It's a bit more than that - the Russian part of civilisation came _from_ Ukraine. Kiev is much older than Moscow, and that's not something Rashists can forgive.

That's quite a one-sided viewpoint. Kievan Rus was founded by Rurikids who were Scandinavians originally based in Novgorod (now Russia). According to the Nestor's chronicle, Kiev basically became the capital after Oleg of Novgorod (a Rurikid) killed local princes Askold and Dir. Age of Kiev has nothing to do with it. 1000 years ago there was no "civilized Ukrainians vs non-civilized Russians" argument, it was just a bunch of equally civilized East Slavic tribes conquered by Norsemen. Novgorod's birch bark documents and other artifacts show that Novgorod was influenced by Scandinavia more than it was by Kiev. There are several times more references to Novgorod in Scandinavian sagas than there are to Kiev. Novgorod also participated in the Hanseatic league. It was more complex and multi-faceted than what you describe.

Novgorod was conquered by Moscow a couple hundred of years before Kiev. Yes it's now considered to be an integral part of Russia but I historically it's not really more of a predecessor of the modern Russian state than Kievan Rus is, it's just another East Slavic/Rus subjugated (quite brutally) by the Muscovite empire.

>"Novgorod was conquered by Moscow"

Every territory got conquered at some point. Most "Quite Brutally". This is how current countries were born.

Perhaps, but I was replying to the comment above... Modern Russia is clearly a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow so I don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod than to that of Kiev/other ancient city states in the current territory of Ukraine.

> don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod

Maybe not bigger, but the people of Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians. What's with that state-centric view? Ukrainians are Ukrainians despite multiple occupations, but if Novgorodian people believe they are Russians it's illegitimate and they lose all the claims, and are now relegated to have their claims go through Kiev->Moscow. Only "pure" identities with existing independent states can have claims?

This "Ukraine is the true Rus, and Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins" nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent. It's pretty obvious that both sides have about the same level of claim.

> Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians

Obviously. However their relation to the Novgorodian republic is about as strong as that of modern Italians to the Roman Republic. Also I think any such claims are absurd and absolutely irrelevant (imho this applies to Kiev/Novgorod and to Moscow).

> This "Ukraine is the true Rus.. nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent

Sure, you're right. However this narrative seems to be mostly a response to Russian claims that Ukraine is not a nation and that it should not exist.

> Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins

Nah... Politically and somewhat culturally they are probably closer to the Mongols (I'm actually half serious, the authoritarian and imperialist tendencies ingrained in Russian culture were probably inherited from the Golden Horde rather than Kiev/Novgorod.)

All the duchies into which Kievan Rus disintegrated were ruled by houses tracing their descent from Rurik. Thus, any one of them could try to "reclaim the ancestral lands" by the standards of that time. Of course, there was a little hitch there since the lands would need "gathering" first...

Moscow ending up the one who actually pulled it off is kinda ironic, though, given that it was very much an upstart that wasn't even there when Kievan Rus was still a polity united under a single ruler. Goes to show just how effective collaborationism (in this case, with the Mongols) can be to build a power base.

By the way, Ukrainians should be grateful to the Soviet authorities for the Ukrainization of their territory in the 1930s. Just google it)

It’s not true. Modern Ukraine was created not hundreds of years, but just in ~1920. Google a bit more)

And "modern" Russia was created in 1991...

Commenter didn’t say anything about “modern Ukraine”. Russia has been harassing Ukraine for a very long time, modern or ancient.

In that case 'Russia' was harrassing itself: the regime first established in Kiev in late X century has conquered the northern territories and spread its rule there, then lost core southern territory in the aftermath of the mongol invasions, and eventually came back, also spreading as far as to Alaska in the east.

We have to agree that either “modern Ukraine” was created in 1920s from Russians and Russian territories or there were different people on that land long before that.

If you are leaning towards the former then this could be extended even further: Soviet Union only ever harassed itself. There were no occupied Baltic states, there was no Ukraine, etc etc - just one big happy family called USSR.

> We have to agree...

No, you just constructed a false dichotomy.

Russian Empire and its successor states USSR and Russia is a product of imperialism that was born in Kiev when Grand Prince Vladimir has brought Orthodox Christianity to those lands. This imperialism conquered some territories, lost some territories (Kiev proper), then regained them back and conquered a lot more, then splintered. The current war is the result of the imperialist successor of the original Kiev regime to gain Kiev back.

Well if you go back that far you should blame the Swedes who established the first centralized(ish) Rus state in Novgorod (not Kiev...). So the current war is in fact the result of the imperialist ambitions of successors of the Swedish Vikings from the 9th century.

It’s a false dichotomy only if you indeed believe that Russia has “created” Ukraine and that Ukrainians are not a real nation. Russia has as much right to claim Ukraine as Ukraine - Russia. None.

There are some people, including some modern Ukrainians, who claim that Ukraine is a continuation state of people who had always lived in that area and have founded Kiev (I assume that it wat this 'ancient Ukraine' you were referring to here [0]). In that case, yes, 'Ukraine' was 'harassed' by itself, as Russia is nothing else, but a state created by this 'ancient Ukraine'.

If you hold another opinion - that Ukrainians are mixed descendants of people who came to live in this area in ~15 century after it was devastated by Mongol invasions and later steppe nomads plundering in 13..14 centuries, then no, Russia could not have harassed it in 'ancient' times.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33948877

Unfortunately, yes, you’re right. It’s not real nation. It’s just south dialect.

I beg to differ. Ukraine was a divided country born in 1991 with two very different parts - east and west who didn't quite get along since then. But thanks to Putin's aggression, after 2014, and especially now, it is a one nation firmly united and resolved to not be a part of Russia. So Ukraine is a very real nation now, created paradoxically, by none other then Putin. This guy is a great reconciliator: he healed the east-west divide in the Ukraine, expanded NATO, and even united all of the EU, Great Britain, Switzerland and other nations.

OP is claiming something much weirder - that Ukraine has "created" Russia.

No. Novgorod was established first (since it's closer to Sweden..). Not that the Novgorodian republic is in any way closer to being a predecessor of the modern Russian state than Kiev is.