Understanding Putin- Ukraine

[Ken]

The USSR was more or less the successor to the Imperial Russian Empire and contained many different nations. It was in no way a unitary nation-state. The fact that without exception all these different nations wanted to leave in the 1990s should tell you this.

Is America a unitary nation-state?

Or did it have a nation that wanted to leave in the 1860s?

America is not a unitary Nation-State. You need to educate yourself as to what that term means. Japan would be considered a nation state. The former USSR or current USA are not. They would be considered multi-national states. And the USSR was more of a confederation or empire depending on whether you viewed the separate republics as equals or subordinate to Russia.

[Josh]

America is a country where:

- The federal government asserts its authority to regulate every manner of affairs of people right down to whether or not and how they can slaughter meat or milk cows. A slaughterhouse has to pay for and provide an office for a federal government agent to inspect them.

- States that attempted to leave and become independent were invaded, subjugated and forced to rejoin (much as Russia is doing to the Ukraine.)

That sounds like a “nation state” to me. I suppose you could also say “federal republic”, but that is just quibbling about minutiae at this point.

[barnhart]

It seems there is evidence that Ukrainian society (,Kiev) predates the earliest Russian cities. Maybe Russia is a breakaway province of Ukraine.

[Josh]

It seems there is evidence that Ukrainian society (,Kiev) predates the earliest Russian cities. Maybe Russia is a breakaway province of Ukraine.

As I stated earlier, the Kievan Rus has constituted part of the Russian Empire or Tsardom since before mediæval times. Ukraine as an independent state, independent of the rest of the “Rus”, didn’t exist in that form in any meaningful way before 1990.

The areas being fought over include where Mennonites used to live. They were invited to settle unoccupied lands, and then became known as “Russian Mennonites”. Later the Bolshevik Communists forced basically all of the Mennonites out.

[Ernie]

August 24th, 1991 Ukraine got its independence, Russia got its independence in December of 1991, so Ukraine “modernly speaking" is 4 months older than Russia.

[MaxPC]

You have to carefully read this when you have time- A Scottish Orthodox Priest posted it.

UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA

Back to the OP of an apologetic written to justify Kirill's support of Putin: the latest news is that the Russian Orthodox clergy are sharply divided on Kirill's unstinting support of Putin. Likely this Scottish Orthodox priest was also producing this as a PR piece to convince any dissidents in the ranks.

[Valerie]

You have to carefully read this when you have time- A Scottish Orthodox Priest posted it.

UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA

Back to the OP of an apologetic written to justify Kirill's support of Putin: the latest news is that the Russian Orthodox clergy are sharply divided on Kirill's unstinting support of Putin. Likely this Scottish Orthodox priest was also producing this as a PR piece to convince any dissidents in the ranks.

In other words, you don't believe him in his reasons and understanding of this? By the way he is not the only one that sees it that way I just posted his long explanation because of how some do see it. The rest of us are speculating

[Neto]

It seems there is evidence that Ukrainian society (,Kiev) predates the earliest Russian cities. Maybe Russia is a breakaway province of Ukraine.

As I stated earlier, the Kievan Rus has constituted part of the Russian Empire or Tsardom since before mediæval times.

Sorry to butt in here, but this is not true. The Russian Empire took over what is now Ukraine only in the late 1700's. (in the 1790's, as I recall. This took place during the reign of Katherine "the Great", who married into the Russian dynasty in the mid 1700's (1746 or so?). (Unless the medieval age includes that period - not something I have a good handle on.)

Also, the Kivian Rus did not include any where near all of what is now Russia; as I recall, it only included a bit of what is now western Russia, and no where near the area where Moscow is located. (If this is important to the discussion or not, I don't know. Just a point of fact.)

[MaxPC]

You have to carefully read this when you have time- A Scottish Orthodox Priest posted it.

UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA

Back to the OP of an apologetic written to justify Kirill's support of Putin: the latest news is that the Russian Orthodox clergy are sharply divided on Kirill's unstinting support of Putin. Likely this Scottish Orthodox priest was also producing this as a PR piece to convince any dissidents in the ranks.

In other words, you don't believe him in his reasons and understanding of this? By the way he is not the only one that sees it that way I just posted his long explanation because of how some do see it. The rest of us are speculating

I think the Scottish priest may believe it. Or perhaps he sees it as a means of climbing the ranks by currying favor with Kirill/Putin. I feel it is important to understand motivations for such behaviors. These behaviors have been seen before whenever PR is needed for damage control, especially when rationalisations are needed for aggression and war such as that being committed by Putin.

[Josh]

Sorry to butt in here, but this is not true. The Russian Empire took over what is now Ukraine only in the late 1700's. (in the 1790's, as I recall. This took place during the reign of Katherine "the Great", who married into the Russian dynasty in the mid 1700's (1746 or so?). (Unless the medieval age includes that period - not something I have a good handle on.)

Territory was extremely different during the medieval age (and for much of it what is now called the Ukraine was uninhabited), but there were times when the same kingdom in charge of what is now Russia was also in charge of Ukraine. Moscow barely existed that long ago.

But in any case, Ukraine has been part of Russia for about as long as America has existed. Claiming that it is not is analogous to claiming Texas isn't really part of America and should be a sovereign republic.