to different peoples, because they were called ruthenians, that is, and they were called mozkovites already somewhere from the 18th and especially the 19th century, when the russian empire seized the majority of ukrainian lands, of course, it tried to somehow justify this, and such historians as karamzin and other russian officials historiographers, those who wrote on the order of the imperial authorities, they put forward the concept of the so -called triune russian people, which was three branches of the great russians, the little russians and the belarusians in soviet times, this myth was transformed into not one nation but in a brotherly people, that is, in fact, during soviet times, it was recognized that they are separate, but still brothers are so closely related that it is absolutely unrealistic to break their friendship, russians , ukrainians, belarus, what is happening now well, i think that the most important thing is that ukrainians have not

had to prove anything to anyone for a long time and nothing to explain because when we start to explain something, it seems as if we are making excuses for something or trying to enter into a discussion with putin , it is necessary to understand that what putin and his junta are saying this is simply a pseudo-history that exists only in their sick imaginations and trying to enter into a discussion to somehow disprove it with historical arguments is absolutely futile . first of all, they do not want to hear them, secondly, they absolutely do not need it, and thirdly, it is simple to admit yourself descended to their level, to the level of pseudo- history of various fabrications, and in fact, what russia is doing all these four, already the fifth month of a full-scale invasion, perfectly proves that why we are, it is not at all the russians, because they are themselves completely. they showed everything completely demonstrated to the whole world that this is an absolutely

barbaric horde that kills civilians, that destroys peaceful towns and villages, engages in deportations , rape and looting, and if it's just from the historical side, well, look at the ukrainians - they are the descendants of medieval russia, which later in the cossack early modern times were called ruthenians in the times let's say the austro-hungarians had the term ruthenian since the 19th century, the term ukrainian was fully established in the vast majority of the territory of ukraine. adopted this name russia, in fact, it is a combination of finno-ugric peoples, such as a little bit of the mayor's office. well, actually finnita ugria with the addition of the slavic element of the slavic colonizers who, gradually expanding the range, so to speak, of the settlement of the slavic peoples, colonized the far northern eastern terrain i would like

such a question something for the enlightenment of our viewers i am more than cool what are the viewers of the express tv channels, which viewers are the viewers of your project, a story without myths, a person, readable people who are interested and they read articles and look for some materials on the internet and read books, but i would like you to give me some advice now on what is better to read, but i am not a historian, a philologist, but we studied the history of shevchenko for four years, even if somewhere they still remember i have a book since those times, edward's horse has been written about russian historical myths, then the whites read about the moksel people and other books that i explain. such are the russians, where do they come from, who are the ukrainians, and how can we find some differences between ourselves and find the paths we used to follow until some historical destinies crossed these paths , and if your advice is now about perhaps more modern

works, because i am not wrong, you are a historian it’s for you, um, uh, it’s your job, in fact, daily curiosities, so you can advise people to read now in order to understand more about themselves, about ukrainians, and most of them understand some uh, who are russians , what do they want, and do you generally understand some historical processes are possible and modern, i can recommend, first of all, the books of nataliya yakovenko , she is a professor at the kyiv-mohyla academy, er, one of the leading specialists in the history of the early modern era, and er, very well shows precisely the period of the late middle ages, early modern times, and the cossacks as the ukrainian nation was formed, how were the differences there between us and the mozkovites, etc. nataliya kovalenko next serhiy the poor is the book gate of europe next there are also now the higher several books well not now in recent years in the last five, let's say, years, one

book from the collective authorship, it is called bratnya navala bratnya navala, it is russia against ukraine, there it is taken from the time of the actual fragmentation of russia and before this russian-ukrainian war that is happening now has been analyzed because for there were 800 years of armed conflicts, war crimes were committed by muscovites, russians against ukrainians, and there are also books now under collective authorship that discredit russian soviet myths, for example , the book is unknown, war and myth are about myths regarding the second world war, russian and soviet guides were published by the ukrainian institute of national remembrance and the academic institute of the history of ukraine for us ukraine, and there is also a book called russian myths about ukraine, which collects russian myths from, well, very different issues, only the second

world war, and again, from the origin of the nation to this day thank you for these tips, you know there are battles that determine the further development of history, if not in the whole world, then at least on certain continents, such battles are possible in the times before our eras were decisive for the entire world at that time, because certain continents had not yet been opened in principle. well, now i think that this war is a continental one, it will determine how europe will develop. i just remembered today about the battle near havgameri between the macedonian and by the way, it is interesting that the confrontation then was about 250,000 e-e persians against 45,000 e macedonian army and in principle next to the macedonian one, well, it would mean the end of it and the further development of the e-e persian empire and the loss of the persians would mean the end of this empire in fact, it is you who decided the future fate of the known world at that time, and despite the fact that he had a significant advantage, he lost that battle. in fact, it

gave birth to the king of macedonia, the outstanding king today, in principle, this battle is also decisive, because after losing it, ukraine will obviously cease to exist in the form in which it there is and it will lose if it loses russia will actually be very uncertain and dark and its period and its time in your opinion, if we talk like this, you already know the history of philosophy eh well, somehow civilization or some such forces that we unknown they still determine what should develop further, what is more important for the world to exist in a normal form, should there be any development in your opinion now, uh, the loss of russia or the loss of ukraine, we can allow one or another option, what will they mean and whether it really maybe the time has come when it became clear that russia simply can not give anything positive and you know something that gives forward movement to european civilization, maybe it is time to lose it, how do you understand this battle, this is the confrontation and the consequences of this war, this is first of all

worldview, value confrontation, to a large extent civilizational russia clearly does not carry absolutely any progressive positive thoughts, ideas that would be useful for human civilization, russia drags the world into the 19th century, a time when there was no un, a time when empires dominated, when they constantly waged wars among themselves, and wars for the territory of banal wars of aggression, plus they also waged colonial wars against other peoples who, simply because they were at a slightly outdated stage development somewhere, for example, in asia yes, in africa they simply could not oppose them on an equal footing and

in fact became victims of colonialist policy, this is what kind of world wants to return russia, it is just such a stupid encroachment of foreign territory. this is absolutely a format of 150 years plus of antiquity. it is comfortable in such a world because of course it is a battle between the past and the future, between progress and absolute degradation , conservatization, degradation, return, i.e., the past defeat of ukraine, we definitely cannot allow we cannot in any case because it is impossible to win the war assuming the possibility of defeat, we only allow the defeat of russia in this conflict, but we must be realistic and do not create various naive and unjustified expectations, russia's resources are very serious, it is a serious opponent and we must understand that the war can

drag on for a very long time the task of ukraine and all ukrainians is to unite around the armed forces and support them by absolutely all means. if we rely on someone else who has us protect some other state, it will not be so if we rely on the fact that the armed forces must be provided exclusively from the budget of ukraine. bigger and more serious, therefore, only absolute unity, monolithization of society against this enemy is needed, only then victory becomes possible, plus thanks to the help of our allies, everyone from australia to lithuania to the usa to canada and etc. literally on wednesday on our channel history without myths we spent the entire stream talking about what real goal russia professes in this

war against ukraine after analyzing the works of their theoreticians like dugin there etc. it is absolutely obvious that this war is not being waged for russia to occupy donbas or the south of ukraine and not to force ukraine not to join nato in any case, the war is being waged for the complete occupation and destruction of ukraine as an independent state, but that is not all; the war is also being waged for the destruction ukrainians as a separate people. therefore, this is a war for survival, in order to survive, endure and break imperialism, which wants to return the whole world to the 19th century, if not to more ancient times. by the way, russia is of course very difficult to explain to its people , although, again, they are, i think, explaining to a greater extent, to people who live closer to moscow, to peter there, to other such centers of cultural, scientific, economic

centers, to explain something to the residents of buryatia, and so on, i don't think that they would not understand anyone i wouldn't take it very seriously and there is no need to explain anything, they are simply brought and thrown into this hell of war, but still russia is trying to explain . and it is necessary to explain why we and why they did not manage to quickly achieve a result and win this war and why the war dragged on and here, hmm, sergey lavrov, the head of the foreign policy department of the russian federation found an explanation against whom he is fighting now russia. we will listen to him now and then we will continue. you know when the second world war began, because hitler gathered under his banners almost a significant part, not a large part, of european countries for the war against the soviet union

. nato is gathering such an already modern coalition to fight the big score of the war with the russian federation. well, before that, another one of the russian mts, who i won’t mention somewhere on some talk shop, said that it was a story russia never managed to win a war against a coalition of states, well, now we are not talking about the second world war, because then russia also had britain, canada and the united states of america in the coalition, they supported the soviet union without this support, it would hardly have been possible to win. well, let's also not forget that and japan didn't stab stalin in the back because they had their own agreement there, because it would also be much more problematic to win, that's why there was a coalition against a coalition. well, now, explain why lavrov is again creating this myth about modern hitlerites, this is like napoleon's

grand army, which came to russia, which means that there is some kind of coalition of peoples, and is there really a problem in russian history that they could not win against the coalition alone, this is being created for the sake of consolidating russian society. that's all. because what they do, they in fact, they create such a quiet , typical transfer technology, they say that in the second world war we fought against the forces of the whole of europe, they have such a mythology, although this is also completely false, because on the one hand, part of the countries of europe in general, such as sweden , switzerland, ireland, for example, portugal did not take part in the war, on the other hand, some countries like britain were always on the side of the ussr in 1941 and helped the soviet union. people need to

understand more about these details, because it is probably for very intelligent people, you have to keep them relatively ignorant, it will always be more convenient to manage them in this way , and now they are doing zero. look, please 75 plus years and we have the same situation, we seem to be fighting against the whole of europe, this is the psychology of the so-called pumping of society with life in the position of being surrounded by a fortress surrounded by only enemies , that is why we have to be so tough, cruel and aggressive in order to fight against the overwhelming enemy forces and in order to survive, this is how russia is pumped up with such propaganda , although in reality they are fighting against one ukraine, no other european state entered the war, no other state officially has its armed forces it does not send forces to ukraine, but they only provide

assistance with armaments, er, they provide financial assistance, but it is not at all the same as sending their troops, er, to fight at the front , that is really why they are trying to explain in this way why it is not possible to break ukraine, because at first, their propaganda told for years that as solovyov said, they wink an eye. only there or not, it is worth raising an eyebrow and ukraine will understand that it is literally there in a matter of days, it will be eliminated against the war with coalitions with such well, let's not there let's talk, maybe, about the times of the muscovite empire, ivan the terrible, oleksiy mikhailovich, uh, there are some others like that, well, ivan iii

. maybe we can still mention it. is it possible that there are other wars, or is it true that when russia fought with several nations, it could not win alone? if so, what was the reason? because when i remember the crimean war, i remember the sevastopol wars, tolstoy tells us, but this is his personal opinion. although they my personal opinion about this war, in which he also took part, by the way, there in sevastopol, there is even a gun somewhere, which means that lev nikolayevich fired from it, but he wrote that russia lost only because its the weapons were not as modern as the weapons of the opponents. well, there, in particular , the french, the english, and so on. and the alleged reason for this is not that the russian spirit is weak there, or the russians fought badly. and in your opinion and for your information, why was the main reason for the defeats of russia at the time when it opposed a coalition of nations, well, first of all, it is difficult for any country to fight against a coalition alone, this is

quite logical, because a coalition is a union of the forces of several states, and secondly, in the crimean war , russia really lost, in particular, due to its technological backwardness. well, just elementary examples - in russia, there was a rifle , a single-shot firearm, the allies of the british, the french already had a lot of charging rifles, the allies had a steam ironclad fleet in the russian empire, the black sea fleet was wooden, so the defeat was understandable, plus eh very stretched communications of russia in that war. it was extremely difficult to supply crimea from remote provincial empires, and the allies, thanks to their complete superiority on the black sea, managed to quickly transfer significant forces to crimea and create a numerical

advantage there. advantage determined the overall victory in the crimean war, but i would like to point out that the russian empire did not even necessarily lose to the coalitions, let's remember the russo-japanese war of 1904-5 when the huge russian empire was defeated by japan alone, and this happened not at all because someone there really supported japan, indeed, japan had support, but purely financial, diplomatic , a little economic from great britain, the united states, while the russian empire had support from france, for example, very significantly in those times and nevertheless the russian empire lost this war because, again, it was somewhat technologically inferior, communications in the far east were extremely stretched, it was very difficult to fight for due to the presence of one of the railway lines from central russia, the fleet was weaker, the training of

the military was much weaker than that of the japanese, and they lost this war, and it was extremely painful and unexpected, because at first there were absolutely such treasonous attitudes, saying that we will sign the surrender of japan in tokyo and that's it. there is no other way, and they didn’t just lose, they lost part of the territory, half of sakhalin island, they lost the entire pacific fleet, they lost their main base in the far east of porto. that’s how it ended. and it led to a revolution inside russia 19057 years ago was not always a coalition, sometimes one state won. russia vladimir putin recently accepted himself with peter the first. well, although he is physically not peter i at all, he was such a two-meter uncle, and he was completely different in character, completely different in behavior, until now there are disputes . at least it is possible that it is more like that, you know

the disputes between conspiracy theorists about whether it was really the same petro romanov who went to this big embassy or was it someone else who came well then, let the historians argue and look for evidence that's why peter left, let's assume that peter came, a completely different person than putin well, but he compares himself exactly with peter the first, in your opinion, with which of the rulers of russia could you compare putin in any case not with peter and because this once again only proves and how much putin does not know the history of his own country, but tries to teach the history of other countries. peter i was, despite all his pathological cruelty, he was a serious reformer. and what reforms, even of a close scale, did putin implement in russia, absolutely no, but peter i really was

the westernizer of the russian empire, he tried to modernize it with european coins because he noticed that the european world is starting to rush forward, while the east asian world is conserving itself and really starting to fall behind. with a senseless and aggressive attack on ukraine and closed that window to europe, which you can say was cut by peter and as putin said then, in part putin cosplay, you know what they say now, stalin is obvious because of such a genocidal, cruel policy towards other peoples, an attempt to consolidate many national empires around the russian idea. at the end of this reign, stalin almost became a russian nationalist, well, at least we remember his toast to

the great russian people in the 45th year after the victory over germany, that's why something is similar to this on the other hand let's remember how a few years ago putin fans from alexander iii this may be more suited to the volume because alexander ii is so conservative was the monarch who tried to stop democratic reforms in the country and its development towards western democratic values, the values ​​of human life, general equalization of rights , etc. well, there can’t be a complete similarity , but there are some similar features from several , you know, hitler from by the way, please forgive

him the most, well, at least consciously or unconsciously putin is copying the most with his annexation of crimea and his invasion of the donbas war which he started with the expectation of maybe some kind of even bigger war. i recently watched a movie about hitler on netflix, there were good words that, at that time, europe in europe nobody did not want a war . maybe even the seminyaks did not want a big war, but hitler wanted this war, and so it happens that, and so, putin actually wanted this war on such a scale. about what they say and write and understand that the war was lost even after well, maybe even before the defeat at stalingrad, maybe after it was not possible to take moscow well, maybe there was already then in february 43 when there was a defeat at stalingrad, it was it is clear that the war is basically lost and the minister in charge of

industry there, well, everyone understood that there will not be enough resources. well, in principle, but hitler believed to the end that this war would be won and ours lasted for several years, there were three years, but everyone understood that that was all in your opinion, now, understanding the power of russia, its industrial power, its fossil power, so to speak, which it has, and this is an endless amount of weapons, even obsolete ones, which also work there, and an endless number of people who can be bought for this war for nothing. because they there is actually no well, if they steal these toilets from us and wash basins and underwear, it is clear that a large number of people live very poor. therefore, this war is also an opportunity for them to earn some money, but no one believes that he will die, perish or have his legs torn off and hands from ukrainian art shells, and considering all this, do they now understand your opinion in putin's entourage, and our most important partners are the western ones, that anyway everything is already clear, so there can be a war, a year, there

can be two, on different scales, in different tensions but in principle, the blitzkrieg failed and obviously the key goal of the opportunity to go to the danes immediately, er, putin has already lost this opportunity. we cannot know whether russia, especially putin's entourage, is understood because we have no information at all about what is happening in this environment any information that comes out of there is some kind of rumor, versions, unverified data, which, by the way, once again demonstrates how closed this environment is, of a dictatorial type, but it is quite obvious to the whole world that the further russia goes, the longer it will fight in ukraine, that it will try to grab some more territories by it will only worsen its situation because no one will cancel the sanctions, new sanctions will be applied, new losses and victims will be among

russians, the economy will stagnate, the state will be isolated , and the standard of living in the country will gradually fall and the people want it, whether they want it or not, the government does not want it, but it is not satisfaction, it will definitely increase the longer all this continues, but the personal ambitions of this leadership are so high that they can not afford to admit their defeat and their mistake, who is the mistake because they invaded ukraine, their mistake is that ukrainians and russians are actually not one people at all, completely different peoples, completely different states, therefore unfortunately, we cannot say for sure whether putin's entourage is ready for any changes, very often in history some cardinal changes, such as coup d'etats , revolutions, mass riots, occurred very unexpectedly and were not predicted, so it can happen,

but when no one will tell you such information now , and ukrainians need to be ready for all scenarios, in particular, for a protracted war , that is why i emphasize once again that from absolutely every ukrainian, no matter where he was, no matter where he was, now a lot depends on his support of the armed forces of ukraine, you know, if russia is compared to a bear, then i'm like that i thought recently because now the war has really entered such a comfortable phase, a war of attrition, so ukrainian troops are engaging huge russian forces in the east , there in severodonetsk, vysochanska, this makes it possible, let's say, to carry out certain offensive actions in the south of our country, where russian troops are concentrated to a lesser extent, this is a tactic that's how i am with a bear, you know, when you even read there, in particular , about ivan franko, about zakhar berkut, there were goals

, but science. how to defeat a bear, how to fight with them, this is where you have to have the art of the most stupid business for a person, it would be, say, to hug a bear, try to overcome it, break it, well, it is different - the strongest person is basically broken by a healthy person , so it is understandable, and it is very important and interesting here . of the armed forces of ukraine, it is interesting to understand how much, according to your assessment, is working now according to the innovative leadership of the army in different ways, and maybe our partners support us. it's not easy for any person, if you compare russia with a bear, it's not easy to break this powerful animal, so to speak , by hugging it and standing face to

face with it, please, for every force in this world, there is a counter force "necessarily in the case of russia, i would not overestimate its capabilities either, they did it themselves, they overestimated their own capabilities, so success depends on the consolidation of efforts. so far, indeed, no other country is at war against russia, but the consolidation of the world is extremely important and vital. community, to what extent they will support ukraine with weapons financially, support with humanitarian aid, etc., diplomatic, of course, also with pressure on russia and the strengthening of sanctions, one of the most key issues now is the refusal to buy russian energy carriers, this is the thing that is really capable of inflicting a greater blow on russia than even the possible supply of weapons to ukraine