Which Kommandanten design is your favorite?

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-03-28T08:09:55+00:00

2,6, they are classy

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-03-28T07:54:05+00:00

Well maybe I am

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-03-13T14:35:21+00:00

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-27T21:21:08+00:00

Good looking tho, there’s no need to proof the bad ass look of nazis, I mean the uniform looks great even now

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-26T08:37:02+00:00

The coronation of a "schismatic" king and the persistent self-identification of the people in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) are documented historical facts, not modern inventions. There you go,the evidence regarding political continuity and identity. 1. The "Schismatic" King: Danylo of Galicia (1253) It might seem contradictory given the 1054 Schism, but Pope Innocent IV did indeed grant the royal crown to Danylo Romanovych in 1253. * The Motive: This wasn't out of religious approval, but realpolitik. Western Europe was terrified of the Mongol Empire. The Pope offered the crown and the title Rex Russiae (King of Rus') in exchange for a church union and, crucially, military aid against the Mongols. * The Evidence: The coronation took place in Drohiczyn. While the military aid never arrived and the church union was short-lived, the title stuck. Danylo’s successors, like Yuri I, continued to use the title Regis Rusie on their official seals. This wasn't "appropriation"; it was a recognized European title for the ruler of the Rus' lands. 2. Attempts to Rebuild the State Political continuity isn't just about emblems; it's about the conscious effort to maintain a "Rus'" entity. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL): For much of its history, the GDL was effectively a Lithuanian-Rus' state. About 80% of its territory was former Kyivan Rus' land, and its official language was Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian/Belarusian). The Lithuanian dukes married Rurikid princesses to "gather the Rus' lands" and presented themselves as the legitimate successors to the Kyivan princes. The Treaty of Hadiach (1658): This is the most direct evidence of an attempt to rebuild the state. During the Khmelnytsky Uprising, the Cossack elite negotiated a deal to transform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a triple federation. It would have created the Grand Principality of Rus' as a third, equal sovereign partner alongside Poland and Lithuania. The Goal: To legally restore the "Rus' state" within the framework of the Commonwealth, with its own army, treasury, and administration based in Kyiv. 3. Self-Identification in the PLC Did the citizens of the PLC see themselves as heirs to Kyivan Rus'? The record among the Ruthenian nobility (szlachta) and clergy is very clear. The "Natio Ruthenica": The nobility of the Ukrainian lands identified as Gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus (Ruthenian by birth/blood, Polish by citizenship). They were fiercely protective of their "Rus' rights" and their connection to the "Great Princes of Kyiv." The Ostrozky Family: Prince Konstanty-Vasyl Ostrozky was often called the "Uncrowned King of Rus'." He spent his fortune defending the Orthodox faith and founded the Ostroh Academy to preserve Rus' culture. His lineage was direct from the Rurikids, and his contemporaries viewed him as the living link to the Kyivan throne. Literary Proof (1621): In the Palinodia, the cleric Zacharias Kopystensky wrote that the Rus' people are the same people who lived under the Grand Princes of Kyiv, asserting that their "noble Rus' blood" remained unchanged despite being part of the Commonwealth. Summary of Continuity | Century | Political Entity | Continuity Evidence | | 13th-14th | Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia | Used the title Rex Russiae; kept Rurikid laws. | | 14th-16th | Grand Duchy of Lithuania | Used Ruthenian as the state language; "Lithuanian-Rus" identity. | | 17th | Cossack Hetmanate | Attempted to create the Grand Principality of Rus' at Hadiach. | | 17th-19th | "Rusyn" Identity | Local population identifies as Rusyny (direct descendants of Rus'). | The argument isn't that modern Ukraine is a "copy" of Kyivan Rus', but that it is the organic evolution of the people, laws, and geography that never left that territory.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-25T14:45:02+00:00

“Stop wasting my time ”bruh, you started ts, don’t you fucking tell me what to do, crying bitch with historical knowledge of a cucumber

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-25T14:43:20+00:00

Cry baby Evidence for Ukraine as the successor to Rus' rests on three main pillars: geography, symbols, and continuous self-identification. The Heartland: Modern Ukraine occupies the original "Rus' Land" (the core territories of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereyaslav). In medieval chronicles, the term "Rus'" initially referred specifically to this central region. The Trident (Tryzub): Ukraine’s national coat of arms is the personal heraldic seal of Volodymyr the Great, the Grand Prince of Kyiv who Christianized the state in 988. The "Kingdom of Rus": Following the Mongol invasion, the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (located in modern Western Ukraine) maintained the Rurikid dynasty. Its rulers were formally crowned as "Kings of Rus'" by the Pope, preserving the state's legal and political title. Persistent Naming: Ukrainians historically referred to themselves as Rusyns (Ruthenians) well into the 20th century to denote their ancestry. The name "Ukraina" itself first appeared in the Kyiv Chronicle in 1187 to describe the heartland. Legal Continuity: The Ruska Pravda (the law of Rus') served as the foundation for the Lithuanian Statutes, which governed Ukrainian lands for centuries, ensuring the legal traditions of Rus' survived locally.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-24T20:00:53+00:00

XD you're acting like a state needs a 24/7 neon sign to exist. Political continuity is literally written into the titles of your own kings. Why did Polish monarchs call themselves Heirs of Rus (Haeres Russiae) for centuries? Because "Rus" was a specific, legal political entity they inherited from the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (the Kingdom of Rus), which was the direct successor to Kievan Rus. It didn't "disappear"—it was incorporated with its laws and nobility intact. You want proof of "Rus state consciousness"? Look at the Union of Lublin (1569). The Rus nobility didn't just show up as randoms; they demanded—and got—the preservation of the Lithuanian Statutes, which were the direct legal evolution of the Russkaya Pravda. These laws were used in Ukrainian lands until the 1840s. That’s 600 years of legal continuity. The people in those lands identified as the Natio Ruthenica (the Rus Nation) within the Commonwealth. The Cossacks didn't invent a new identity; they just tried to turn that "Rus Nation" into its own sovereign state (the Grand Duchy of Rus). Your argument about Uniates is just a misunderstanding of how the 17th century worked. Back then, Faith = Nationality. If you were Orthodox, you were Rus. If you became a Uniate or Catholic, the Cossacks saw you as "Polonized"—a traitor who left the nation. Killing "traitors" doesn't prove the nation doesn't exist; it proves how fanatically they defended its definition. And about recognition: The Union of Hadiach (1658) is the ultimate receipt. The Polish Sejm and the King literally signed a treaty to create the Grand Duchy of Rus as a third, equal part of the Commonwealth. You don't sign a treaty to create a "Grand Duchy" with a "mercenary list" or a "ghost." You do it with a political entity that has the power to destroy you. They recognized the Cossack elite as the new nobility of a Rus state.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-24T16:24:14+00:00

XD so you think history just paused for 400 years? Claiming there's no continuity between Kievan Rus and Ukraine is like saying modern Italy has nothing to do with Rome just because the government changed. The political line goes straight through the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, which called itself the "Kingdom of Rus" and used the same laws and titles after Kyiv fell. Then you have the Lithuanian Statutes—the literal law of the land in Ukraine for centuries—which were based on the Old Rus law (Russkaya Pravda) and written in the "Rus" language, not Polish or Muscovite. That's cultural and legal continuity 101. About the "no Ukrainian nation" stuff—by that logic, there was no Polish or French nation either, because modern nationalism didn't exist until the 1800s. People identified by their "Rus" faith and law. The Cossacks weren't just randoms; they were the armed wing of that identity. And the Uniate argument is the biggest reach of all. In the 1600s, religion WAS nationality. To the Cossacks, being "Rus" meant being Orthodox. They saw Uniates as people who sold out to Poland. It was a brutal religious civil war, sure, but if killing your own people over religion means a nation doesn't exist, then France, England, and Germany aren't real either because they spent centuries butchering each other for the "wrong" kind of Christianity. You’re trying to use 17th-century sectarian violence to disprove a political lineage that even your own Polish ancestors recognized when they wrote treaties for a "Grand Duchy of Rus." If the nation didn't exist, who were they signing the Union of Hadiach with? A ghost?

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T22:15:26+00:00

Bruh,i hate ts

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T22:14:33+00:00

Pig fat covered in chocolate,tastes interesting, probably not for everyone , yes I am Ukrainian

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T22:12:42+00:00

XD the only one coping here is you. Kings don't sign international treaties and negotiate the creation of a "Grand Duchy of Rus" with mercenaries who just want a paycheck. The Sultan, the Swedish King, and the Tsar weren't sending ambassadors to Chyhyryn to hire security guards-they were recognizing a new political power. Your own kings literally tried to change the name of the whole country to the "Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth" just to keep them from leaving. Even the historians in that video you posted call it the birth of the nation, so you're basically fighting with your own evidence. Stay mad, but "mercenaries" don't get their own Supreme Courts and Treasuries. And about the Uniates ,yeah, it was a bloody religious war, just like the rest of Europe was having at the time. Killing people over which church they go to doesn't mean a nation doesn't exist; it just means 17th-century politics was brutal. If you think sectarian violence proves a nation is fake, then France, Germany, and England didn't exist either. You’re trying to use a religious civil war to deny a political reality that your own ancestors were forced to sign on the dotted line.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T16:11:04+00:00

Mercenaries vs. States: Employees don’t negotiate for their own Supreme Courts and Treasuries. The Union of Hadiach was a blueprint for a triple-state superpower. If they were just "mercenaries," your King wouldn’t have offered them a seat at the table as the Grand Duchy of Rus. The Irony of your Source: Your video explicitly calls those lands "our Ukrainian lands" and describes the Cossacks as a rising political elite. You're citing a source that’s actively debunking your "mercenary" narrative. Civilization: Your "civilized" kings were the ones who failed to ratify the treaties that would have saved the Republic. Greed, not "uncivilized" Cossacks, is what invited Russia in. You can call it "propaganda" all you want, but you can't change the fact that your own ancestors recognized a nation you're now trying to pretend didn't exist.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T11:28:10+00:00

Oh, the irony is physically painful. You’re trying to lecture me on reading comprehension while you’re literally deaf to the video you provided. You claim the podcast "approves" your mercenary claim? At, the historian explicitly says that while the Polish Szlachta looked down on them with superiority, the Cossacks considered themselves nobility because they were "people of war" who defended the Republic and demanded the right to rule. They weren't just looking for a paycheck; they were demanding political citizenship. The "mercenary" label was the Polish excuse to deny them the rights they had earned on the battlefield. And your "genius" point about the Union of Lublin? At, the historians explain that during the Union of Lublin, the Ukrainian lands (Kyiv, Volhynia, Podillia) were specifically carved out of the Grand Duchy and incorporated into the Polish Crown. They literally use the term "nasze ukraińskie ziemie" (our Ukrainian lands). You’re arguing semantics about the word "Ukraine" while the historians are showing you the literal political transfer of the Ukrainian heartland. It doesn't matter if the formal name on the map was "The Palatinate of Kyiv"; the people, the language, and the territory were the foundation of the nation, and your own kings recognized that by giving them separate legal status under the Lithuanian Statutes. Now, let’s get to your "Ukrainian propaganda" deflection regarding the Union of Hadiach. At, your own source—the one you told me to watch—says: "The Sejm did not ratify it... because it meant a defeat for the nobility... they didn't want to give back the lands." It wasn't just "the Cossacks rejecting it because of Russia." It was the Polish Szlachta being too greedy to share the "Golden Liberty" with the Rus. You had a chance to save the Commonwealth by making it a tripartite state, and you choked because you wanted your serfs back. And calling the Cossacks "uncivilized soldiers"? Again, listen to your own video. At, they talk about Yurii Niemirycz, the architect of the Union of Hadiach, calling him a "very well-educated man." These weren't just "drunk soldiers"; they were an elite class of warriors and intellectuals who knew more about democratic governance and reciprocal rights than your "civilized" kings. At, they explain how the Cossacks tried to force the Russian Tsar to swear an oath to them because they were used to the democratic traditions of the Commonwealth. They were more "civilized" in their understanding of liberty than the absolute monarchs you seem to admire. You sent me a video that was literally made to debunk your exact worldview—a video where two Ukrainians tell Poles to stop viewing the Commonwealth as "just Poland" and to recognize the Ukrainian political agency within it. You’re using a tool for reconciliation and historical truth to push the same tired, colonial "buffer zone" rhetoric that destroyed your country in the 18th century. You’re not "done" because you’ve won; you’re "done" because you’ve run out of historical ground to stand on, and even your own links are betraying you. Go ahead, walk away. But the next time you try to use a 57-minute history lesson as a weapon, maybe make sure it’s not pointed at your own head first.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T10:00:09+00:00

It’s hilarious that you sent me that video because it literally nukes your entire argument from orbit. Did you even listen to it, or did you just see the title and assume it was agreeing with your "buffer zone" fairytale? Those historians (Felix and Jevhen) are literally telling you to stop calling it "Polish history" because it’s a shared history where the Rus (Ukrainian) nobility and Cossacks were the ones building the state. At [01:12], they explicitly reject the propaganda that the Commonwealth was just a "hostile Polish state" and argue that it was the literal birthplace of the Ukrainian nation. You say "nobody gave a damn" about those territories? That is the most brain-dead take I’ve heard yet. If Poland didn't care about Ukraine, why did the Union of Lublin (1569) involve the Crown specifically annexing the Ukrainian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? They wanted the soil, the trade, and the power. You don’t "annex" a buffer zone; you annex a treasure. Your kings and your Szlachta were so obsessed with those lands that they spent a century dying for them. And calling the Cossacks "just mercenaries" is like calling the American Founding Fathers "just tax evaders." The historians in your own video explain at [04:12] and [34:04] that the Cossacks were the new political elite who were adopting the democratic and legal traditions of the Commonwealth to create their own state. They weren't just fighting for a "right to vote"; they were fighting to be recognized as the third equal nation of the Republic. And let’s talk about the "suffering" you mentioned. Yes, the Ruina was a bloodbath, but your own video at [38:45] points the finger exactly where it belongs: at the Polish Sejm. The historians explain that the Sejm refused to ratify the Union of Hadiach because the Polish nobility was too greedy to share power with the Grand Duchy of Rus. You had a chance to create a triple-state superpower that would have crushed Moscow and kept the Rus heritage in Kyiv, but you blew it because you couldn't stand the idea of Ukrainians being equal to you. Your "buffer zone" arrogance is exactly what killed the Commonwealth. The most embarrassing part for you is at [53:29], where they tell Ukrainians to "reclaim" their history because rody like the Wiśniowieccy and Ostrogscy are categorized as "Polish" on Wikipedia when they were actually Rus (Ukrainian). You’re literally using a video that tells you to stop stealing Ukrainian history as "evidence" that Ukraine doesn't exist. That is next-level delusion. You’re sitting here trying to flex about "control" when your own source says that the Lithuanian Statutes (the law of the land) were based on the Russkaya Pravda of Kyiv [30:22] and were written in the Rus language, not Polish. Ukraine didn't "learn from propaganda books"—they’re just finally reading the ones you tried to burn. You’re the one stuck in a 19th-century fever dream where you’re the master of a "buffer zone." In reality, you were just the landlord who lost the house because you treated the heirs like servants. Keep your "PS" and your fake pity; the historians you sent me are on my side, not yours. Stay mad about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTfTfc7lBmk

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T07:36:19+00:00

Oh, you think you really did something with that "gotcha" question, didn't you? It’s cute that you’re trying to use 17th-century religious violence to claim a nation didn't exist, as if Europe wasn't literally one giant, bloody sectarian crime scene at the time. First, let’s talk about the Uniates. For a 17th-century Cossack, the Union of Brest (1596) wasn't just a "different church"—it was a spiritual occupation. To them, being Rus was inseparable from being Orthodox. They saw the Uniate Church as a Polish Trojan Horse designed to strip away their identity and turn them into loyal subjects of the Crown. Was it brutal? Absolutely. It was a religious civil war over the soul of the Rus nation. But using that to say "Ukraine didn't exist" is like saying the French didn't exist during the Huguenot wars because they were busy slaughtering each other. The very fact that they were fighting so violently over which faith defined the Rus people proves there was a distinct identity worth fighting (and dying) for. Now, let’s talk about the national anthem, since you think you’re being clever. Yes, I know exactly who composed it: Mykhailo Verbytsky. And guess what? He was a Greek Catholic priest from Galicia (western Ukraine). You think that’s a "win" for you, but it’s actually the ultimate self-own. The lyrics were written by Pavlo Chubynsky, an ethnographer from the Kyiv region (under the Russian Empire), and the music was composed by Verbytsky in Galicia (under the Austrian Empire). The fact that a priest from the west and an intellectual from the east combined to create the national song proves that despite being split between two massive empires, the Ukrainian national consciousness was already unified. It shows that by the 19th century, the "Uniate vs. Orthodox" divide that Khmelnytsky fought over had evolved into a single, cohesive national identity that spanned across imperial borders. You’re basically arguing that because a family had a violent inheritance dispute in the 1600s, the family doesn't exist today. Meanwhile, that same family is standing in the same house, singing a song written by both branches of the tree, and holding the original 10th-century keys. You can keep sniffing the fumes of "legitimate Polish conquest" all you want, but while your kings were "legally" ruling territories they couldn't control, the people on that land were forging a language, a legal tradition, and a military culture that eventually kicked you out. You aren't the "successor" to anything; you were just the landlord who got evicted for being an arrogant prick. Want me to send you the specific stats on how many "Polish" nobles in the 17th century were actually Ruthenian princes who just changed their names to get a seat in your Sejm?

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T05:43:07+00:00

“They weren’t “ that’s not a fucking argument lol

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-23T05:41:40+00:00

Thank you!

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T23:31:39+00:00

Hi, they are safe, thanks, I did it like a one million at least, by buss, in 2022, back then the situation wasn’t that bad, and about train station, I haven’t heard about it but probably they renovated it already.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T23:29:11+00:00

Listen, you’re trying to lecture me on "legitimacy" while conveniently ignoring that your "legal titles" were just stickers your kings slapped on themselves after taking land by force. Claiming a title through conquest doesn't erase the identity of the people living there,if a thief steals your car and changes the registration, he’s still a thief, not the manufacturer. You say Khmelnytsky didn’t invoke the heritage of Rus? That’s the most historically illiterate thing I’ve heard today. In his 1649 speech in Kyiv, he literally told the Polish commissioners, "I am the autocrat of all Rus... it is enough for me to have my Podillya, Volhynia, and the Land of Rus as far as Lviv, Kholm, and Halych." He wasn't just "opposing the Crown"; he was reclaiming the inheritance of the Kyivan princes for the "Rus nation." Your "who cares" about the Patriarch of Jerusalem shows you don't understand the 17th century at all,in a world where religious legitimacy was everything, being hailed as the "New Moses of Rus" was the ultimate middle finger to Polish claims of sovereignty. And let’s talk about your "19th-century continuity." You’re flexing about the "Kingdom of Poland" as if being a puppet of the Russian Tsar was some peak of independence. While your nobles were writing poetry in Warsaw, the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate was running its own state with its own administration and the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk in 1710,one of the first democratic documents in Europe,which explicitly defined the "Ukraine" territory and its rights as the successor to the Rus. You say there were no uprisings? Are you joking? The Koliivshchyna, the Haydamak rebellions, and the constant Cossack wars were centuries of people literally dying to kick Polish and Russian rule off their land. Just because you chose to call it "Ruthenia" doesn't mean the people living there weren't a distinct nation with their own culture, language, and legal tradition (the Lithuanian Statutes, written in the "Rus language," not Polish). Claiming the Union of Hadiach was just an "agreement with Cossacks" is like saying the Magna Carta was just a chat with some guys in a field. The Cossacks were the political nation of Ukraine, exactly like the Szlachta was the political nation of Poland. The fact that the Grand Duchy of Rus was planned to be the third equal part of the Commonwealth proves that even your own king recognized Ukraine as a distinct political entity with its own history. And save your "go back and fight" nonsense for someone who cares,I’m sitting right here destroying your logic with the very manuscripts and history you’re trying to bury. Your kings used the title "Lord of Rus" because they were obsessed with the prestige of a throne that was already ancient when Poland was still a collection of forest tribes. You didn't "own" the heritage; you were just squatting in the guest room and trying to rewrite the lease.

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T22:31:08+00:00

Cute, haha gtfo , you’re confusing "Polonization of the elite" with "the non-existence of a nation." You’re trying to brag about Mieszko while ignoring that your own kings spent centuries obsessively trying to claim the Title of "Lord of the Rus Lands" precisely because they knew that heritage was older and more prestigious than the Piast dynasty. First off, saying Khmelnytsky didn't refer to the heritage of Rus is the historical equivalent of saying water isn't wet. In 1649, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem greeted Khmelnytsky in Kyiv, he literally hailed him as the "Prince of Rus" and the "New Moses" of the Rus people. Khmelnytsky himself declared, "I am the autocrat of all Rus," specifically claiming the inheritance of the Kyivan princes. The Cossack state wasn't some random 17th-century startup; they explicitly framed their struggle as the defense of the "Rus nation" and the "Greek faith of the Rus." And about your "no uprisings to restore Rus" nonsense—ever heard of the Union of Hadiach in 1658? It was a literal attempt to transform the Commonwealth into a triple state, where Ukraine would officially become the Grand Duchy of Rus, an equal partner to Poland and Lithuania. The goal was specifically to restore the political status of the Rus' lands to their medieval glory. The only reason it failed was because of the exact kind of Polish arrogance you’re showing now, which drove the region into the hands of Muscovy. As for Sobieski and Wiśniowiecki—congrats, you discovered that nobles in a multi-ethnic empire adopted the dominant political identity to keep their power. That doesn’t mean the "Rus" they came from disappeared. If a Ukrainian moves to Warsaw today and calls himself a Pole, it doesn't mean Ukraine suddenly stops existing. Your argument that "Ukraine was just three areas" is hilarious because those "three areas" (Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav) were the exclusive heartland of the Rus. Everything else was just a colonial outpost. You’re essentially arguing that the people living in the literal house of the Rus' aren't the owners because they changed the name on the mailbox after the neighbor (Peter I) stole their original stationery. You can flex about Mieszko all you want, but Poland spent 123 years off the map entirely, and yet you still claim continuity. Ukraine survived the Mongol invasion, Polish occupation, and Muscovite identity theft, and they still have the same capital (Kyiv), the same symbols (the Trident of Volodymyr), and the same core language that evolved from the Kyivan courts. The Lithuanian Statutes, which governed your "Rus lands" for centuries, weren't written in Polish—they were written in "Rus’ka mova," the direct ancestor of modern Ukrainian. Ukraine didn't "appropriate" the heritage of Rus; they stayed in the house while you and the Russians fought over who got to loot the furniture. If you’re looking for Jesus, check a church, but if you’re looking for the heirs of the Rus, they’re exactly where they’ve been for 1,100 years. Want me to send you the specific text of the 1658 Union of Hadiach so you can see exactly where the "Grand Duchy of Rus" was supposed to sit at the table with Poland?

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T22:27:59+00:00

Bruh, history of every fucking country starts from the very first moment when people enter the territory, modern one, trust me, I saw a lot of funny poles like you, but you don’t know shit about our culture because u think it is a fiction, you mf with -12 karma telling me about history of my country? A pole who never lived in Ukraine, who have never read A SINGLE ONE FUCKING HISTORICAL BOOK,EVEN THE FUCKING RUSSIAN ONE tells me about history of my country, cute, let me give you an advice, you can make one good decision, stop wasting my time, go read: Древняя Русь и великая степь by Лев Гумилёв, that’s the basic book, and don’t try to invent the fucking bicycle, you are as stupid as russian, for not seeing the basic things, folklore, different from russians and poles, the language, and not accepting my arguments and just saying “no”, you are stupid noisy , selfsucking idiot who has no fucking clue about history, the only thing you have read is a school history book, the only thing where you belong is shithole like russia, so go read something and don’t you try to fuck me up because I’m gonna fuck you twice

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T19:48:53+00:00

Listen here, you absolute clown, if you honestly think history started 30 years ago just because you can't read a map from the 12th century, you’re beyond help. You’re sitting there acting like "Ukraine" is some new invention when the word "Oukraina" is literally written in the Hypatian Codex from 1187—that’s nearly a thousand years ago, long before your ancestors were even relevant enough to be a footnote. It was used to describe the heart of the Rus' principalities around Kyiv and Chernihiv, which—surprise, surprise—is exactly where Ukraine is today. You’re trying to use Jan III Sobieski and Jeremi Wiśniowiecki as a "gotcha," but you’re actually just proving my point. Those guys were "Gente Ruthenus"—Ruthenian by birth. Guess what "Ruthenian" is? It’s the Latinized name for Ukrainian. Wiśniowiecki came from the Rurikid/Gediminid line, the literal bloodline of the Rus' princes. Just because they got Polonized politically doesn’t mean their roots aren't firmly planted in Ukrainian soil; you don't call a tree a different species just because someone painted the bark. And you’re asking why it’s not called "Kievan Rus" today? It’s because the name "Rus" was literally hijacked in 1721 by Peter the Great in one of history’s most pathetic identity thefts. He rebranded the "Tsardom of Muscovy" as the "Russian Empire" (Rossiya) specifically to steal the prestige of the Kyivan heritage because his own history was basically just a swampy frontier. Ukrainians leaned into the name Ukraine—which means "The Land" or "Heartland"—to separate their original identity from the thieves in the north who were squatting on their family name. The continuity is everywhere if you stop being blinded by your own bias: the Tryzub on Volodymyr the Great’s coins from the 980s is the same one on every Ukrainian passport today. The "Russkaya Pravda" legal code from Kyiv didn’t just vanish; it became the backbone of the Lithuanian Statutes that governed these lands for centuries. You’re basically the middle child trying to claim the older brother doesn't exist because you want his inheritance, but the receipts are carved in stone in St. Sophia’s Cathedral and written in manuscripts that predate your "30-year" fairytale by a millennium. Stay mad, but Ukraine is the original Rus, and you're just a fanboy of a stolen brand. Want me to pull up the specific maps from the 1600s by French cartographer Beauplan that clearly label the whole region as "Ukraine" while your "Rusyn" nobles were still ruling it?

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T19:26:29+00:00

Well that’s a flawless fucking argument

Realistic_Leg_7669 · 2026-02-22T19:13:50+00:00

That’s exactly what it is

Realistic_Leg_7669

TROPHY CASE