Time to Get Real About Ukraine

I guess, use of derogatory terms to whole countries and nations is this so-called credible opinion? Man, you are ridiculous.

 

The Rus ruled from the city of Kiev and so 'Kievan Rus' simply meant "the lands of the Rus of Kiev". The Rus are first mentioned in the Annals of Saint-Bertin which records their presence in a diplomatic mission from Constantinople to the court of Louis the Pious (r. 814-840) in 839.

The story of the arrival of the Rus in the east is first told in the Primary Chronicle (also known as the Tale of Bygone Years, c. 12th century) of Russia. This work relates how the people of the land invited the Rus (identified as Scandinavian Vikings) to rule and maintain order in their country in the mid-9th century CE. Three brothers, including one named Rurik, accepted the invitation and founded the Rurik Dynasty which would last for over 700 years, through the reign of Ivan IV, first Tsar of Russia (r. 1547-1584) also known as Ivan the Terrible.

Lands of the Rus, 11th Century:

https://www.worldhistory.org/Kievan_Rus/
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Rus#:~:text=Definitions of Rus,territory occupied by a nation

Definitions of Rus. The medieval Russian state established by Scandinavian traders in the 9th century; the capital was first in Novgorod and then in Kiev.

In the Russian Tsardom, the word Russia replaced the old name Rus' in official documents, though the names Rus' and Russian land were still common and synonymous to it,[49] and often appeared in the form Great Russia (Russian: Великая Россия), which is more typical of the 17th century,[50] whereas the state was also known as Great-Russian Tsardom (Russian: Великороссийское царствие).

Belarus = Bela means "white" in Russian; Rus means "Russian". Belarus = White Russia

 

Bot knows how to copy and paste, great achievement. But again, how this Rus in 10th century is directly related to Russian Federation more that it is to Ukraine?

 

Rus means Rus, not Russia, Belarus = White Rus.

 

Those two words must have been an excruciating experience for you to have felt the need to circumnavigate all of my other posts and every word within them.

 

Use of these terms describe you as a person - definetly not clever one.

 

It's something called "knowledge". You see, wishful thinking and guessing don't afford any confidence, knowledge does. When you know ..... you know. Understand?

 

That's nice.

 

How do you know, that you got any knowledge about situation in Ukraine or Russia? Use of derogatory terms to whole countries and nations or label "CIA disinformation", which You give to all, what did not fit in your imaginary world, I guess, is the indicator of this deep knowledge, right?

 

Just a fact, definitely not nice for you.

 

I wonder how many times you are going to ask that question. Read post #2182, again. Those who don't understand it blazingly prove the point.

 

Why shouldn't I ask You questions? You boldly declared, that you, instead of hundreds of millions of Americans, know the truth and got knowledge about what is happening in Russia and Ukraine. But you just can't give an answer, why you're so sure about it, just as I proposed before. To throw a **** on whole nations and countries using derogatory terms is not indicator of knowledge or intellect.

 

Here is a concept! Let Africa defend its interests Really! It's not like Africa isn't armed to the teeth, so much so that even 10 year olds own a AK47!

 

You should. But I've already answered it with a baked-in "clue" that reveals itself to those who understand the explanation.

Ho-hum.

Repeating the question after having been given the answer .....

 

Are you being facetious?

 

I did read it. his explanation is not valid for the Congo or the Vatican or the Ukraine, none of which are plural.

 

No, you just declared, that you are knowledgeable and know the truth. Self declared genius.

 

Just waned to understand,how you propose to use your influence to end this war?

 

I would have to look up the Vatican to find some explanation but I do know the Congo is (was) actually two: French and Belgian.

 

If that assessment pleases you then I suggest you cherish it.

 

It's just funny to look, how not so smart people declare themselves as prophets of truth.

 

What does that have to do with when the name was Congo and one only entity.

Oh, and since English is the official language and if proper use was adding the modifier "the" if it in fact did refer to a conglomaration of a group, why would that not be included in the english naming convention?

 

Your version of history is nonsense.

 

For those who need a review:

Is supporting Ukraine in the U.S.’s best interests? These 10 reasons say yes.
Opinion by Marc A. Thiessen

 

What do you mean by "one entity"?

No, it's not English but French. When I was there they were called Congo-Brazzavile and Congo-Kinshasa. Both spoke French as their official languages.

I have no insight into the other part of your question.