, half the white population was French, and one of them was elected the first Lieutenant Governor. Two centuries later, they make only 2.6% of the population here, and a third of that is via Canada.
So, it's OK if the rulers like St. Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, etc. are slavicized and intermarry with the slavic stock, but not OK for the common population (like the pre-slavic population you posit for Moscow). What would Kostomarov say? How collectivist and autocratic of you!
But this discussion is actually a tangent here.
Not according to your authority Fr. V.: he brings it up:
Let’s see; in the first place, were we, Ukrainians and Russians, really related in terms of “blood” (ethnicity)? Well, look at the map of Eastern Europe of the 9th – 10th centuries. It tells you that Slavic tribes – Polyany, Drevlyany, Dregovychy, Radymychy, Kryvychy, Polochany, Volynyany, - inhabited what is now Ukraine and Belarus. To the east and to the north of them, there were Ugro-Finnish tribes with their entirely different language and culture; Chud’, Ves’, Merya, Cheremisy, Mordva, Perm’, Yam, and others. Nestor the Chronicle-Writer indicates exactly that (see “The Chronicle of Times,” chapter 25, paragraph 6). Those tribes had absolutely no relation to Slavs. They were not very highly developed socially and they had no government or administration of their own that would be in any way sustainable. So, they had to invite Scandinavians to rule over them (“come and rule us”). Yet, Kyiv Rus’ had no need in the “help” of this kind. By that time (9th – 10th centuries), it became so powerful as a state of Europe that it threatened even the Byzantine Empire. Sadly, in a few decades, Prince Oleg, a Scandinavian, treacherously murdered Kyiv princes Askol’d and Dir and conquered Kyiv. Yet, your Metropolitan +AGATHANGEL says, “”The Kyiv Rus’ has ALWAYS been ONE with the Great Russia (i.e. with what was to the northeast of it). Kyiv (or, as he writes “Kiev”) without the Great Russia, in the state of separation from her, can not be conceived in any case.” But… isn’t it just ridiculous? Just look – there was NO “Great Russia” in the 9th – 10th century; in fact, there was NO “RUSSIA” WHATSOEVER!!! What really existed, was Kyivan Rus’ and her people – Rusychy, Rusyny (i.e. the present-day Ukrainians and Belarussians). So, what exactly is it – stupidity? Complete ignorance? Or Ukrainophobia that simply cannot be stopped? I think it’s a mixture of all three. Stupidity always marches together with hatred and haughtiness.
But let us continue our historical overview. Later, in the 12th – 13th centuries, because of peculiar historical circumstances (fighting between feudal lords, Mongol-Tatar onslaught), Slavs began to oose into the lands to the east and north from Kyiv Rus’ – and so the Slavic blood began to penetrate into the veins of the above-mentioned Ugro-Finnish tribes. When Mongols destroyed Kyiv (in the 1240-s), the center of the social and political life of Eastern Slavs migrated to a more isolated and protected Northeast, and so the gradual growth of Moscow began. From us, from Kyiv Rus’, your people received the Slavic blood, the Christian faith and the education of the populace. Do you need me to tell you about who were the first Enlighteners of your lands? I don’t think so. I’ll just mention a few, in passing: +PETER, Metropolitan of Muscovy – a native of the Volyn Region of what is now Ukraine; +IOASAPH of “Begorod” (actually Bilhorod, Ukraine); +INNOCENT of Irkutsk – also a Ukrainian; +STEPHAN (Yavors’kyj) – also a Ukrainian, from Halychyna, Western Ukraine; +THEOPHAN (Prokopovych) – also a Ukrainian; even M.V. Lomonosov (a Russian, from Arkhangel’sk, the founder of the Moscow State University), not being an ethnic Ukrainian, got his education… again, in Ukraine!!!
(I'll deal with his other factual errors, Lord willing later).
But yes, it is a tangent, in as much as an adopted son is a son. So a Finn who was baptized by St. Vladimir/Volodymyr's Church, swore fealty to Yuriy the Long Hands' heirs, and took up their language and culture is a Rus' as much as a Severian tribesman who was baptism by Metropolitan St. Michael in the Dnieper at Kiev.
As a side note, this zero-sum game that Fr. V. and others never tire of playing, trying to play Russia into a all or nothing corner, is foolish as it tests Russia's ability to play winner take all. And Russia has more than proven it can play that very well.