hey,hey,hey

[Max_Mykhaylenko]

Well. I understood the nature of your argument -- though it hardly is one. This is a mixture of:
-- US-written foreign history books, which are sometimes less useful than tourist pocket guides
-- exaggerated attention to fragmentary things like dates
-- wrong understanding of what is/was is Ukraine/ians and classic liberalism
-- and (maybe) underconsious ethnic pride internal voice.

First. The language which Kyivan nobles petitioned the king about, was not Russian as we know it. The Russian we know is Russian after 19th century reform.Therefore, it is hard to distinguish differences at this stage. What we know is that in 15th century there came about three groups of dialects, one with lots of Mongol possessions (Muscovite),
one with Polonian possessions (Ruthenian) and one with Lithuanian possessions. Until Russians ceased most of Belarus in 17th-18th centuries this is exactly how Belarussians called themselves (Litvins). In the North-East written Old Russian transformed under influence of Church Slavonic. In Galicia, Volhyn, e.g. (South-West) nobility spoke the same dialects as non-nobility. The creation of Uniate church only intensified this process. Litvinian, e.g. Belarussian never had a written tradition until the end of 19th century and yet Belarussians share with Ukrainians many literary figures. Muscovy until Peter's modernization had only a very narrow church-driven written tradition. Now. Except for old civilizations and some age-old European nations -- all literary tradition (including Russian) was born in 18th-19th century. Russian survived through a language reform, which included evading doublets and triplets -- original Slavonic words+French+Mongol possessions. It so happened that most slavonic words were made archaic. This is why East Slavic language group had rather a political meaning in linguistics. In fact, there is South Slavonic and West Slavonic group -- and Russian stands much apart from the point of view of vocabulary. Ukrainian and Belarussian are archaic.And much closer to the language Kyivites spoke in this year of yours when they asked for the favor.

Second. Lithuania didn't really conquer anyone. Weak states signed treaties with Lithuania, which granted them autonomy. Moreover, Lithuanians the same as Moldovans were in fact conquered by culture of the old Rus'. Problems in this transethnic community only started with Poles coming to powerin the area and Vatican looking for new rents out East.

Ukraine and Ukrainians are in fact artificial definitions. The problem is that these definitions are the strongest in the memory of living generations and this is why they triumphed. It could be most logical to call Russian Federation a Muscovite Federation and yet historical truth is not always reasonable. VERY OFTEN TRUTH HAS NO POLITICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER! Ukraine was always a name of some vague territory -- never of a state. Because states were Galicia, Kossack Sich, whatever other. And people living on this territory never called themselves Ukrainians and started doing so only when when ethnic-national consiousness stated to avake in mid-19th century. Moreover, this phenomenon started to develop only in the East as some subconsious protest against imperial cultural genocide. People living on modern Ukrainian territory called themselkf through millenia differently and territorially differently.

Russia and nationalism. There are two origins of nationalism
-- civic and ethnic. First was born out of liberal atmosphere of European medieval universities and second -- out of German rural culture (much later). Well..

I don't have enough time to finish today -- so I will come back.

Judging from your words Danger-boy, neither do you know what nationalism, nor Russia are. Btw. I am not West Ukrainian, I am half-Eastern and half-Russian. Therefore it is strange to accuse me of ethnic nationalism.

[Ragnvald]

There is some logic in the statement that Russia robbed Ukraine of the name. Russia should really be called Moskovia, and Ukraine - Kievan Rus.
The opposite argument would be that present days Russia is bigger than Moskovia, and combines a lot of people and lands, like Novgorod land which you can't really call Moskovia, they are Ruses, like Ukranians.
I don't like this term Ruthenians, it was obviously devised to differ from word Russian, but really feels very artificial. For example "th" is very foriegn sound to Slavonic languages.
Instead, Rus(es) would do just fine.