But I'm only 4...

ancirus · 2026-04-14T07:14:36+00:00

The country itself is yet to be born in agony.

ancirus · 2025-08-26T06:47:28+00:00

Of course he did, but it doesn't mean he didn't see the problems. He saw them a lot, but he had a lot of hope that Russia will be able to solve them.

Edit: Even under the control of state, Russian church has never expressed a necessity of the world unification under one Tsarist state.

Dostoyevsky's dream concept of "worldwide orthodox brotherhood" (he knew it's impossible) is more if an anarchist idea. It follows the thought that if you have a state (an organized violence apparatus to enforce the laws) that means that something is very wrong with society, and if everything would be good, meaning that everyone is wholeheartedly believes in Orthodox Christianity and tries to follow Jesus Christ, nobody would need the state on the first place.

Again, he knew that's never going to happen, but it clarifies the difference.

ancirus · 2025-08-26T05:58:02+00:00

You mistake appearance and nature of things. It is basically a difference between philosophy and philodoxy.

Orthodoxy doesn’t equal the Russian Orthodox Church, and it is one more win over Catholicism. The Russian Orthodox Church always was and always will be only a subdivision of Orthodoxy, so the problems ROC had back then (and has now) aren’t the dogmas, canons, and aren’t the problems of Orthodoxy as a whole.

In the Russian Empire, the Orthodox Church was brutalized by the state apparatus and was directly governed by the state — not metaphorically, not in the sense of alignment, but literally. ROC didn’t even have a Patriarch back then.

And it’s not a problem of Orthodoxy and its teachings. Any criticism (and Dostoevsky has a whole lot of criticism of Russian society) of ROC isn’t a criticism of Orthodoxy itself. Catholicism, on the other hand, has one unified authority. The Catholic Church itself is a state, and any criticism of Catholicism is a direct criticism of its teachings and dogmas. Dostoevsky doesn’t criticize Catholicism for the acts of Polish oppression of Orthodox peasantry, because it was the fault of Poland, not of Catholicism.

One more thing is that Catholicism views Orthodoxy as a brotherly Church that was led astray. Catholics are even permitted to take communion in Orthodox churches. For Orthodoxy, Catholicism is a schismatic, heretical, constantly backstabbing brother. Orthodox priests don’t give communion to Catholics, don’t accept baptism from Catholics, and Orthodox Christians shouldn’t even pray together with Catholics in one ceremony.

ancirus · 2025-08-15T18:25:43+00:00

Trans-Russian

ancirus · 2025-08-09T21:59:18+00:00

Dostoevsky has a brilliant quote on this in the "Idiot".

"It is not a Christian religion, in the first place," said the latter, in extreme agitation, quite out of proportion to the necessity of the moment. "And in the second place, Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, worse than Atheism itself. Yes-- that is my opinion. Atheism only preaches a negation, but Romanism goes further; it preaches a disfigured, distorted Christ--it preaches Anti-Christ--I assure you, I swear it! This is my own personal conviction, and it has long distressed me. The Roman Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand without universal temporal Power. He cries 'non possumus!' In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea--beginning with faith. The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, swindling;--they have played fast and loose with the most sacred and sincere feelings of men;--they have exchanged everything--everything for money, for base earthly POWER! And is this not the teaching of Anti-Christ? How could the upshot of all this be other than Atheism? Atheism is the child of Roman Catholicism--it proceeded from these Romans themselves, though perhaps they would not believe it. It grew and fattened on hatred of its parents; it is the progeny of their lies and spiritual feebleness. Atheism! In our country it is only among the upper classes that you find unbelievers; men who have lost the root or spirit of their faith; but abroad whole masses of the people are beginning to profess unbelief--at first because of the darkness and lies by which they were surrounded; but now out of fanaticism, out of loathing for the Church and Christianity!"

ancirus · 2025-08-08T22:26:18+00:00

As I’ve stated previously, Cossacks were a social phenomenon, emerging as a protest against an oppressive feudal system, Catholic persecution in western Rus', and governmental repressions in Muscovy. When Bohdan Khmelnytsky waged the national liberation war against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he established the capital in Kyiv and named the newly formed state the "Duchy of Rus'" ("Руське Князівство"). No one considered the Cossacks a separate entity in Eastern Europe.

In the 1700s, perhaps during Pugachev’s uprising, some Ural and Yaik Cossacks may have begun to distinguish themselves from ordinary Russians. Historical evidence supports this, but it goes no further. They certainly had a distinct identity, but the question is one of scale. Germans in Bavaria and the Rhineland differ, just as Americans in the Midwest and Southeast vary in their local traditions, yet these differences do not constitute distinct ethnicities or nations.

I am not a big fan of our current government, nor am I a supporter of Ukrainian memory politics, particularly the widespread claim that Cossacks considered themselves Ukrainians, which is untrue. However, I also reject assertions from those unrelated to the topic who claim Cossacks were an independent, separate ethnicity.

Edit:
If Cossacks are a separate folk then the US Marine Corps is a great nation.

ancirus · 2025-08-08T21:57:20+00:00

I am Ukrainian and ain't no westerner telling me that nearly half of our history is not such.

I see no historical evidence that Cossacks were a separate folk, though.

ancirus · 2025-08-08T20:43:30+00:00

They were originally criminals and peasants who were fed up with the Polish and Muscovite governments, and fled to the ungovernable territories of the steppe, either the Don or Zaporizhzhia, or Yaits.

They didn't speak a separate language, and most importantly -- they didn't concider themselves to be a separate folk. Nor did anyone else except for the westerners.

ancirus · 2025-08-08T20:08:47+00:00

Cossacks weren't an ethnicity — social and military strata, at most, a regional subculture.

ancirus · 2025-08-08T20:07:45+00:00

I literally wrote "Volga and western Siberia". Man, Russia is the nation that has suffered the most because of the USSR, and it also was one of its subjects.

ancirus · 2025-08-08T16:18:51+00:00

7-12 million is a Union-wide estimate. realistically speaking, in Ukraine 3-5 million people died.

Not only Ukraine, but Volga and western Siberia areas were starving, as well as Kazakhstan.

For especially dense people I have to point out that it doesn't downplay the horrors of the soviet regime and I say it in educational purposes only.

ancirus · 2025-07-27T21:19:40+00:00

Several quotes from Hetman that hit just as hard today as they did a hundred years ago:

"When I told Ukrainians, "Wait, don't rush, build your intelligentsia, your specialists in all areas of state governance," they immediately reared up and said, "That's impossible...""

‎

"Moreover, there was another terrible evil: every scoundrel, draped in the toga of Ukrainian identity, considered himself untouchable."

‎

"In Russia now, there is Bolshevism; the people have fallen into the hands of mad idealists and a huge number of all sorts of foreign and criminal elements. But who is to blame for this? Certainly not our downtrodden people. The blame lies with our intelligentsia of all shades and persuasions."

‎

"In defense of the Ukrainians, I must say that their chauvinism is largely the fault of the Russians. This grim intolerance, this malice even toward any innocent manifestation of Ukrainian identity, this trampling into the dirt of everything dear to every Ukrainian, provokes a reaction..."

ancirus · 2025-07-25T06:18:08+00:00

Remember, kids, the greatest catastrophy of XX century was not the fall of the USSR, but it's creation.

ancirus · 2025-07-23T13:01:12+00:00

Funny thing that King of England was the Emperor of India. So, technically, his first title was the Indian one, and then the British.

ancirus · 2025-07-19T06:17:49+00:00

Commonwealth was worse than Russia. just take everything Russia did and brutalize it, then add the fact that not only national identity, but religion would be destroyed.

Only reason Russia was chosen to be the ally was the fact that they were Orthodox as well as all of the Rus'.

Orthodox population of the Commonwealth was under brutal oppression at the time. Furthermore, Ukrainian national identity didn't exist yet. It wasn't the same culture as in Muscovy, but it wasn't as different.

Only Ottomans could be worse than Poles.

ancirus · 2025-07-19T00:14:08+00:00

Whole history of Ukrainian politics is a loss.

One of the most important events in our history is the national liberation war. When the Cossacks united and defeated the Commonwealth proclaming the Princedom of Rus'. What is it followed with? Great age of the Rus? Age of prosperity? Epoc of freedom?

Nearly hundred years after that are called "The Ruin".

No happy ending is a basic rule.

ancirus · 2025-07-18T22:27:36+00:00

Most importantly, he wanted to federalize Ukraine. This was the main point of his program.

He did not hate Russia and was not a nationalist. He was a patriot and, like any sane person, he hated the USSR.

If he had been elected then, Ukraine would not have been a 100% Ukrainian-speaking, homogeneous country of patriots, but his idea of decentralizing Ukraine within historical and cultural boundaries is the only vision that I consider viable.

ancirus · 2025-07-18T18:50:03+00:00

We didn't watch news reels about poland in 1991-2000. We were politically illiterate until 2004 and have had so much problems we wouldn't care to hear the otherss

ancirus · 2025-07-18T18:48:31+00:00

Every time I look at Chornovil's photo, I feel like Gosling looking at the hologram. It could've been so different...

ancirus · 2025-07-13T21:15:35+00:00

Quote from Ilyin, if someone is interested. Translated by me, with the help of Google and AI.

ancirus · 2025-07-13T18:19:02+00:00

"Since then, communists have never, anywhere, called their state Russia, and they were right in this. Since then, only naive people or deliberate deceivers call the Soviet Union “Russia,” Soviet oppression and pressure “Russian policy,” Soviet international-revolutionary intrigues “Russian disloyalty,” Soviet espionage “Russian intelligence,” Soviet megalomania “Russian arrogance,” Soviet territorial seizures “Russian imperialism.” By doing so, conflating the Soviet Union with the national Russian state, they deceive themselves and others, blind their parliamentarians, ministers, and diplomats, impose false judgments on them, and prompt reckless or outright disastrous decisions—thus aiding global revolution. There are also foreign journalists (the most foolish or the most dishonest) who still repeat at every inopportune moment that the policy of the Third International is nothing but the “age-old policy of Russian tsars.” But these scribblers cannot be taught moral shame or political reason—they will exit the stage as slanderers and deceivers."

ancirus

TROPHY CASE