The origin of Ukrainians as a nation. Origin of the Ukrainian people

Many impressionable fellow citizens, having read Ukrainian websites and comments from Svidomites, ask in bewilderment: are they really all there...? And they reassure themselves: they say, they can’t all go so crazy at once, they can’t all become such bloodthirsty Russophobic zombies at the same time. We are fraternal peoples. This, they say, is just Bandera’s spawn frolicking. It’s just that the Svidomites, having received Lyuli in the Donbass, sublimate their great observer, constantly writing fascist comments to maintain the required level of fanaticism. Well, like, the fraternal Ukrainian people cannot suddenly hate Russians and Russia for no reason at all, especially since Russia has already accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees and is sending humanitarian convoys, and Putin proposed a peace plan to save Ukraine from complete collapse . And in general, the majority of the inhabitants of Ukraine live in the Russian-speaking southeastern regions, and if only for this reason, the maydauns cannot constitute the majority there.

No, guys, I have to disappoint you. The Ukrainian people have not been friendly to the Russians for a single day; in fact, they were created as cannon fodder to fight the Russians. The citizens of today's Ukraine ... began to give up in a completely real, sincere, fanatical and massive way. A tiny minority have retained their sanity. And ethnicity does not play any role here. Ukrainian is not a nationality at all, it is a diagnosis. The main sign of ethnic identification is language. So, real, I emphasize - REAL Ukrainians, first-class Ukrainians, speak, read, write and think in Russian. Ukrainian is a fetish for them. Here are some specific facts that I have personally observed.

FACT ONE. Even on my first visit to Ukraine, I was surprised by this strange thing: on the bus, people I knew spoke to each other in Russian, but addressed strangers in Ukrainian. One gets the impression that they are embarrassed to appear as Muscovites in the eyes of strangers. This can be figuratively represented as follows: at home a person can walk around in torn shorts and not be embarrassed by his loved ones, but he considers it unacceptable to go out into the street in this form. So, Russian culture in Ukraine is forced to play the role of torn panties. The phenomenon of bilingualism is known, when a person communicates completely freely in two languages and sometimes does not even notice how he switches from one to another. Bilingualism is an example of one culture complementing another. But the phenomenon described above is not bilingualism, it is real linguistic schizophrenia, when one culture denies another.

FACT TWO. One candidate for the elections Verkhovna Rada in 2012 he appeared on TV with an address to his voters in Ukrainian. He began his speech with the words: “As soon as I go to the Verkhovna Rada, then I will dispel my sovereign speech.” What's the joke here? Yes, the fact is that it happened in the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, where even real Ukrainians do not speak Ukrainian in public. And, most importantly, the candidate himself was an absolutely Russian person, with a Russian first and last name, born in Siberia into a Russian family. He came to Kharkov to study at university back in Soviet time, stayed to live, worked in a newspaper that was published in Russian.

But 20 years of independence and ukropaganda were not in vain, and this man sincerely believed that Ukraine is a country where everyone dreams of squeezing out the katsap and becoming a Ukrainian. Therefore, he wrote the text of his speech in Russian, translated it into Ukrainian, memorized it and rattled it off. He was proud of the fact that he rattled off in a way that not every born Ukrainian could. The fact that the speech had no success with TV viewers did not upset him at all. He was inspired by the fact that he was able to publicly commit an act of breaking with his Katsap past. These are exactly the kind of people - real, first-class Ukrainians. Do you still believe that Ukrainian is a nationality?

FACT THREE. In addition to the real ones, there are also fake Ukrainians, second-class Ukrainians, living in Ukraine. These are Ukrainians (actually, Russians, as it were) who do not speak the Ukrainian language at all. Well, that is, to understand - they understand, of course (and I began to understand him after a month of living there), some even “passed” it at school, but they are not able to speak, much less write, in Ukrainian, and the hidden books , the press or cinema they completely ignore. But this does not in the least prevent them from completely sincerely considering themselves Ukrainians and just as sincerely hating everything Russian. One such acquaintance proudly told me that his children, who, by the way, were born in Russia, know the Ukrainian language better than he does, and soon he will send them to a gymnasium, where they even teach algebra and chemistry in the sovereign language. Well, that is, the kids won’t know algebra and chemistry, but they will grow up to be smart Ukrainians. But this is unlikely, of course. At most, his children will move into the category of real Ukrainians, which were mentioned above.

Another acquaintance of mine from among the second-rate Ukrainians, when I pulled him back, saying that you yourself are one hundred percent Muscovite, and your ostentatious Russophobia looks rather strange, explained his position as follows (I convey it almost verbatim):

You understand, if I am Russian-speaking, this does not mean that I am Russian. I am a Russian-speaking Ukrainian and I will never become Russian, just as French-speaking Guianians and Sinegalese will never become French. I am not a Russophobe and have nothing against Russians when they sit in their natural habitat. But if the “Russian world”, expanding, wants to destroy Ukraine, I will burn the Russians to the roots. If necessary - right up to Pacific Ocean.

As they say, know comment. A man was born into a Russian family (more precisely, a Soviet one), wears Russian name and last name, speaks, writes, reads and thinks ONLY in Russian, but at the same time this not Russophobe is ready (so far only in words) to burn out the Russians right up to the Pacific Ocean. For some reason, it seems to me that in terms of the level of barbarism and schizoid consciousness, second-class Ukrainians are significantly superior to first-class Ukrainians.

FACT FOUR. To be fair, I will say that there is also such a thing in the world rarest species, as a Ukrainian of the highest class. This, to exaggerate, is a Ukrainian who does not speak Russian. The one who understands Russian speech, but does not have conversational or reading-writing skills. That is, Russian is a foreign language for him in the literal sense of the word. Accordingly, his personality was formed outside the field of Russian culture.
There are, of course, few of them. In all my time I have only met this one once. It was a boy, about 16 years old, originally from the Rivne region. He proudly called himself a Ukrainian nationalist. By the way, during the time that we communicated, I did not feel any hostility towards myself. Probably because a top-class Ukrainian does not have to fight the Muscovite within himself, he does not experience a national inferiority complex. I asked the young man to talk about his political views. In summary they look something like this:

Ukraine is the cradle of white civilization along with Greece and Rome, the ancient Ukrainians are Aryans, and always have been.

The main enemies of the Ukrainian people are the Jews and churks, who spoil the gene pool of the nation. It is necessary to introduce a complete ban on the entry of racially inferior elements into the country, and punish Ukrainian citizens for having sexual relations with chocks. Incest is the most terrible crime.

The historical mission of Ukrainian nationalism is the return of Ukraine to the fold of European civilization, torn from there by the Mongol-Tatars. The main obstacle on the way to Europe is the Soviets, who do not want to return to their Ukrainian origins, because during the years of domination of the Jews (Soviet period), who imposed internationalism, they entered into racially inferior marriages and spoiled their gene pool.

Russian nationalists professing correct racial ideals " white world", for Ukrainian nationalists, comrades in struggle, they have nothing to share.

Well, I agree, for my young interlocutor, Ukrainian is already a nationality. Although, in order to emphasize his superiority over other non-Ukrainians, he called himself a Galician. By the way, first- and second-class Ukrainians really don’t like first-class Galician Ukrainians. They pay them in return. According to Galicians, eastern Ukrainians are grown-up, damn scoops who do not want to follow the sovereign’s dreams. One of my acquaintances, a first-class Ukrainian from Nikolaev, explained the reasons for his hostility towards Westerners as follows:

We, real Ukrainians, trace our spiritual ancestry back to the free Zaporozhye Cossacks, and the Galicians were slaves of Polish, German, Hungarian and Romanian masters for almost 800 years. A hereditary slave who has become a master remains a stupid and cowardly cattle, but acquires the arrogance and cruelty characteristic of his former masters.

Yes, that’s how they are, Ukrainians - not only do they hate Muscovites and Coloradoans, but they also can’t stand each other. Is it possible to find out how many first-, second- and highest-class Ukrainians live in Ukraine? It's approximately possible. Let's use the same language criterion. The American Institute for Public Opinion Research Gallup conducted a study in several republics in 2008 former USSR in order to find out which part of the population of these republics speaks Russian as their native language. According to the American Institute, in Ukraine Russian is the native language for 83% of the population, and in Belarus - for as much as 92%. At the same time, according to the results of the 2001 population census, only 29.6% of Ukrainians were called Russian speakers. Who's lying?

If the use of ukromov in government institutions is mandatory, in public life it is imposed by stereotypes of behavior, and during the census, the Ukrainian language is called native by first- and second-class Ukrainians who are embarrassed to be Muscovites, then alone with the monitor, the Internet user uses the language that is really native to him. The share of queries in Yandex from Ukraine in Ukrainian is from 32.9% in the west to 5.9% in the east. It turns out that even in Galicia, top-class Ukrainians do not predominate numerically. In the Ukrainian blogosphere the ru/uk ratio is approximately 5/1. On Wikipedia, Ukrainian users access Russian-language articles more than four times more often than the Ukrainian-language segment. And here is a map showing in which language Ukrainian users prefer to make Google queries
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/…/1973271_1479201465684229_…

In Ukraine, there is a kind of unspoken taboo on discussing the role of the Russian language. Since the government has decided to assume that there are less than 30% of Russian speakers in the country, then it is dangerous to doubt this. True, in 2009, the Kiev National Linguistic University risked publishing research data on what language is the language of home communication for Ukrainian citizens. The map shows areas of dominance of a particular language. It should be taken into account that Surzhik is a dialect of the Russian language, since its lexical basis is Russian, and only pronunciation is from Ukrainian. Judging by the above map, the Ukrainian language predominates in everyday life only in Galicia.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/…/1236447_1479201582350884_…

But even here there is reason to doubt the truth of the picture. As ilya_shpankov writes, “The specificity of surveys is such that people answering questions say not what actually is, but how they imagine it. In other words, a person who is convinced from morning to night through all media channels that he is Ukrainian and a native speaker of the Ukrainian language, when asked about his preferences, is more likely to choose the Ukrainian language.” But even taking into account the zombie factor of dill propaganda, as we see, the majority have not yet abandoned their native Russian language.

There are a huge number of similar examples, and all of them clearly indicate that the Ukrainian language is not native to the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens. This is not surprising if we consider that the literary Ukrainian language (not to be confused with the peasant Little Russian, Slabozhansky, Galician or Carpathian dialects) was created only in late XIX century in Austrian Galicia and was forcibly used there to displace the forbidden Russian. On the territory of the USSR, the first massive Ukrainization took place in the 20s and 30s. True, having met spontaneous resistance from below, it was never completed. Finally, the most aggressive campaign to Ukrainize the population has been taking place over the last 23 years of Ukrainian independence.
So, the Ukrainian ethnic group is a chimera. But who then yells in the squares “Moskalyak to Gilyak”? Ukrainians. Those for whom being Ukrainian is a diagnosis, which is what I said at the very beginning.

FACT FIFTH. The spoken language at Euromaidan was Russian. From the stage, the speakers spoke in Ukrainian, and the Maidan activists spoke Russian among themselves. An example of linguistic schizophrenia in action. Personally, my grandmother, a picketer, thrust into my hands a newspaper advocating for the European choice... in Russian.

FACT SIX. Radio amateurs have repeatedly intercepted communications between Maidan snipers who shot at the cops and the Maidans themselves. The militants conducted negotiations in Russian. One can, of course, assume that these are fakes made in the FSB laboratory and broadcast specifically so that they could be intercepted by Kyiv radio amateurs. But, I believe, the FSB’s plans did not include convincing the public that the snipers were Russian.

FACT SEVEN. Who is destroying the Russian-speaking population of Donbass today? Bandera hordes and foreign mercenaries? There are negligible numbers of kosher Banderaites, and even fewer foreign mercenaries. No, there Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainians kill Russian speakers who do not want to Ukrainize further. This is confirmed by numerous video interrogations of prisoners, of which only a small part prefers to answer in Ukrainian or with a large admixture of Ukrainian speech. Radio intercepts also indicate that the cartels communicate with each other primarily in Russian. It is on the parade ground that commands are given on the sovereign volyapuk - “be careful, little one!” instead of the usual “stay at attention!” And in battle, who will translate commands into Ukrainian, although the regulations say exactly this?

Based on the above, it is completely futile to look for some kind of national background in the war in Ukraine. Ukrainians and Russians are not fighting there. And even fascists don’t fight anti-fascists. There is a massacre between zombies infected with the Ukrainian virus and those who do not want to be zombies (we will not consider the reasons for this reluctance now). By and large, both are ethnic Russians, but some have come to believe that they are Ukrainians, while others now consider the word “Ukrainian” to be synonymous with the word “Nazi.”

I repeat again and again: Ukrainian is not a nationality, it is the result of zombification. The example of Crimea, by the way, clearly demonstrates this. In 2001 According to the results of the all-Ukrainian census of 2001, 24.4% of the population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea identified themselves as Ukrainians. Presumably, over the next 14 years their numbers should have increased. And for six months now we have been “our Crimean”: you won’t find a Ukrainian during the day. They seem to have nothing to be ashamed of, since the Ukrainian language is an equal language state language in Crimea. Where have the HALF A MILLION (!!!) Crimean Ukrainians gone? Yes, they haven’t gone anywhere, they just changed their minds about being Ukrainians, it has become unfashionable and unprofitable.

But before it was profitable. For example, to make a career in the civil service, you need to know the Ukrainian language. Therefore, the Ukrainian gymnasium in Simferopol was considered a very prestigious school. And now she's gone. As the dill propaganda screams, it was closed because Crimea is occupied and Ukrainians are being subjected to genocide. In fact, everything is simple: the school remained in place, but the parents transferred their children to classes with the Russian language of instruction, and even asked to rename the educational institution. So far, there is only one Ukrainian class left in each parallel, but soon they will not exist due to the reluctance of parents to teach their children in Ukromov.

So, citizens, the Ukrainian people have never been fraternal to the Russians. In Russia it was not fraternal, because the Ukrainian people did not exist in principle. In the 19th century, Ukrainophile intellectuals appeared who took up the doctrine invented by the Poles about the existence of a marginal people, which, they say, is a branch of the Polish tribe. Ethnically, these Ukrainophiles were mainly Russians and Poles. Ukrainophiles argued that it was necessary to create a Ukrainian literary language and teach Little Russian peasants using it. I emphasize that they were talking specifically about the CREATION of the language, and not about the revival of the supposedly “forgotten” ancient Ukrainian language.

But the successes of Russian Ukrainophiles were negligible. Attempts to introduce phonetic spelling failed. Ukrainian writers who wrote in Poltava-Chernigov peasant dialects were not in demand. Things turned out differently in Galicia, which was then under the rule of Vienna. The threat of separatism there was more than real. Therefore, Ukrainization was put on a broad state track. Not only was a codified Ukrainian language created, but in 1895 a Ukrainian alphabet, distinct from Russian, was even drawn. At first they planned to develop Ukrainian grammar in the Latin alphabet, but the very first attempts to print in Latin letters showed the complete futility of this idea. Further, teaching in Russian was prohibited. Well, that is, it’s not that the language itself is prohibited, but if you go to school, they only teach you Ukrainian grammar. And it was possible to enter a secondary educational institution only by taking the Ukrainian oath, which contains the words “from now on I am Ukrainian.”

From now on - yes. Who were you before? The three million “Russian-speaking” population of Galicia was divided approximately equally into Ukrainians and Russians, who were called “Muscovophiles.” “Colorados”, in short. And the Ukrainians brutally abused them. The first concentration camp in the history of Europe in Thalerhof was created specifically for Russian Galicians, whom the authorities of Austria-Hungary considered unreliable at the beginning of the First World War. A problem arose: how to distinguish unreliable Russians from Ukrainians who willingly went to the front to kill the damned Muscovites? The problem was solved in a very simple way: the lists of “Colorados” were compiled based on denunciations from Ukrainians and Poles. Amazing collisions arose: members of the same family sometimes found themselves on opposite sides of the barbed wire, because one brother was Ukrainian and the other Russian. I repeat for the hundredth time: Ukrainian is not a nationality. Ukrainian is a diagnosis.

Do you want to know why the maydauns chant “Moskalyak to Gilyak?” It’s funny, but the Maidanists themselves don’t know. And this slogan is already exactly a hundred years old.

Here they are - Muscovites on Gilyak.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/…/10432932_147920186…

This is the same Thalerhof. Coloradan males are hanging; at that time they were still embarrassed to kill females; it was believed that they could be cured of Muscovophilia by occupational therapy in soldiers’ brothels.

By the way, it is curious that a century ago there was mortal enmity between Austrian Ukrainians and Russian Ukrainophiles. Domestic Ukrainian intellectuals believed that the Galician language has nothing to do with Ukrainian. In 1906, the so-called language crusade to Russia was launched, financed by the Viennese authorities. In southern Russian cities, out of nowhere, dozens of Ukrainian-language publications of the Galician style appeared. Soon they all closed because the population did not understand the Ukrainian language and did not read incomprehensible crap. Publications in the Little Russian dialect somehow made ends meet, but their share hardly occupied more than 1% of all periodicals. Today's quarrels between first- and second-class Ukrainians and top-class Svidomo Ukrainians are of approximately the same nature as the squabble between Galician and Little Russian Ukrainizers.

Remember once and for all that Ukrainian is not a nationality. Ukrainians, or, as they are called today, “dills,” are zombies. Someone will ask: what about the Little Russians? These, they say, are the Ukrainians. Wasn't there a reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654?

No, Little Russians, weaklings, Terek Cossacks are not Ukrainians. These are ethnographic groups of the Russian people, the same as the Pomors, for example, or the Poles. No, we are not talking about the Poles, but about the Altai Poles - an ethnographic group formed by Old Believers settlers from Kaluga, Tula, Ryazan, and Oryol provinces.
In the course of cultural evolution, linguistic differences between groups of Russians have practically disappeared and are manifested today, perhaps, in pronunciation. Me, for example, when I’m in southern regions, they often ask where I come from; my speech hurts the ears of the local residents. The Pomor dialects 200 years ago were much more different from the standard Moscow dialect than the Little Russian ones, but no one thought of declaring the Pomors a separate people, and the Little Russians were unlucky - they became victims of ethnic experiments.

The reunification of Ukraine with Russia is a myth. Well, or, as they say now, a fake. Firstly, because no Ukraine existed then. The toponym “Ukraine” itself appeared later, and in the West. In Russia it became known only in the 19th century. Previously, border territories were called Ukraine, be it in the Caucasus, in the Arctic or in Siberia. The Ukrainian cities mentioned in the chronicles are not Ukrainian at all, but border cities, bordering cities, standing on the edge.
Secondly, only Soviet propaganda began to call the events of the 17th century the reunification of peoples.

Pre-revolutionary historians had never even heard of any reunification, but only talked about the annexation of the Left Bank, the annexation of the Right Bank, the annexation of Bessarabia, the annexation of Crimea, etc. There was a series of wars with Poland, in the Kiev Voivodeship, populated by Russians, the Russian Tsar discovered a fifth column - the Cossacks. Previously, the Cossacks were “on the register,” that is, they received a salary from the Polish king, but then the king refused to pay the salary. Let's make a fuss. Bogdan Khmelnitsky begged the Russian Tsar to take over the support of the Zaporozhye army, which had become unnecessary for the Poles, in return promising to protect the border from the then very formidable Tatars and other “guest performers”. The king agreed. That's all the pathos of the Pereyaslav Rada. As for the territory of the Left Bank, it became part of Russia not as a result of the Cossack gathering in Pereyaslavl (especially since the Cossacks soon changed their minds and backed off), but as a result of the war with Poland, which the Poles lost. The opinion of the population then, and much later, was of no interest to anyone anywhere.

So, those naive citizens who believe that all they have to do is deal with the “Banderlogs” or, in a radical version, physically crush the Ukrainian-Nazis in the Donbass, and the Russian people and the Ukrainian people will heal in perfect harmony again, are catastrophically mistaken. Classic example Russian-Ukrainian friendship is the Thalerhof concentration camp. All other examples - the Bandera era of the 40s or the May kebabs in Odessa - are from the same series. Ukrainians were bred as a species in order to destroy Russians. The cultural matrix of the Ukrainian is based on this. If we speak completely scientifically, such programming of consciousness is called molecular aggression into the cultural core.
Therefore, the matter cannot be corrected even by the physical destruction of Svidomites. Ukrainianness is a brain virus, an infection that affects the consciousness of Russians. There was a Russian who caught the infection - he became a zombie, ready to “burn out the Russians all the way to the Pacific Ocean.” The Liberastia virus works in exactly the same way. Any Russian person infected with liberalism turns into a zombie, fanatically destroying his own country. If you don’t know what the word “perestroika” means, at least check out Wikipedia.

Therefore, there is no point in fighting the Ukrainians, no matter how Nazis they may be. No one has yet managed to defeat the virus by destroying its carriers. The Ukrainian virus should be destroyed with an antivirus. This antivirus is Russian culture. God forbid, I am not calling for cultural genocide of Ukrainians. The only thing that needs to be done is to allow Russian and Ukrainian cultures to coexist in equal conditions. In this case, the same thing will happen in Ukraine as in Crimea, where half a million Ukrainians overnight renounced their Ukrainian identity. For some reason, after the Anschluss, the Crimean Tatars (Kyrymly) did not rush to enroll their children in classes with Russian as the language of instruction. It's because Crimean Tatars- a really existing ethnic group, and they see no point in giving up their nationality. Russians are not upset about this at all.

Ukrainianism is a schizophrenia of consciousness, when a person who is Russian by culture, as a result of a voluntary choice, and more often under the influence of targeted propaganda, becomes a Svidomite and begins to hate everything Russian. Yes, modern Banderaites are Russians. Russians are killing Russians in Donbass. Russians burned Russians in Odessa. Russian zombies are jumping on the Maidan (and now everywhere) and shouting “Moskalyak to Gilyak!” A Ukrainian is a zombie, a man...who is completely screwed.

Therefore, do not even try to rationally explain the mess that is happening in Ukraine today. It is impossible to rationally explain the behavior of a Ukrainian who writes a denunciation against his brother, dooming him to death in Talerhof simply because he did not renounce his faith and nationality. It is impossible to rationally explain why Ukrainians, who wanted to see their country a member of the EU, destroyed Lukoil gas stations owned by Austrians in Kyiv. And it’s absolutely impossible to understand why Ukrainians are “liberating” Ukrainian land by turning it into ruins and destroying the population that they consider Ukrainian. The behavior of schizophrenics cannot be explained logically. We must finally understand that anyone who calls himself a Ukrainian is a schizophrenic, a person suffering from a severe form of consciousness disorder.

Ukraine is a madhouse in which the patients are mentally ill, the medical staff consists of crazy people and maniacs, and the head doctor is...a full-blown alcoholic. Therefore, the Ukrainians first set fire to their madhouse, and now they are extinguishing it with gasoline, blaming the Russians for everything, of course.

Anyone who claims that the Russian and Ukrainian people will live in friendship is an idiot. Look how friendly Ukrainians live with each other today and think, why do you need such friends? Great happiness - Ukrainians themselves are destroying Ukraine. The collapse of Ukrainian sovereignty is a stake in the chest of a zombie. If the nitty Putin does not save Country-404 (and he is actively doing this, trying to maintain his own power), then Ukraine will soon come to an end - Ukrainians will either re-register each other or cease to be Ukrainians. It doesn’t matter who they become - Galicians, Little Russians, Rusyns or Russians. The main thing is that they will not be carriers of the Telergof program of “burning out Russians right up to the Pacific Ocean.”

Yes, a person’s spiritual recovery is difficult; you can’t cure a runny nose. But you need to be treated. Here is a clear example of recovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxk2wztx5k.

The question of the origin of the Ukrainian nation is one of the most controversial and controversial. Historians of the “independence” prove that the roots of the Ukrainian ethnic group are the most ancient in Europe, scientists from other countries are trying to refute them.

Today, in the Ukrainian community, hypotheses are increasingly being expressed more and more boldly, according to which the history of the Ukrainian ethnic group should date back almost to primitive tribes. At least, the version according to which it was the Ukrainian ethnic group that became the basis for the emergence of the Great Russian and Belarusian peoples is being seriously considered.

Kiev journalist Oles Buzina was ironic about this hypothesis: “That is, according to the logic of its followers, a certain Pithecanthropus, hatching from a monkey in Africa, came to the banks of the Dnieper, and then slowly degenerated into a Ukrainian, from whom Russians, Belarusians and other peoples descended to the Hindus."

Ukrainian historians, trying to ancientize their roots, forget that for more than a thousand years, the lands from the Don to the Carpathians, subject to invasion by the Sarmatians, Huns, Goths, Pechenegs, Polovtsians and Tatars, repeatedly changed their ethnic appearance.

Thus, the devastating Mongol conquest of the second quarter of the 13th century significantly reduced the number of inhabitants of the Dnieper region. “Most of the people of Russia were killed or taken captive,” wrote the Franciscan Giovanni del Plano Carpini, who visited these lands.

On for a long time the former territories of the Principality of Kyiv plunged into social and political turmoil. Until 1300 they were part of the Nogai ulus, from the 14th century they came under the rule of the Principality of Lithuania, and two centuries later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth came there. And the strong element of the ancient Russian ethnos turned out to be thoroughly eroded.

In the mid-17th century, Cossack uprisings broke out against Polish rule, which were the first attempts to restore national identity. Their result was the “Hetmanate,” which became an example of southern Russian autonomy under Cossack control.

Until the middle of the 17th century, the term “Ukrainian” was not used as an ethnic designation. Even the most ideological historians of Square recognize this. But in the documents of that time there are other words - Russians, Rusyns, Little Russians, and even Russians.

In the “Protestation” of 1622 by the Kiev Metropolitan Job Boretsky there are the following lines: “To every pious people of Russia... to all the pious Eastern Church, to the well-behaved great-famous people of the Russian people of every spiritual and spiritual dignity, I will become pious people.”

Cossacks / Ilya Repin

And here is a fragment of a 1651 letter from Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky to the Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV: “... and all Rus' that lives here, which is of the same faith with the Greeks and has its origins from them...”. By the way, in a thought recorded from the kobzar from the Chernihiv region, Andrei Shuta, it is said: “Why is Hetman Khmelnitsky, a Rusyn, in us.”

Nezhinsky archpriest Simeon Adamovich in a letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is more specific: “... and because of those my labors, from your royal mercy, I did not want to leave Moscow at all, knowing the inconstancy of my brotherhood of Little Russian residents...”. The phrase “Little Rus'”, as the name of the Dnieper lands, was first recorded in 1347 in the message of the Byzantine emperor John Cantacuzene.

The term “Ukraine” first appeared in 1213 in a chronicle report about the return of Russian cities bordering Poland by Prince Daniil of Galicia. There, in particular, it says: “Daniil rode with his brother and took Beresty, and Ugrovesk, and Stolpie, Komov and all of Ukraine.” This early mention a debatable term and are often tried to be used as evidence of the antiquity of the Ukrainian nation.

However, in the chronicle context, in fact, as in the context of that era, various border, outlying lands in the Muscovite kingdom (“Siberian Ukraine”) and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (“Polish Ukraine”) were called “Ukraines”.

Writer Vladimir Anishchenkov says: “The science of ethnology does not mark such a people as “Ukrainian” until the 19th century. Moreover, at first the Poles began to call local residents “Ukrainians,” then the Austrians and Germans. This name was introduced into the consciousness of Little Russians for several centuries. Since the 15th century."

However, in the minds of the Cossack elites, a single ethnic group living on the territory of Little Russia began to be isolated and opposed to its neighbors already in the second half of the 17th century. Zaporozhye ataman Ivan Bryukhovetsky, in an address to Hetman Petro Doroshenko, wrote:

Taking God to the rescue, near our enemies before the Moscow ones, here are the Muscovites, who no longer have friendship with them... so that we are aware of such Moscow and Lyak unprofitable intentions for us and Ukraine, the destined destruction to expect, and for ourselves and the entire Ukrainian people to the known decline They were not happy to bring information about themselves.

The term “Ukrainians” came to the residents of the Western regions of Ukraine, which were part of Austria-Hungary, the latest – at the beginning of the 20th century. The “Westerners” traditionally called themselves Rusyns (in the German version “Ruthens”). It is curious that the pride of the Ukrainian nation, the poet Taras Shevchenko, did not use the ethnonym “Ukrainian” in any of his works.

But in his message to his fellow countrymen there are the following lines: “The German will say: “You can.” “Mogholi! Mogoli! They teach the golden Tamerlane.” In the brochure “Ukrainian Movement” published in Berlin in 1925, Russian emigrant and publicist Andrei Storozhenko wrote:

Observations on the mixing of races show that in subsequent generations, when crossing occurs within the same people, individuals can nevertheless be born that reproduce in a pure form the ancestor of someone else's blood. Getting to know the leaders of the Ukrainian movement, starting from 1875, not from books, but in living images, we came away with the impression that “Ukrainians” are precisely individuals who have deviated from the all-Russian type in the direction of reproducing the ancestors of foreign Turkic blood.

But one of the most popular images of Ukrainian folklore, “Cossack knight Mamai,” is a clear confirmation of such an assumption. Where did the character in folk pictures get a purely Tatar nickname? Is he not the personification of the beklyarbek Mamai, whose descendants took part in the formation of the Cossacks in Ukraine?

Translated from Turkic languages, “Cossack” means “robber”, “exile”. This is what they called the fugitives from Genghis Khan’s army who did not want to obey the despot and settled in the steppe regions of what is now Ukraine. The medieval Polish chronicler Jan Dlugosz wrote about the Crimean Tatars who attacked Volyn in 1469: “The Tatar army is made up of fugitives, miners and exiles, whom they call Cossacks in their language.”

The idea of the Tatar roots of the current Ukrainian nation is also suggested by the results of archaeological excavations at the site of the battle of Berestechko (1651): it turns out that the Zaporozhye Cossacks did not wear crosses. Archaeologist Igor Svechnikov argued that the idea of the Zaporozhye Sich as a stronghold of Christianity is greatly exaggerated. It is no coincidence that the first church in the Zaporozhye freemen appeared only in the 18th century, after the Cossacks accepted Russian citizenship.

One cannot help but pay attention to the ethnic diversity of the population of modern Ukraine. Ethnographers claim that the Pechenegs, Cumans and Tatars played no less a role in shaping the appearance of the “broad” Ukrainian than the Rusyns, Poles or Jews. Genetics generally confirms such assumptions.

Similar studies were carried out by the Laboratory of Population Genetics of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, using genetic markers of the Y chromosome (transmitted through the male line) and mitochondrial DNA (pedigree of the female line). The results of the study, on the one hand, revealed significant genetic similarities between Ukrainians and Belarusians, Poles and residents of Western Russia, but on the other hand, they showed a noticeable difference between the intra-Ukrainian and three clusters - western, central and eastern.

In another study, this time by American scientists at Harvard University, the distribution of Ukrainians by haplogroup was analyzed more deeply. It turned out that 65-70% of Ukrainians belong to haplogroup R1a, which is characteristic of steppe peoples. For example, among the Kyrgyz it occurs in 70% of cases, among the Uzbeks - in 60%, among the Bashkirs and Kazan Tatars - in 50%. For comparison, in the Russian regions of the north-west - Novgorod, Pskov, Arkhangelsk, Vologda regions, the R1a group belongs to 30-35% of the population.

Other haplogroups of Ukrainians are distributed as follows: three of them - R1b (Western European), I2 (Balkan), and N (Finno-Ugric) each have approximately 10% of representatives, another one - E (Africa, Western Asia) has approximately 5%. As for the indigenous inhabitants of the territory of Ukraine, genetics is powerless here. “The genotypes of modern Ukrainians cannot tell us anything about ancient history population of Ukraine,” admits American geneticist Peter Forster.

There is probably no people on Earth who are not interested in their roots and who do not wonder about their origins. Among the ancient Scythians, a person who did not know his ancestry up to the seventh generation was considered inferior. And representatives of all ancient civilizations traced their origins almost to the creation of the world, supplementing oral traditions with myths and legends. The origin of the Ukrainian people for a long time seemed simple and clear: from the common Old Russian people, along with Russians and Belarusians. But modern scientists are increasingly calling this concept imperial and are trying to re-understand the events and facts that preceded the appearance of Kievan Rus…

Title page of “History of Ukraine” by M. Grushevsky

Determining the historical past of the Ukrainian people is associated with a huge number of problems. Perhaps the most important of them is who should be considered ancestors? What principle should be followed – territorial, linguistic or cultural? Or perhaps all three components need to be taken into account? Among researchers, there are two main views on the origin of peoples: autochthonism and migrationism. Autochthonists believe that, despite migrations, merging or mixing of tribes, each people maintains a continuous connection with the ancient inhabitants of their land. Migrationists argue that constant migrations play the main role in the process of the emergence of peoples. Perhaps if both of these factors are taken into account, the picture will become more accurate.

So, the origin of Ukrainians is closely connected with the tribes that once lived on the lands of modern Ukraine or migrated through them. There were many such tribes and peoples: Scythians, Huns, Sarmatians, Slavs, Polovtsians, Tatars. And long before them, the territory of Ukraine was inhabited by primitive tribes: Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Pithecanthropus...

Until recently, it was believed that people appeared on Ukrainian lands 150–200 thousand years ago. But relatively recent discoveries by archaeologists have “pushed back” the settlement boundary to an even more distant past. Throughout this time, cultures replaced each other, which we know about only from the finds of archaeologists and the results of their research. Who can we consider the most ancient ancestors of today's Ukrainians?

The most famous of the archaic cultures of Ukraine is Trypillian. Modern historical science dates the beginning of the Trypillian era in Ukraine to the 3rd–4th millennium BC. This culture was pan-European: in addition to Ukraine, Trypillians mastered vast areas in Eastern Europe. Their settlements were found in Slovakia, Romania, and on the Balkan Peninsula. The Trypillian dwellings were larger than modern peasant houses: 4–5 m wide and up to 20 m long. Sometimes there were two- and three-story buildings that could accommodate up to 50 people. They were located in a circle, in the middle of which a large area was formed, which could serve as a corral for livestock or a place for public meetings. The size of Trypillian settlements was impressive - up to a thousand buildings. The basis of the economy of this culture was agriculture (plowing) and cattle breeding. Trypillians were also skilled potters and even created their own writing system. Appearance The first inhabitants of Ukraine known to us resembled the appearance of the inhabitants of Asia Minor: a sloping forehead, an aquiline nose, an oblong, elongated face. They belonged to the so-called Bascoid type, as indeed did the overwhelming majority of the population of Europe and the Mediterranean during the Neolithic period. Some Ukrainian scientists consider the Trypillians to be the ethnic ancestors of Ukrainians. For example, academician Alexei Sobolevsky identified them with the Pelasgians - the ancestors of the Cimmerians and Scythians. But most researchers still prefer to look for the roots of the Ukrainian people in later times, because it is almost impossible to prove the genetic connection of Trypillian culture with the people of modern Ukraine.

The second culture often mentioned among the possible ancestors of modern Ukrainians is the Cimmerians, who were later supplanted by the Scythians. It is interesting that it was difficult for even Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC, to find differences between these two cultures. e. Describing the war of the Scythians with the Cimmerian kings, he is inclined to think that it was not a war between different states, but an ordinary civil strife. The Cimmerian mounds are almost no different from the Scythian ones; the commonality of anthropological types, cultural features and everyday life indicate ethnic heredity. Moreover, the images of the Scythians and Cimmerians on ceramic dishes are very similar.

The Scythians were first mentioned in Assyrian sources in the 7th century BC. e. This warlike people came from Asia Minor, settled in the Black Sea region, conquering local tribes along the way, and founded a powerful state, which in its heyday extended from the Ukrainian steppes to the Urals. Having mixed with the Thracians who lived west of the Dniester, the Scythians became the ancestors of modern Bukovinians, Hutsuls and Boykos. The Scythians lived in thatched houses with clay floors and stoves, and had utility pit cellars to store food supplies. They raised domestic animals: mainly cows, sheep, and horses. From about the 5th century BC. e. Large Scythian settlements appeared in the Dnieper and Bug regions, fortified with earthen ramparts 10–12 m high. The Scythian aristocracy lived in the upper part of the cities. There were stone houses with clay ovens built on wooden frames. The acropolis itself was often fenced off from the lower city by a stone wall. In the lower part of the settlement there were craft quarters with huts with 2–3 rooms, ovens and altars. Nearby there were dugout workshops or barns for storing grain. The most famous Scythian settlements in Ukraine are Sharpinskoye and Pastyrskoye in the Kherson region, Nemirovskoye in Podolia, Motroninskoye in the Kyiv region. It is interesting that the Scythian settlements were much larger in size than many princely settlements of the times of Kievan Rus.

In the time of Herodotus, Scythia was multinational state. The Kalipids, Alazons, Scythian plowmen, Scythian nomads, and royal Scythians coexisted here peacefully. However, many historians consider the last three ethnic groups to be different social layers of a single Scythian culture. If we know relatively little about the Trypillians, then the Scythians can rightfully be called proto-Ukrainians. This is confirmed by the fact that large Scythian settlements are located mainly within Ukraine. By the way, Ukrainians adopted the custom of greeting guests with bread and salt from the Scythians. And the traditional Ukrainian costume retains “memories” of Scythian times: clothes embroidered on the shoulders and chest, trousers, a pointed hood, from which the shape of the Cossack hat developed much later. There was a lot in common in the language. For example, in Scythian, as in Ukrainian, there was no sound “f” (in modern Ukrainian, almost all words that have the sound “f” are of foreign origin).

To the east of the Scythian possessions (Azov region, Volga region, Southern Urals region) lived the pastoral tribes of the Sarmatians. The monuments of the Sarmatian culture have many common features with the Scythian ones: similar ornaments on pottery, cast bronze cauldrons, which may have played the role of ritual utensils, bronze mirrors, clay incense burners, stone plates that were used to kindle the sacrificial fire. It is interesting that, according to Herodotus, the Sarmatians descended from the marriage of the Scythians with the Amazons. By the way, the name “Sarmatians” or “Sauromatians” was well known to the Ukrainians, and in the Cossack chronicles there are curious expressions: “our Cossack-Sarmatian ancestors”, “prince of the Sarmatians and hetman of the entire Zaporozhye army”... Perhaps these expressions appeared as a tribute to the dominant at that time, the historical hypothesis about the common origin of Ukrainians and Poles from a single Sarmatian root.

Another ethnic group from which the Ukrainian nation is believed to have originated were the Antes. They used old Scythian settlements located in the Dnieper region and inherited parts of the Scythian-Sarmatian culture. Linguists claim that the Ants spoke a language close to spoken language Kievan Rus. This version is also confirmed by the names of the Ants preserved in the chronicles - Bozh, Mezhamir, Khvilibud, Dobrogast.

Polovtsian tribes lived in the eastern steppes of Ukraine in the 11th–13th centuries. Some of them went into the service of the Russian princes. Even today you can see in the steppe monuments of Polovtsian culture - stone women. Although ancient Russian chronicles describe the Polovtsians as “filthy,” the very fact of the possibility of concluding temporary alliances with them suggests that this people also contributed to the formation of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

This is a short list (perhaps far from complete) of those tribes and nationalities that left their mark on Ukrainian soil and can be considered the ancestors of today's Ukrainians.

Since we are talking about the Ukrainian people, it is necessary to say at least a few words about their name and, in fact, the name of the country. Ukrainian researcher Sergei Shelukhin believes that the origin of the word “Ukraine” goes back centuries. It was first mentioned in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1187 in a rather sad context - the story of the death of the Pereyaslavl prince Vladimir Glebovich, the defender of the Ukrainian lands from the attacks of the Polovtsians. In the text of the chronicle, “Ukraine” refers to the Kiev region, Chernigov region and Pereyaslav region. In the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, “Ukraine” is already the northwestern lands of Galicia and Volyn. In subsequent years, the word “Ukraine” was understood in different ways: sometimes as the border lands of Kievan Rus, sometimes as the outskirts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Etymologically, it goes back to the Old Slavonic root “kra”, which had the meaning “to cut”. From this root came the Slovenian “krajat” and the Czech “krajetі”, as well as the Ukrainian words “edge” (cut), “okraєts”, etc. Thus, Ukraine is a “separate, cut-off land.” Or – “outskirts, close to the edge.” One small clarification needs to be made here. The word “outskirts” once did not have the negative connotation of meaning that is attached to it now. At the time of the formation of the Ukrainian ethnic group, a stable opposition between the center and the outskirts had not yet developed. First of all, because life in the central and outlying areas was practically no different. The only significant difference was the relative security of the center. At the same time, people settled on the border lands, as they say, not timidly - after all, they could be attacked by their neighbors at any moment. The outskirts of the early Middle Ages were not a backwater, but a battle line. It is no coincidence that the settlers of such areas were provided with certain benefits. The word “Ukrainians” – a derivative of “Ukraine” – denoted the inhabitants of the corresponding territory. Now it is difficult to establish the truth, but, most likely, these people had a number of qualities that allowed them to survive in conditions of constant combat readiness. This interpretation is supported by good fame Ukrainian mercenary fighters, who were willingly accepted into the army by the rulers of many countries.

Most peoples have a whole set of typical traits that they use to characterize their neighbors. These stereotypes are extremely tenacious: if an Irishman means he has red hair; if the Englishman is pale, thin and prim. It is much more difficult to draw a portrait of a “classical” Ukrainian (unless we are talking about the Zaporozhye Cossacks, who are quite colorful figures). Ukrainian women are luckier: their beauty is glorified in a number of poems and songs. Black eyebrows, brown eyes and cherry lips are typical features of a classic Ukrainian beauty. But how close is this portrait to the original? And is it even possible to talk about some typically Ukrainian features?

Anthropologists have made a significant contribution to establishing the origins of Ukrainians. The first anthropological descriptions of Ukrainians were made in 1779 by Fyodor Tumansky and in 1786 by Afanasy Shafonsky in the book “Chernigov governorship topographical description.” Both authors drew attention to the anthropological heterogeneity of the composition of Ukrainians, which, by the way, has survived to this day. According to modern researchers, in Ukraine there are as many as seven anthropological types that have retained kinship with the cultures that gave birth to them.

The first type is Danube. The descendants of the carriers of the cord ceramic cultures of Southern Poland, Western Ukraine and Podolia belong to it. The Danube anthropological type predominates in flat Galicia, western Podolia (except for the northern regions of Lviv and Ternopil regions) and accounts for more than 10% of the total population of Ukraine. Representatives of this type have a long, relatively narrow face with a long, straight and thin nose.

In Zhitomirgtsin, Rovengtsin and Volyn the Polesie type (Polegtsuks) is common. Features of this type are a very low and wide face, a maximally developed eyebrow, and a massive forehead. Polegtsuks are of average height, their hair is lighter than that of residents of other regions, and their eyes, on the contrary, are darker. Interestingly, this type has not been recorded in any area of Europe except Ukraine.

The Verkhnedneprovsky type is the rarest in Ukraine. It is found only in the Ripkinsky district of the Chernigov region. Its main distinguishing feature is the very light pigmentation of its eyes.

Central Ukrainian type - descendants of the Slavs who settled in the lands of the Poltava and Kiev regions. They are tall, but other anthropological indicators - face, pigmentation of hair and eyes, height of the bridge of the nose - are average. Despite the Mongol-Tatar invasion, representatives of this type retained Caucasian features. This is perhaps the largest group - up to 60% of Ukrainians.

Representatives of the Lower Dnieper-Prut type retained the features of their ancestors - the Indo-Iranians. These are tall, dark-skinned people with dark eyes and hair. Its most prominent representatives live in the village of Kamenoye, Lebedinsky district.

In the Carpathians and Bukovina, there are two more anthropological types of Ukrainians – Dinaric and Carpathian. The Dinaric type has significant Thracian, Celtic and Indian components. Their hair is mostly dark, and their eyes can be either light or dark. The Carpathian type has a genetic connection with the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, the Caucasus and Northern India.

It must be said that Ukraine is heterogeneous not only from the point of view of anthropologists. Back in the 19th century, an idea was formed about several ethnographic regions of Ukraine, which differed from each other in their way of life, traditions, and methods of management. These are Podolia, Pokuttya, Galicia, Transcarpathia, Slobozhanshchyna, Volyn, Siverschyna. IN Lately Ukraine is usually divided into six historical and ethnographic zones: Polesie, Carpathians, Podolia, Middle Dnieper, Slobozhanshchina, South. Each of these zones has its own characteristic features: types of buildings, features of costume, traditional crafts. Recently, these differences are gradually disappearing, but even in the century before and at the beginning of the last century, one could understand from one glance at a visitor where he came from.

The variety of traditions, anthropological types of Ukrainians and the long list of peoples living on Ukrainian lands are so great that it would seem difficult to create any coherent concept of the origin of the Ukrainian nation. However, such concepts still exist.

It must be said that the question of the origin of Ukrainians often depended on the political views of the authors of a particular concept. For example, the outstanding Russian historian M. Pogodin, who took the position of Slavophilism, believed that after the collapse of Kievan Rus, the population of the Dnieper region moved to the territory of Central Russia and eventually formed the Moscow State. The Little Russians came to the Dnieper region from Volyn only in the 14th–15th centuries, so Russia is the true heir to the culture of Kievan Rus. In turn, M. Grushevsky, the author of “The History of Ukraine - Rus',” believed that the Russian people had nothing to do with Kievan Rus, since it was a Ukrainian power.

In Soviet times, the most widespread was the compromise concept of the Old Russian nationality, which subsequently split into three East Slavic peoples - Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian. However, this concept did not suit everyone. For example, the famous Ukrainian historian, Professor S. Kulchitsky pointed out that “... the five East Slavic tribal unions that formed Kievan Rus could not, in the short time of existence of this rather fragile early feudal public education merge into one nation. Obviously, the differences between the three modern peoples originate in the differences between the tribal unions that existed from the first centuries of our era.

As for the main question of this article - who can be considered the first Ukrainians? – there is still no consensus among scientists here. The authoritative historian and publicist I. Lysyak-Rudnitsky calls the Antes the ancestors of the Ukrainian ethnic group. M. Grushevsky also adhered to the same point of view. He believed that Ukrainian (more precisely, Ukrainian-Russian) culture arose in the 4th–6th centuries. It was this culture that became the ancestor of Kievan Rus, and after its collapse - the Galician-Volyn culture. The Great Russians formed a completely different state - Vladimir-Moscow. By the way, after lengthy discussions, even some Russian scientists recognized the “early medieval” version of the origin of the Ukrainian-Russians as correct.

As for the version about the origin of Ukrainians from Trypillian culture, many historians openly call it “romantic-fantastic.” The fact is that the Trypillian culture initially arose on the territory of Romania, and this happened about 7.5 thousand years ago. Only much later did carriers of this culture appear on the lands of Right Bank Ukraine. Of course, it is tempting to declare oneself the most ancient people in the world, but the question arises: why, in fact, are the Trypillians Ukrainians, and not ancient Romanians?

This hypothesis is based on real facts, but gives them a completely absurd interpretation, most clearly manifested in the concept of Yu. Shilov. In his opinion, there once existed a powerful Trypillian state of Aratta - the oldest in the world. It was the cradle of all ancient civilizations - Sumer, Egypt, China - as well as three Slavic peoples: Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian. After the collapse of this superpower, which was allegedly caused by its neighbors - Jews, Greeks and Latins - part of the Trypillians went into the swamps of Polesie and gave rise to the Belarusian people. The second part settled on the current Ukrainian lands, and the third - the most active (Russians) - boarded ships and went to Asia Minor, where they founded the legendary Troy. Further more. It turns out that Odysseus, according to Yu. Shilov, was from Odessa, and the word “Etruscans” meant “these are Russians.” After being expelled from the Apennine Peninsula, “these Russians” moved to Scandinavia, became famous there under the guise of the Normans, and then returned to their native Tripoli and founded the state of Rus' there. Now the descendants of the Trypillians face an epoch-making task: to unite again and revive Aratta. In terms of ideological content, this version is close to the already mentioned version of the existence of three fraternal peoples that grew out of the ancient Russian nationality. But her argument clearly falls into the realm of “non-science fiction.”

Edmund Burke, an 18th-century English thinker and politician, once said that “history is a union between the dead, the living and the unborn.” For this union to exist, it is necessary to remember its origins. And don’t look for others – even if they look more attractive. After all, people exist only when they remember who they are, where they come from and, most importantly, where they are going...

Coloradan males are hanging; at that time they were still embarrassed to kill females; it was believed that they could be cured of Muscovophilia by occupational therapy in soldiers’ brothels.

How were unreliable Russians distinguished from Ukrainians who willingly went to the front to kill the damned Muscovites? The problem was solved simply: lists of “Colorados” were compiled based on denunciations Ukrainians and Poles. Amazing collisions arose: members of the same family sometimes found themselves on opposite sides of the barbed wire because one brother was Ukrainian, and the other was Russian.

I repeat again and again: Ukrainian is not a nationality, it is the result of zombification. The example of Crimea, by the way, clearly demonstrates this. In 2001 According to the results of the all-Ukrainian census of 2001, 24.4% of the population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea identified themselves as Ukrainians. Presumably, over the next 14 years their numbers should have increased.

And for six months now we have been “our Crimean”: you won’t find a Ukrainian during the day. They seem to have nothing to be ashamed of, since the Ukrainian language is an equal state language in Crimea. Where have the HALF A MILLION (!!!) Crimean Ukrainians gone? Yes, they haven’t gone anywhere, they just changed their minds about being Ukrainians, it has become unfashionable and unprofitable.

The reunification of Ukraine with Russia is a myth. Well, or, as they say now, a fake. Firstly, because no Ukraine existed then. The toponym “Ukraine” itself appeared later, and in the West. In Russia it became known only in the 19th century. Previously border territories were called Ukraine, be it in the Caucasus, in the Arctic or in Siberia. The Ukrainian cities mentioned in the chronicles are not Ukrainian at all, but border cities, bordering cities, standing on the edge.

Ukrainians were bred as a species to destroy Russians. The cultural matrix of the Ukrainian is based on this.

Ukrainianness is a brain virus, an infection, striking the consciousness of Russians. There was a Russian who caught the infection and became a zombie, ready to “burn out the Russians all the way to the Pacific Ocean.” The Liberastia virus works in exactly the same way. Any Russian person infected with liberalism turns into a zombie, fanatically destroying his own country. If you don’t know what the word “perestroika” means, at least check out Wikipedia.

Crimean Tatars(Kyrymly) after the Anschluss for some reason did not rush to enroll their children in classes with Russian language training. This is because the Crimean Tatars are a real ethnic group, and they see no point in giving up their nationality. Russians are not upset about this at all.

Ukrainianness is schizophrenia of consciousness, when a person who is Russian by culture, due to a voluntary choice, and more often under the influence of targeted propaganda, becomes a Svidomite and begins hate everything Russian. Yes, modern Banderaites are Russians. Russians are killing Russians in Donbass. Russians burned Russians in Odessa. Russian zombies are jumping on the Maidan (and now everywhere) and shouting “Moskalyak to Gilyak!” Ukrainian is a zombie, a man completely screwed up.

It is impossible to rationally explain the behavior of a Ukrainian, who writes a denunciation against his brother, dooming him to death in Talergof only because he did not renounce his faith and nationality.
It is impossible to rationally explain why Ukrainians, who wanted to see their country a member of the EU, destroyed Lukoil gas stations owned by Austrians in Kyiv.
And it’s absolutely impossible to understand why Ukrainians are “liberating” Ukrainian land by turning it into ruins and destroying the population that they consider Ukrainian. The behavior of schizophrenics cannot be explained logically.

Anyone who claims that the Russian and Ukrainian people will live in friendship is an idiot. Look how friendly Ukrainians live with each other today and think about why you need such friends? Great happiness - Ukrainians themselves are destroying Ukraine. The collapse of the Ukrainian statehood - stake in the chest ukrozombie.

Oath of the Ukrainian - I, Dzygovbrodsky Dmitry Alexandrovich, I swear...

Title page of “History of Ukraine” by M. Grushevsky

Determining the historical past of the Ukrainian people is associated with a huge number of problems. Perhaps the most important of them is who should be considered ancestors? What principle should be followed - territorial, linguistic or cultural? Or perhaps all three components need to be taken into account? Among researchers, there are two main views on the origin of peoples: autochthonism and migrationism. Autochthonists believe that, despite migrations, merging or mixing of tribes, each people maintains a continuous connection with the ancient inhabitants of their land. Migrationists argue that constant migrations play the main role in the process of the emergence of peoples. Perhaps if both of these factors are taken into account, the picture will become more accurate.

The most famous of the archaic cultures of Ukraine is Trypillian. Modern historical science dates the beginning of the Trypillian era in Ukraine to the 3rd–4th millennium BC. This culture was pan-European: in addition to Ukraine, Trypillians mastered vast areas in Eastern Europe. Their settlements were found in Slovakia, Romania, and on the Balkan Peninsula. The Trypillian dwellings were larger than modern peasant houses: 4–5 m wide and up to 20 m long. Sometimes there were two- and three-story buildings that could accommodate up to 50 people. They were located in a circle, in the middle of which a large area was formed, which could serve as a corral for livestock or a place for public meetings. The size of Trypillian settlements was impressive - up to a thousand buildings. The basis of the economy of this culture was agriculture (plowing) and cattle breeding. Trypillians were also skilled potters and even created their own writing system. The appearance of the first inhabitants of Ukraine known to us resembled the appearance of the inhabitants of Asia Minor: a sloping forehead, an aquiline nose, an oblong, elongated face. They belonged to the so-called Bascoid type, as indeed did the overwhelming majority of the population of Europe and the Mediterranean during the Neolithic period. Some Ukrainian scientists consider the Trypillians to be the ethnic ancestors of Ukrainians. For example, academician Alexei Sobolevsky identified them with the Pelasgians - the ancestors of the Cimmerians and Scythians. But most researchers still prefer to look for the roots of the Ukrainian people in later times, because it is almost impossible to prove the genetic connection of Trypillian culture with the people of modern Ukraine.

At the time of Herodotus, Scythia was a multinational state. The Kalipids, Alazons, Scythian plowmen, Scythian nomads, and royal Scythians coexisted here peacefully. However, many historians consider the last three ethnic groups to be different social layers of a single Scythian culture. If we know relatively little about the Trypillians, then the Scythians can rightfully be called proto-Ukrainians. This is confirmed by the fact that large Scythian settlements are located mainly within Ukraine. By the way, Ukrainians adopted the custom of greeting guests with bread and salt from the Scythians. And the traditional Ukrainian costume retains “memories” of Scythian times: clothes embroidered on the shoulders and chest, trousers, a pointed hood, from which the shape of the Cossack hat developed much later. There was a lot in common in the language. For example, in Scythian, as in Ukrainian, there was no sound “f” (in modern Ukrainian, almost all words that have the sound “f” are of foreign origin).

Another ethnic group from which the Ukrainian nation is believed to have originated were the Antes. They used old Scythian settlements located in the Dnieper region and inherited parts of the Scythian-Sarmatian culture. Linguists claim that the Antes spoke a language close to the spoken language of Kievan Rus. This version is also confirmed by the names of the Antes preserved in the chronicles - Bozh, Mezhamir, Khvilibud, Dobrogast.

Polovtsian tribes lived in the eastern steppes of Ukraine in the 11th–13th centuries. Some of them went into the service of the Russian princes. Even today you can see monuments of Polovtsian culture in the steppe - stone women. Although ancient Russian chronicles describe the Polovtsians as “filthy,” the very fact of the possibility of concluding temporary alliances with them suggests that this people also contributed to the formation of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

This is a short list (perhaps far from complete) of those tribes and nationalities that left their mark on Ukrainian soil and can be considered the ancestors of today's Ukrainians.

Since we are talking about the Ukrainian people, it is necessary to say at least a few words about their name and, in fact, the name of the country. Ukrainian researcher Sergei Shelukhin believes that the origin of the word “Ukraine” goes back centuries. It was first mentioned in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1187 in a rather sad context - the story of the death of the Pereyaslavl prince Vladimir Glebovich, the defender of the Ukrainian lands from the attacks of the Polovtsians. In the text of the chronicle, “Ukraine” refers to the Kiev region, Chernigov region and Pereyaslav region. In the Galician-Volyn Chronicle, “Ukraine” is already the northwestern lands of Galicia and Volyn. In subsequent years, the word “Ukraine” was understood in different ways: sometimes as the border lands of Kievan Rus, sometimes as the outskirts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Etymologically, it goes back to the Old Slavonic root “kra”, which had the meaning “to cut”. From this root came the Slovenian “krajat” and the Czech “krajetі”, as well as the Ukrainian words “edge” (cut), “okrajet”, etc. Thus, Ukraine is a “separate, cut-off land.” Or - “outskirts, close to the edge.” One small clarification needs to be made here. The word “outskirts” once did not have the negative connotation of meaning that is attached to it now. At the time of the formation of the Ukrainian ethnic group, a stable opposition between the center and the outskirts had not yet developed. First of all, because life in the central and outlying areas was practically no different. The only significant difference was the relative security of the center. At the same time, people settled on the border lands, as they say, not timidly - after all, they could be attacked by their neighbors at any moment. The outskirts of the early Middle Ages were not a backwater, but a battle line. It is no coincidence that the settlers of such areas were provided with certain benefits. The word “Ukrainians” - a derivative of “Ukraine” - meant the inhabitants of the corresponding territory. Now it is difficult to establish the truth, but, most likely, these people had a number of qualities that allowed them to survive in conditions of constant combat readiness. This interpretation is supported by the good reputation of Ukrainian mercenary fighters, who were willingly accepted into the army by the rulers of many countries.

Most peoples have a whole set of typical traits that they use to characterize their neighbors. These stereotypes are extremely tenacious: if an Irishman means he has red hair; if an Englishman is pale, thin and prim. It is much more difficult to draw a portrait of a “classical” Ukrainian (unless we are talking about the Zaporozhye Cossacks - quite colorful figures). Ukrainian women are luckier: their beauty is glorified in a number of poems and songs. Black eyebrows, brown eyes and cherry lips are typical features of a classic Ukrainian beauty. But how close is this portrait to the original? And is it even possible to talk about some typically Ukrainian features?

The Verkhnedneprovsky type is the rarest in Ukraine. It is found only in the Ripkinsky district of the Chernigov region. Its main distinguishing feature is the very light pigmentation of its eyes.

In the Carpathians and Bukovina, there are two more anthropological types of Ukrainians - Dinaric and Carpathian. The Dinaric type has significant Thracian, Celtic and Indian components. Their hair is mostly dark, and their eyes can be either light or dark. The Carpathian type has a genetic connection with the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, the Caucasus and Northern India.

It must be said that Ukraine is heterogeneous not only from the point of view of anthropologists. Back in the 19th century, an idea was formed about several ethnographic regions of Ukraine, which differed from each other in their way of life, traditions, and methods of management. These are Podolia, Pokuttya, Galicia, Transcarpathia, Slobozhanshchyna, Volyn, Siverschyna. Recently, Ukraine has been divided into six historical and ethnographic zones: Polesie, Carpathians, Podolia, Middle Dnieper, Slobozhanshchina, South. Each of these zones has its own characteristic features: types of buildings, features of costume, traditional crafts. Recently, these differences are gradually disappearing, but even in the century before and at the beginning of the last century, one could understand from one glance at a visitor where he came from.

It must be said that the question of the origin of Ukrainians often depended on the political views of the authors of a particular concept. For example, the outstanding Russian historian M. Pogodin, who took the position of Slavophilism, believed that after the collapse of Kievan Rus, the population of the Dnieper region moved to the territory of Central Russia and eventually formed the Moscow State. The Little Russians came to the Dnieper region from Volyn only in the 14th–15th centuries, so Russia is the true heir to the culture of Kievan Rus. In turn, M. Grushevsky, the author of “The History of Ukraine - Rus,” believed that the Russian people had nothing to do with Kievan Rus, since it was a Ukrainian power.

In Soviet times, the most widespread was the compromise concept of the Old Russian nationality, which subsequently split into three East Slavic peoples - Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian. However, this concept did not suit everyone. For example, the famous Ukrainian historian, Professor S. Kulchitsky pointed out that “... the five East Slavic tribal unions that formed Kievan Rus could not, in the short time of existence of this rather fragile early feudal state formation, merge into one nationality. Obviously, the differences between the three modern peoples originate in the differences between the tribal unions that existed from the first centuries of our era.

As for the main question of this article - who can be considered the first Ukrainians? - there is still no consensus among scientists here. The authoritative historian and publicist I. Lysyak-Rudnitsky calls the Antes the ancestors of the Ukrainian ethnic group. M. Grushevsky also adhered to the same point of view. He believed that Ukrainian (more precisely, Ukrainian-Russian) culture arose in the 4th–6th centuries. It was this culture that became the ancestor of Kievan Rus, and after its collapse - the Galician-Volyn culture. The Great Russians formed a completely different state - Vladimir-Moscow. By the way, after lengthy discussions, even some Russian scientists recognized the “early medieval” version of the origin of the Ukrainian-Russians as correct.