Is Rus' Russia? Answers to questions from a subscriber in London (18.06.2023)
A monologue of answers by the channel’s author to questions from a subscriber in London who is writing an article on why the West identifies Ukraine with Russia. He examines the two principles for writing a national history and how Moscow’s (imperial) historiography violates them, why Western academia adopted the Russian narrative, and why the title “of all Rus’” and the name “Russia” are a claim and a late Hellenized form, not proof of continuity from Rus’. The second video source for the article “How ‘Rus” became ‘Russia’”.
Key moments
- 02:05 Two principles for writing a country's history (from the settlement of one's ancestors; within present-day borders)
- 03:31 Russia violates the second principle: it inscribes Ukraine and annexed Crimea into its own history
- 04:24 Imperial historiography from Tatishchev (18th c.), Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky
- 06:25 Two schools in Russia: the Petersburg one (without Ukraine/Crimea) vs the Moscow (imperial) one; the Moscow school won
- 07:51 Why the West adopts the narrative: postwar chairs were taken by émigrés with an imperial outlook
- 16:31 Ivan III's title "prince of all Rus'" — a territorial claim, not a reality
- 19:36 "Russia" — a Hellenized name under Alexei Mikhailovich via Kyiv-Mohyla scholars
- 21:19 Book recommendation: Serhii Plokhy, "The Lost Kingdom"