# How "Rus'" Became "Russia"

> The myth that Russia is the heir of Kyivan Rus' and Kyiv "originally Russian": Moscow only borrowed the Greek name of Rus' (Ῥωσία → "Rossiya"), brought to Zalissia after the Mongol invasion.

Canonical: https://holospravdy.com/en/how-rus-became-russia
Period: davnya-rus | Type: spoke | Updated: 2026-06-21

**TL;DR.** The Kremlin narrative presents Russia as the direct heir of Kyivan Rus' and Kyiv as an "originally Russian" city. This is a substitution. From the very beginning, the name "Rus'" pointed to the Ukrainian lands; Moscow inherited not a state but a **name** — and even then in its Greek form. The Greek Ῥωσία ("Russia") travelled north together with the Church: after the Mongol invasion the Kyivan metropolitan moved his see to the Vladimir-Suzdal principality[2]. Only two centuries later, leaning on the legend of the Rurikid legacy, the Muscovite rulers wrote "Rus'," and later "Russia," into their own titles — from Ivan III to Peter I[5][6].

## The myth

The question is posed bluntly by the author's interlocutor: why did the Muscovite tsardom decide that Ukraine, and specifically Kyiv, was a part of it[1]? Behind this everyday phrasing lies a core Kremlin myth: that Russia is supposedly the natural continuation of Kyivan Rus', so that Kyiv is the "mother of Russian cities," and Ukrainians and Russians are "one people." If that were so, then a separate Ukrainian history would be a misunderstanding.

## A name, not a state

The weak point of the myth lies in confusing the **name** with the **state**. The fact that modern Russia bears a name derived from "Rus'" does not make it the heir of Rus' — any more than a name travels along with the fugitive who pronounces it.

The sharpest acknowledgement of this comes from **official Russian scholarship itself**. The newest multivolume academic edition "История России" (in publication since 2024, a project of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Historical Society) states outright in the introduction to volume 4 ("Россия в X веке," p. 28) that the tenth-century state "называют как русским, так и московским государством, а также российским," because "в источниках встречаются и те, и другие наименования," and adds: "мы используем их как синонимы, не вкладывая никакого иного смысла"[30]. In other words, the state's own Russian academics themselves attest that **there is no continuous name "Russia" descending from Rus'**: they use "Rusian," "Muscovite," and "Russian" as interchangeable labels for one and the same entity. If "Rus'" and "Russia" are synonyms by the choice of a modern editor, then there is no unbroken name inherited from Kyiv; there is a later, agreed-upon usage.

The same substitution hides in this edition's finer formulation as well — "Russian medieval statehood." Earlier, Dribnytsia notes, specialist Russian articles invariably appended a **footnote** after this phrase: "Russian" here is not in the ethnic sense, because medieval Rus' and modern Russia are different states. In the new academic course this caveat is gone — the "Russian" statehood of the sixth to eleventh centuries is presented as if it were simply an early form of modern Russia[33]. The disappearance of the footnote is precisely the point where scholarship imperceptibly slips into ideologeme.

That "Rus'" pointed from the outset to the Ukrainian lands is already visible from the chronicles themselves. The Soviet archaeologist Borys Rybakov, in his classic 1972 work "Rus' in the Narrow and Broad Sense of the Word," analysed the full text of the chronicles and showed that **"Rus'" in the narrow, properly chronicle sense** is only the Kyiv, Chernihiv, and part of the Volhynia regions — that is, the territory of modern Northern Ukraine[18]. This is evident from the chronicle formula itself: when a prince travels from Kyiv to Novgorod, the chronicler simply writes "set out," but when he goes from Novgorod to Kyiv, the chronicler adds "set out for Rus'"[18]. More than 700 uses of the term "Rus'" in the pre-Mongol period localize to the territory of modern Ukraine — and do not overlap with the lands of modern Russia; the name only begins to "creep over" into the Zalissia region after the Mongol period[19]. In other words, for contemporaries themselves "Rus'" was above all the Dnipro region, not Moscow.

The mechanism of this transfer is entirely concrete. After the Mongol invasion the Kyivan metropolitan, together with his entourage, moved his seat from Kyiv to the territory of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality[2] — historically this happened around 1299 under Metropolitan Maxim. The Church was then the chief bearer of "Rusian" identity, and all the correspondence of the Kyivan metropolitanate with Constantinople was conducted in Greek. And the Greek equivalent of the word "Rus'" is precisely Ῥωσία, that is, "Russia"[3]. The name, which from the outset referred to the Kyivan, that is, Ukrainian lands, gradually spread along with the metropolitanate to the Zalissia region — the Vladimir-Suzdal, Tver, and Moscow principalities — and over time the rulers there began to call themselves by it[4].

## How "Rus'" entered the Muscovite title

The appropriation of the name was not instantaneous — it stretched over centuries and proceeded through the titulature of the rulers. Ivan III was the first to write himself in as "prince of Rus'," in the second half of the fifteenth century[5]. The grounds were not factual but legendary: at that time historical Rus' (the modern Ukrainian and Belarusian lands) was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but Moscow laid claim to these territories on the basis of a legend that all the princes there were descendants of Rurik[5].

The name then took hold step by step: Ivan IV (the Terrible) was crowned as "tsar of all Rus'," in the title of Alexei Mikhailovich the form "tsar of Russia," Greek in origin, appeared, and in 1721 Peter I assumed the title of all-Russian emperor — and the state officially became the Russian Empire[6]. Thus "Russia" as Moscow's self-designation is not an ancient continuity from Kyiv but a late political construct that took final shape only at the beginning of the eighteenth century.

## The title as claim, not mirror

It is worth separately distinguishing **title** from **reality**. Titulature was drawn up at the ruler's court — it is a formula by which one was to address him; it recorded not so much existing possessions as claims and aspirations. When "prince of all Rus'" appeared in Ivan III's title at the end of the fifteenth century, this was not a reflection of reality but a **territorial claim** to the Rusian lands that then belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — asserted during the war over the Smolensk region[10]. Tellingly, Kyiv was not in the list of "Rusian" cities in the title until a letter of 1490: first there was "Rus'," and Kyiv was not in it.

Here lies the boundary between layman and specialist: the layman sees the inscription "tsar of all Rus'" in a source and believes it literally; the historian, who has analysed hundreds of such formulas, recognizes in it a diplomatic claim. And the Hellenized form "Russia" itself took hold even later — under Alexei Mikhailovich in the second half of the seventeenth century, and that under the influence of the **Kyiv-Mohyla scholars**: during the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, church texts were collated against the Greek model, and the model was taken from Ukraine, where the scholarly centre of the time was located. The "high style" required writing in the Greek manner — "Russia"[10].

## Why Moscow writes Rus' into its own history

Why, then, does Moscow consistently present the history of Rus' as "its own"? A methodological substitution is at work here. The history of each country is conventionally written **within the borders of the existing state**: from the settlement of ancient peoples on its territory and onward. Russian historiography violates this principle — it writes the territory of modern Ukraine and annexed Crimea into its own history, beginning practically from the Neanderthals[7].

The consequences of this substitution are visible even in the most ancient sections. In a street conversation, Dribnytsia's interlocutor, who studied history back in Russia, acknowledges a characteristic detail: Russian **university** history textbooks, in the chapter on the Scythians and the Greek city-states, describe mostly those that were on the territory of **modern Ukraine** — Chersonesus, Olbia, Tyras — rather than on the territory of modern Russia, even though the Black Sea coast became part of the Russian Empire only at the end of the eighteenth century[24]. The same "imperial principle" that stretches back from the fifteenth century compels Russian historiography to appropriate the antiquity of the Ukrainian coast — just as it appropriates Rus'.

The same appropriation is visible at the most ancient stratum — in the history of the Slavs themselves, and once again on the material of a **Russian** academic edition. In volume 2 of "История России" the authors honestly record: the Slavs appear in written sources only from the sixth century — the earliest mentions are in Jordanes and Procopius of Caesarea, authors of the mid-sixth century — and their ancestral homeland lies in the southeast of modern Poland, the north and west of modern Ukraine, in the Pripyat basin up to the middle Dnipro; whereas the territory of the modern Russian Federation was then inhabited by **Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes**[31]. Moreover, when modern borders are overlaid onto the edition's own maps, 90–95% of the Slavic archaeological cultures turn out to be on the territory of modern Ukraine, a portion in Belarus, and only a tiny patch of the Romny culture in the Oka-Volga interfluve on the territory of Russia[32]. And the volume's concluding statement (p. 135) nonetheless proclaims that it was precisely these lands that "set the contours of the future state of Rus'"[32] — that is, it contradicts its own 130 pages of description. This is the mechanism in miniature: to describe honestly that there were almost no Slavs on the future Russian lands — and all the same to declare the whole of Eastern Europe the Slavic cradle of "Russia."

The root lies in the origin of this tradition. The conceptualization of its own history began in Russia in the middle of the eighteenth century (from Tatishchev), when Kyiv and the Ukrainian lands were part of the empire — so to describe Ukraine as a part of Russia seemed natural then. A purely source-based circumstance also pushed in this direction: **the oldest copies of the Rusian chronicles survived on the territory of Russia**, not Ukraine[25]. The Laurentian copy (1377) was transcribed in the Zalissia region, the Hypatian (1420s) was preserved in the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma — so when Russian scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries set out to search for "the origins of their own statehood," the very manuscripts at hand led to Kyiv, and beginning Russia's history there seemed natural[25]. The circumstance was accidental (where the parchments physically survived), but a programmatic conclusion was drawn from it — that Kyiv is the beginning of specifically *Russian* history. This view was continued by Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky. After the collapse of the empire and the USSR, history ought to have been rewritten along the new borders, excluding the Ukrainian narratives — and this is precisely what the **Petersburg school** argued for. But the **Moscow** school won, the heir of the imperial tradition, which Putin ultimately backed[8]. How this imperial project was built around the legacy of Rus' from the time of Ivan III is shown in detail by Serhii Plokhy in "Lost Kingdom."

## Why this narrative took root in the West

There remains the question of why the Russian version is accepted by Western academia as well. The cause is institutional rather than scholarly. The systematic study of Eastern Europe in the West began after World War II — corresponding departments opened in the universities of Europe and North America. They were staffed mostly by émigrés from the former Russian Empire and the USSR — professional historians, but raised in the imperial outlook, which they carried over into the new environment. A Ukrainian state that might have promoted its own vision did not exist then, and the Soviet Union was perceived as "Russia"[9]. The exceptions were literally a few chairs of Ukrainian studies (Harvard, Alberta), headed at the time by historians of Ukrainian origin. So for a long time the world looked at the history of Eastern Europe through the eyes of Russian historians.

## Russian academia against the Russian textbook

The sharpest proof of the substitution is provided by Russian scholarship itself. In a street conversation Dribnytsia's interlocutor proposes that they jointly open the "Большая российская энциклопедия" — an academic edition prepared by the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, not by anonymous contributors. And there Kyivan Rus' and the "Russian State" are **two separate entries**: the history of the "Russian State" begins with Ivan III, that is, with a state that arose only in the second half of the fifteenth century[11]. And when one opens the entry on Kyivan Rus' (the Old Rus' state), it states outright that this was a **multiethnic state** in which there were as yet no Russians, no Ukrainians, no Belarusians — the nations had not yet formed[12].

This is confirmed by the encyclopedia itself: the dedicated article on the "Russian State" dates its formation to the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries (from Ivan III), and describes Kyivan Rus' (the "Old Rus' state") separately as a polyethnic entity of the ninth to early twelfth centuries, which, besides Slavic, also included non-Slavic tribes. That is, Russian academia does not merge these two states into a single continuity.

And then comes the key rupture: Russian society, through **school textbooks** and the media, tells exactly the opposite — that Kyivan Rus' is the "first stage" of Russian statehood[13]. The result is a paradox: professional Russian historians write one thing in encyclopedic articles, while the mass myth, on which state propaganda also rests, says another. The continuity of Rus' holds not on Russian scholarship but in spite of it.

Nor is the conflation of three peoples into one anything new. As early as the second half of the nineteenth century, imperial policy declared Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians "one people" — and it is precisely this formula that Putin repeated in his programmatic article of 2021, before the full-scale invasion[14]. The argument about "one people" is not a discovery but a resuscitation of an imperial thesis a century and a half old.

A detail about the northeastern dynasty itself is worth adding. The princes there held the grand principality not as an inheritance "from Kyiv" but as a **yarlyk (patent) from the Horde khan**: the Muscovite house received the yarlyk for its principality from Khan Uzbek[15] (Ivan Kalita — in the 1320s–1330s). The legitimacy of early Moscow rested on the Horde, not on the Kyivan continuity that was attributed to it later.

## "History within borders": how a single narrative is split in two

There is also a purely methodological device. Russian historiography presents the past of Rus' as **one continuous history of its own state, artificially cut in two halves**: first the state centred on Kyiv (up to the Mongol invasion), and then, after the arrival of the Mongols, the narrative "leaps" without transition to the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and Moscow, as if it were the same state[16]. In reality these are different polities; stitching them into a single continuity is a narrative trick, not a conclusion drawn from the sources.

The same logic compels Russia to ascribe to itself even what in no way belongs to it. A telling example is Novgorod: from the time of the disintegration of Rus' it was a separate independent republic ("Lord Novgorod the Great"), which Moscow **captured only in 1471**, but which the Russian narrative also retroactively counts as part of "Russia"[17]. Yet historically Novgorod had a chance to become a separate, fourth East Slavic subject — alongside those from whom the Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians later arose. In other words, the "single history" is a projection of later borders into the past, not what actually was.

Novgorod itself was not "Russian" in its structure either. Kyiv had controlled it since the time of Princess Olga — it was she who first installed her posadnik (governor) there — but this control did not make Novgorod "Rus'": the city was commercially oriented toward the Baltic and the **Hanseatic League** and sought to free itself from Kyivan control. Having freed itself, it became a trading republic in which the prince was **invited as if on a salary**, and power was held by the veche (assembly); Novgorod became **part of Russia as a statehood** only **from the second half of the fifteenth century** — that is, with the annexation of 1471, not "from time immemorial"[22]. The very cradle of the future Moscow likewise became "Rusian" late: the interfluve of the **Oka and the Volga**, where the Muscovite principality later arose, was inhabited up to the second half of the tenth century by **Baltic, Finno-Ugric, and Turkic tribes**, and came under Kyivan control only with the appearance of Slavic settlements there[23]. That is, both Novgorod and the Muscovite core entered the orbit of Rus' **late and from the outside** — they were not its native heartland, as the imperial scheme requires.

This conclusion rests not only on political history but also on linguistics. Valentin Yanin, the longtime head of the Novgorod archaeological expedition, pointed out: everyone was taught that there once existed a "single Rus'" with a single language, which later split into separate branches. But the analysis of the birch-bark documents gave the opposite result — **the older the documents, the more divergent** the dialects on different territories were, and the language of the Novgorod documents turned out to be closest to the Lechitic (Polish) group, not to a "common Rusian" one[21]. That is, there was no "single Old Rus' language" from which all three (plus the Novgorodians) supposedly emerged in equal measure; the East Slavic space was diverse, and the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow in 1471 cut short the formation of yet another separate people[21].

## "Rus' went north" — a refuted theory of the nineteenth century

To explain how "Rusianness" ended up in Moscow, the Kremlin narrative sometimes reaches for an even older argument: that after the Mongol invasion the population of the Dnipro region "girded itself with the sword and went north," into the Zalissia region, while the emptied south was settled by people who were no longer Rusians but "newcomers." In this scheme, modern Ukrainians are supposedly late aliens on the Kyivan land, while the true descendants of Rus' are the Russians.

This is not a folk fabrication but a specific academic **theory of the Russian historian Mikhail Pogodin of the early nineteenth century** — formulated at a time when there was almost no archaeological and linguistic material[20]. Tellingly, it was refuted even then precisely by **Mykhailo Maksymovych** — the very man who introduced the term "Kyivan Rus'": in his polemic with Pogodin he upheld the continuity of the Kyivan population and the Ukrainians' right to consider Rus' their history. Over the following century and a half scholarship has given a definitive answer: neither archaeology nor genetics knows of **any mass migration** from south to north in the second half of the thirteenth century[20]. On the contrary, the settlement of the Slavs is traced back to the era of the Great Migration (fifth to seventh centuries) from the Pripyat basin — onto the lands of modern Poland, Belarus, Russia, and Northern Ukraine[20]. Kyiv after 1240 did indeed become depopulated and fell into decline, but this is a consequence of destruction and tribute, not of an organized "evacuation of the people." Pogodin's theory has long belonged to the history of scholarship, not to scholarship; clinging to it in the twenty-first century is the same as consulting Karamzin's "History" instead of modern research.

## Two chronicle traditions: Kyiv, which resists, and Zalissia, which submits

The appropriation of Rus' is visible even in **how** it was written about in different centres. An important methodological caveat: **the originals of the chronicles do not exist** — only later copies survive, the oldest of which dates to as late as the 1420s (the fifteenth century), two centuries after the events described[26]. These are four main compilations, and each reflects the viewpoint of its centre: two **Novgorodian** chronicles convey the standpoint of the northwest, the **Laurentian** that of the northeast (the Vladimir-Suzdal principality), and the **Hypatian** that of the south of Rus', that is, of **Kyiv**, where the oldest chronicle writing was conducted[27].

And these views are opposed — which is clearly visible in their assessment of the Mongol invasion. The Russian historian V. Rudakov (Russian Academy of Sciences) showed: in the "Kyivan" Hypatian chronicle, the invasion is **the wiles of the devil, which must be resisted** even at the cost of death. While in the "northern" Laurentian and Novgorodian chronicles the same invasion is **a punishment from God**, an instrument of chastisement for sins, against which armed resistance is meaningless; the only way is humility and repentance[28]. The Kyivan chronicle is also richer in facts: it writes in detail about the Kyivan princes — Mykhailo of Chernihiv (who perished) and Danylo of Halych, who fled not out of fear but in order to **organize resistance** to the Mongols, and who, precisely for the sake of this, entered into an alliance with the Pope[29]. The two traditions — of resistance and of submission — diverged already in the thirteenth century, long before Moscow declared itself the sole heir of Rus'.

## What this means

The myth of Russia as the heir of Rus' rests on a single word, which is deliberately not distinguished in its two meanings: "Rus'" as the real state centred on Kyiv (which [did indeed exist](/en/did-kyivan-rus-exist)) and "Russia" as a name that Moscow took over through the Greek church tradition and its own titulature. The first is the history of the Ukrainian lands; the second is the history of how that history was subsequently appropriated. Continuity of the name is not continuity of the state: otherwise one would have to recognize as an heir of Rus' everyone who ever wrote this word in Greek.

## Citation sources

[1] paraphrase: «Московское царство решило, что Украина, а именно Киев — это его часть. Вопрос: почему?» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 06:47, 07:05)

[2] paraphrase: «Это связано с монгольским нашествием на Русь: киевский митрополит вместе со своим окружением сбежал на территорию Владимиро-Суздальского княжества.» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 07:27, 07:34, 07:44)

[3] paraphrase: «Когда пишешь на греческом языке слово «Русь», выходит «Россия». Это просто-напросто греческий аналог термина «Русь».» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 08:08, 08:23, 08:26)

[4] paraphrase: «Название «Русь», которое относилось к украинским землям, стало распространяться на так называемое Залесье — территорию современной России, — и со временем они сами стали себя называть Россией.» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 08:46, 08:54, 09:05)

[5] paraphrase: «В титуле Ивана III, вторая половина XV века, впервые было употреблено, что он князь Руси. Иван III претендовал на эти территории, потому что возникла легенда, что все они потомки Рюрика.» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 09:08, 09:30, 09:37)

[6] paraphrase: «Затем Иван Грозный был «царь всея Руси», в титуле Алексея Михайловича появилось греческое название «царь России», а в 1721 году Пётр I получил титул всероссийского императора, и империя стала называться Российской.» — With a Ukrainian from Nizhny Novgorod about the history of Ukraine (19.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OiI1mOCnzk (timecodes: 10:19, 10:27, 10:45, 10:57)

[7] summary: «Історія кожної країни описується в межах кордонів існуючої держави. Росія цей принцип порушує: вона включає територію сучасної України й анексованого Криму у свою історію — починаючи від неандертальців і перших слов'ян.» — Is Rus' Russia? Answers to questions from a subscriber in London (18.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocw0WysOL2Q (timecodes: 02:05, 03:09, 06:08)

[8] summary: «Осмислення власної історії почалося в Росії в середині XVIII століття, коли Київ і українські землі були в складі імперії. У сучасній Росії склалися дві школи: петербурзька визнала, що історію Росії треба писати без сюжетів України й Криму, але перемогла московська — спадкоємиця імперської школи, яку зрештою підтримав Путін.» — Is Rus' Russia? Answers to questions from a subscriber in London (18.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocw0WysOL2Q (timecodes: 04:24, 06:25, 06:56, 07:01)

[9] summary: «Західний світ переймає російський наратив тому, що після Другої світової війни кафедри історії Східної Європи в університетах Європи й Північної Америки посідали емігранти з Російської імперії та СРСР, які переносили той самий імперський погляд; української держави, яка промотувала б свою візію, не існувало.» — Is Rus' Russia? Answers to questions from a subscriber in London (18.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocw0WysOL2Q (timecodes: 07:51, 08:08, 09:05)

[10] summary: «Титул «князь всія Русі» в Івана III був не відображенням реальності, а територіальною претензією на руські землі, що входили тоді до Великого князівства Литовського (під час війни за Смоленщину); Києва в переліку міст не було до 1490 року. А елінізована назва «Росія» з'явилася за Олексія Михайловича під впливом києво-могилянських книжників за реформ патріарха Нікона.» — Is Rus' Russia? Answers to questions from a subscriber in London (18.06.2023) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocw0WysOL2Q (timecodes: 16:31, 17:03, 19:36)

[11] paraphrase: «Большая российская энциклопедия, корректно с точки зрения современной исторической науки: что такое так называемая древняя Киевская Русь и что такое Русское государство — там отдельные статьи. И когда набираешь «Русское государство», там история начинается с Ивана III: это государство, которое возникло во второй половине XV века.» — "The roots of the present lie in the past": a street conversation with a Russian (09.06.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pYGEesmFvo (timecodes: 05:08, 05:14, 05:37)

[12] paraphrase: «А когда выбираешь Киевскую Русь, древнерусское государство, там чётко и ясно пишется, что это разноплеменное государство: там не было ни русских, ни украинцев, ни белорусов — нации ещё не сложились. Ваша же профессиональная энциклопедия говорит, что это многоэтническое государство.» — "The roots of the present lie in the past": a street conversation with a Russian (09.06.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pYGEesmFvo (timecodes: 05:52, 05:58, 06:32)

[13] paraphrase: «Но российское общество через российские школьные учебники, через средства массовой информации рассказывает, что Древняя Русь — это первый этап вашего российского государства, хотя ваши историки чётко и ясно написали об этом в энциклопедических статьях обратное.» — "The roots of the present lie in the past": a street conversation with a Russian (09.06.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pYGEesmFvo (timecodes: 06:11, 06:21, 06:57)

[14] summary: «Это то же, что было во второй половине XIX века, когда всех русских, украинцев и белорусов объявили, что это все россияне, признали всех одним народом. И вы делаете то же самое: Путин заявил, что украинцы и русские — это один народ; это статья, ещё до войны вышла у него на сайте.» — "The roots of the present lie in the past": a street conversation with a Russian (09.06.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pYGEesmFvo (timecodes: 07:11, 07:17, 07:24)

[15] paraphrase: «Московское княжество получило от хана Узбека этот самый ярлык на своё княжество.» — "The roots of the present lie in the past": a street conversation with a Russian (09.06.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pYGEesmFvo (timecodes: 09:41, 09:43, 09:46)

[16] summary: «Получается такая штука: они будто описывают до монгольского нашествия одно государство с центром в Киеве, а потом пришли монголы — и начинается просто история другого государства, Владимиро-Суздальское княжество, потом Москва. Она у них разделена совершенно очевидно на две половины: сначала идёт история государства с центром в Киеве, а потом история государства с центром во Владимире, в Москве.» — Whose Rus': Why Russians Consider Themselves the Heirs of Kyivan Rus' (19.09.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8uoXDeKlWI (timecodes: 05:53, 06:00, 06:10)

[17] summary: «Новгород со времён распада Руси — это по сути независимое государство, республика, Господин Великий Новгород; эту республику они захватили только в 1471 году, а свято верят, что это тоже была Россия. Это известный факт, что Новгород имел шансы стать четвёртым субъектом этого общего восточнославянского — мог возникнуть украинский, белорусский, российский народ и новгородская республика.» — Whose Rus': Why Russians Consider Themselves the Heirs of Kyivan Rus' (19.09.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8uoXDeKlWI (timecodes: 07:57, 08:01, 08:10)

[18] summary: «У Бориса Рыбакова есть работа «Русь в узком и в широком смысле слова». Русь в узком смысле слова по летописям касается исключительно территории современной Северной Украины: когда летописец пишет, что князь поехал из Киева в Новгород, так и пишется, а из Новгорода в Киев — как правило добавляется «на Русь». Рыбаков сделал анализ полного текста летописей, и получается, что в узком летописном смысле слово «Русь» накладывается на современную Киевщину, Черниговщину, часть Волыни — то есть на территорию приблизительно современной Украины, и не накладывается на территории России.» — 'The Formation of Rus'-Ukraine' — a Lecture for a Russian (31.10.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2TsuWPdzfE (timecodes: 27:39, 27:47, 28:04, 28:58)

[19] summary: «Стаття Рибакова 72-го року чітко вказує, що Русь у літописному сенсі слова — це Київщина, Чернігівщина. Понад 700 вживань цих термінів «Русь» у домонгольський період локалізуються на території сучасної України. А вже після монгольського періоду цей термін починає перекочовувати в межиріччя Оки й Волги — у титулатурі Івана III з'являється слово про Русь, але в переліку «руських» міст навіть Києва не було.» — Dialogue with Mykyta Sichen About Rus' and Ukraine (02.11.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcvaKbzrxB8 (timecodes: 21:24, 21:58, 22:12, 22:15)

[20] summary: «Те, що «Русь опоясалась мечем и ушла на север», — це теорія російського історика початку XIX століття Погодіна. За останні сто років археологія й генетика дали відповідь: жодних масових переміщень населення після монгольського періоду немає. Слов'яни розселялися з басейну Прип'яті ще в епоху Великого переселення, V–VII століття, — на територію сучасної Польщі, Білорусі, Росії та Північної України. Жодних археологічних даних про масове переселення в другій половині XIII століття після нашестя монголів не існує.» — Dialogue with Mykyta Sichen About Rus' and Ukraine (02.11.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcvaKbzrxB8 (timecodes: 09:12, 09:43, 10:01, 10:31)

[21] summary: «Янін, директор археологічної експедиції в Новгороді, давав інтерв'ю: нас усіх учили, що колись була єдина Русь з єдиною мовою, а потім вона розділялася. Аналіз берестяних грамот дав результат протилежний — чим давніші грамоти, тим більше відрізнялися люди на цих територіях. Мова новгородських грамот найближча до лехітської, польської групи. Тільки приєднанням Новгорода до Москви в 1471 році було зупинено розвиток окремої, четвертої слов'янської народності.» — Dialogue with Mykyta Sichen About Rus' and Ukraine (02.11.2022) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcvaKbzrxB8 (timecodes: 55:07, 55:20, 55:30, 54:39)

[22] summary: «Стало влиять на Новгород княгиня Ольга — она первая, кто посадила туда посадского. Новгород контролировался Киевом, но от этого Русью не был: это были территории, которые торгово ориентировались на Балтийское море, на Ганзейский союз, и пытались избавиться от этого контроля. Когда они избавились, там возникло государство Господин Великий Новгород, торговая республика, князя приглашали как бы на зарплату. Новгород стал частью России как государственности только во второй половине XV века.» — How to write the history of statehood (02.04.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drq8oke7tYI (timecodes: 04:57, 05:07, 05:30, 05:37)

[23] summary: «Территория между Окой и Волгой, где зарождалась государственность — Московское княжество, впоследствии Российская империя, — контролировалась Киевом где-то со второй половины X века, когда там появились славянские поселения. А до этого это была территория, где жили балты, фино-угры и тюркские племена. Это надо писать по-другому, а не втягивать полностью историю Украины в историю России.» — How to write the history of statehood (02.04.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drq8oke7tYI (timecodes: 05:54, 06:06, 06:16, 06:23)

[24] summary: «Открываю вузовские российские учебники для специальности история, и там о скифах: в российском говорится о скифах, населявших Алтайский край, а в вашем — о скифах, живших в Причерноморье, хотя территория Причерноморья в составе Российской империи только с конца XVIII века. То же с греческими городами-государствами: глава посвящена в основном Херсонесу, Ольвии, Тире — городам на территории современной Украины, и очень мало о Танаисе на территории современной России. Этот имперский принцип тянется с XV века.» — How to write the history of statehood (02.04.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drq8oke7tYI (timecodes: 08:01, 08:23, 09:06, 09:32)

[25] summary: «коли почалося осмислення у росіян власної історії тоді українські землі входили до складу Російської імперії і звідси вони починали свою історію тим більше що літописи до цього підштовхували а літописи збереглися не на території України вони збереглися у списки на території Росії і тоді це було зрозуміло що вони шукали свої витоки державності саме там але коли розпався Радянський Союз пітерські історики сказали раз Київ не входить до складу Російської Федерації то треба писати історію в межах тих державних кордонів» — Anatoliy Anatolich's interview: Rus', revolution, the unfinished collapse of the empire (30.06.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4A-1J3CbAU (timecodes: 05:08, 05:23, 05:36)

[26] summary: «Оригіналів літописів ми не маємо — маємо лише найдавніші списки, з яких найдавніший датується 1420-ми роками (XV століття). Чотири основні джерела: два новгородських літописи (старшого й молодшого ізводу), Лаврентіївський і Іпатіївський.» — 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' Chroniclers on the Mongol Invasion (28.12.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvTPie2SRHk (timecodes: 03:17, 03:26, 03:43)

[27] summary: «Новгородські літописи (особливо старшого ізводу) відображають точку зору північно-західної Русі (Новгорода), Лаврентіївський список — північного сходу (Володимиро-Суздальське князівство, що претендувало на лідерство в часи роздробленості), а Іпатіївський літопис — точку зору півдня Русі, тобто Києва, де велося найдавніше літописання.» — 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' Chroniclers on the Mongol Invasion (28.12.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvTPie2SRHk (timecodes: 04:09, 04:23, 04:30, 04:45)

[28] summary: «За статтею В. Рудакова (збірник «Многоликая повседневность», РАН, 2014), два списки по-різному оцінюють монгольське вторгнення. У «київському» Іпатіївському нашестя сприймається як козні диявола, яким треба протистояти — навіть якщо цей шлях веде до загибелі. А в «північних» Лаврентіївському й Новгородському нашестя — це кара Божа, інструмент покарання за гріхи, якій протистояти зі зброєю безглуздо: єдиний шлях — смирення й покаяння.» — 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' Chroniclers on the Mongol Invasion (28.12.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvTPie2SRHk (timecodes: 07:15, 08:45, 08:52, 08:55)

[29] summary: «Іпатіївський (київський) літопис повніший деталями: автор статті пише про київських князів Михайла Чернігівського (загинув) і Данила Романовича Галицького, який тікав, щоб організувати відсіч монголам, і пішов на союз із Папою Римським саме з метою організувати цей опір.» — 'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' Chroniclers on the Mongol Invasion (28.12.2024) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvTPie2SRHk (timecodes: 08:08, 08:23, 08:30)

[30] paraphrase: «Так, государство, о котором пойдёт речь в томе, называют как русским, так и московским государством, а также российским. В источниках встречаются и те, и другие наименования, и мы используем их как синонимы, не вкладывая никакого иного смысла.» — Did a Muscovite state exist? (the "History of Russia" series, 28.03.2026) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EcC74Zn8no (timecodes: 01:11, 01:18, 02:13)

[31] summary: «Авторы говорят, что славяне в исторических источниках появляются только в VI веке. Наиболее раннее упоминание у Иордана, Прокопия Кесарийского, автора середины VI века. Прародина славян — юго-восток современной Польши, север и запад современной Украины, бассейн Припяти до среднего Днепра, тогда как территория современной Российской Федерации была заселена балтскими и финоугорскими племенами.» — The "History of Russia" series. Video No. 2. Chapters 1–2 (05.07.2025) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzBc6rU47dI (timecodes: 01:57, 02:25, 04:11)

[32] summary: «Практически все археологические культуры, которые описываются в издании, при наложении современных границ дают 90-95% артефактов на современной территории Украины, несколько случаев Белоруссии и ещё меньше — России. Единственные славяне в междуречье Оки и Волги — это маленький кусочек роменской культуры. Но в выводе на странице 135 пишется: «в пределы славянского расселения задали контуры будущего государства Русь».» — The "History of Russia" series. Video No. 2. Chapters 1–2 (05.07.2025) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzBc6rU47dI (timecodes: 22:01, 19:05, 24:52)

[33] summary: «По поводу «русской средневековой государственности» — это идеологема. Во всех нормальных статьях, которые издавались в Российской Федерации, как только говорилось о русской средневековой государственности, тут же шла сноска, что не имеется в виду русская в этническом плане. Русь средневековая и Россия современная — это разное, абсолютно разные государства. Тут никаких реверансов нет.» — The "History of Russia" series. Video No. 1. Introduction (14.06.2025) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roYDzRiKBdM (timecodes: 13:29, 13:51, 14:24)