What did the Church Union of Brest 1596 mean for Rus/Ukraine and its neighbours?

[mishaaverko]

Mak

Well at least I'm not a blithering idiot like yourself who pretends that Russia has no linkage to the Kievan Rus legacy.

You're playing with words. Kievan Rus more closely resembles Russia than Kievan Uke or Kievan Pol. Ivan the Terrible was a Riurik ruler of Russia, the successor state of Kievan Rus and the Romanovs were the de facto successors of the Riuriks who ruled ancient Russia when the capital was based in Kiev.

You have absolutely nothing to offer to substantively dispute this view.

[mishaaverko]

UKRAINE IS RUSSIA
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@1....8@.4a910c1b/1

I'm not the one with the problem of not accepting reality.

Chechnya and Kalinigrad stay put. How about returning German land in Poland hypocrite?

[yurilev0]

Misha you illiterate, ignorant empty barrel.

Mak offered specific links to back up his statements. It's more than you've ever done. Not only do you never prove your statements, you don't bother to read what other people post as definite data.You obviously haven't bothered to check out Mak's links, and you haven't read my last post. You only know what you think you know, five or six things.

You are only interested in repeating the same things over and over and over and over and over again. You don't want to learn one damn thing. You are a pathetic piece of rubbish with a massive inferiority complex. You feel you have something to prove, but you don't have the intelligence or knowledge to increase your self esteem and prove anything. You deserve to be ignored, but I guess the people on this board hold hope that they can help your twisted, miserable and ignorant existance. You're hopeless and you disgust me.

Yuri

[Zbyszek]

I see mishology as a good example of how superficial, conventional wisdom can stir up unnecessary backlash. Misha easily forgets what he talked about five minutes ago.
"Taras Bulba" is a valuable novel in aesthetic and sociological terms but trying to make it a historic pattern means that Misha is lazy and does not care about historic truth. Gogol can be forgiven because he was a romantic novelist.
Misha, for God's sake, you disavow your own arguments mentioning Gogol. Do not you understand it?????????
And, do not forget about explaining the Tryzub history. We are all impatiently waiting for it.

Special instructions for Misha:
1. Carefully read the posts you are going to counter.
2. Run to the local library and borrow some easily accessible books on history of Ukraine.
3. If you can not find anything relevant, read "The Reader's Digest" and forget about challenging the unwanted posts. Watch a soap opera in a local TV instead.
4. Concentrate before touching the keyboard.
5. Read the thread title.
6. Read the adverse posts again.
7. Think about people who will read your post.
8. Write your share.
9. Read what you have written.
10. Press the SUBMIT button.


11. (the most important) If you can not make your writing look educated, make it interesting at least! Many people posting here are intelligent and have a good memory. You do not have to repeat them twice not to say ten times.
You are the most frequent poster so it is REALLY IMPORTANT.


[Edited by Zbyszek on 8th April 2003 at 20:06]

[Halina]

Mishaverko,

I have opened the 'Guardian' link you have sent us in the hope of finding some interesting historical article on the Ukrainian-Russian relationship. Instead, I see another 'debate' started by yourself on 07/04/03, full of dubious comparisons between Russia (aka Soviet Union) and the United Kingdom.

In one of your posts there you assert that:

Originally posted by mishaaverko
Ukraine and Russia are both part of the Kievan Rus legacy and are as much if not more so linked than Scotland and England. I would argue even more so.
[/B]

Apart from the Kievan Rus legacy, to which UKRAINE is ALSO entitled, this really is far from the truth.

Ukraine is not Russia, just like Scotland is not England.

The Union of Scotland and England, which took place in 1707, was not a result of some overwhelming sympathy of the Scots towards the English, and it had nothing to do with some kind of common historic legacy.

It had a lot to do with the English colonies (see; 'Darren expedition').

The Union was signed by the Scottish lords (such as Lord Argyll, or Queensberry) who'd sworn their allegiance to the English monarch. The Scottish people opposing the Union made a vast majority , but their aristocracy were greedy for the colonial wealth (by then controlled by the English) and consequently crushed all attempts of rebellion.

As a result Scotland lost her independence and the Stone of Destiny (the ancient throne of the Scottish Kings)was cruelly moved from the Edinburgh castle to Westminster (returned fairly recently!).

Scotland had some liberties (to assuage her broken pride), but was formally ruled from London. The Scots received some colonial markets, however - as Jacobites gloomily described the fate of Scotland afterwards; 'We've been bought and sold for English gold'.

The present-day process of Devolution aims at the confirmation of the ancient laws, judicial & religious tradition, or i.e. the educational system in Scotland. It is true that not 100% Scotsmen support SNP (Scottish National Party, of which, by the way, Sean Connery is a loyal supporter! ).

Yet, by the same token the Scottish people in many ways feel distinctly different from the English, just like Ukrainians do not consder themselves to be Russians...

You are right. Ukraine & Scotland could be compared, but not because they crave for some fusion with the dominant powers. The correlation boils down to the fact that neither Scotland, nor Ukraine cherish any special 'blood ties' with the countries who'd controlled them. The majority of both Scots and Ukrainians have never supported the 'Union' with the Imperial powers.

Both peoples were crushed and massacred whenever rebelled, or opposed the outside power (William Wallace, the Sich Cossacs).

In modern times,Ukrainians, just like Scots have decided to reassert themselves against the dominance of the foreign culture and politics. The former gained total independence , the latter are following the process of Devolution.

Scotsmen are not that keen on independence since they have not suffered as much from the English rule - at least in the modern times - as the Ukrainians did from the Soviets.
Besides, they've made lots of money out of the Empire. It is enough to see the houses in central Glasgow, or Edinburgh!

Once the Stone of Destiny has returned to its rightful abode and the Holyrood Parliament is in its place, the Scots do not feel the urgency to seperate at once. However, the idea of 'Europe of the regions' is tempting and who knows? They may like total independence. They have the haggis, the kilt, the North sea oil & they have SNP (they have Sean Connery, too)!

To sum up, the comparison between Ukraine and Scotland is true in the sense of both peoples' opposition to the invader. That's all.

Besides, England - as a controlling power - cannot be realistically compared with Russia.

England has a long tradition of democracy (see: Magna Carta, or the PEACEFUL 'Orange'revolution - 17th C). You can also have a look at Edmund Burke's writings on the rules of democracy (he was extremely indignant at the partitions of Poland, by the way!).

This specific feature of the English history makes it as different from Russia as chalk is from cheese! The latter - for most of the time - followed the path of tyranny and savage subjugation, so any 'union' with Russia was a risky business, to say the least & the 'blood bondage' was not really treated with some great sentiment by the Russian Tsars (see: the fate of Novgorod!),and even less so by the Soviet Comrades (see: the Ukrainian Famine).

P.S
I live in Scotland and my husband is Scottish, so I dare say I have some experience of the country, its people and its history, also the presen-day Devolution.








[Edited by Halina on 8th April 2003 at 23:49]

[yurilev0]

Hello Halina,

I always learn something new from you. Just curious, are you Ukrainian, Polish, or a little bit of both. You seem to understand both histories quite well. I'm happy to learn about Rzespospolita. I never knew about it, and recieved a kind of one-sided view of Polish occupation in my history classes. Religious tolerance wasn't something that we were taught as children.

I'm happy that you enjoy my posts. As a visual artist and a sometime writer, I rely heavily on my impressions and I strive to keep them fresh within me. As for Scotland, the movie Braveheart inspired me to look into that bit of history with interest. It amazes me how the Scots could have achieved independence if not for Robert Bruce and his cohorts. It seems that the road to London was wide open after the Campbell led campaigne, and the Scots never capitalized.

Yuri

[mishaaverko]

Yuri, you dim witted demagogue. I have been by far the most factual here.

Halina, Ukrainians and Russians are more closely related than Scotts and English. You can't legitimately deny the fact that many Scotts have been among Britains' greatest patriots and that many Ukrainians have been among Russia's greatest patriots.

Zbig, you should try practicing what you preach.