To begin with, what were the historical lands of Rus'? Originally, Rus' centered around Kyiv. When people from other principalities like Novgorod said “I’m going to Rus',” they meant Kyiv and the lands surrounding Kyiv. Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereiaslav— those were the core Rus' lands

These Rus' lands formed the political and cultural heart of the loose East Slavic federation known today as "Kyivan Rus'". But historically such a term didn't exist.

Later, “Rus'” expanded into terms like Red Rus, White Rus, Black Rus for certain regions surrounding the Rus' lands, but the original core remained around Kyiv. From this point onward some foreign sources would start referring to the core Rus' lands as "Little Rus'".

When the so-called Kyivan Rus began to fragment in the 12th century, Vladimir-Suzdal, a northern principality that did not bear the name Rus', emerged as a separate entity.

The independence of Rostov-Suzdal truly became solidified when it sacked Kyiv in 1169 under the rule of Andrey Bogolyubsky. This marked the beginning of a long-lasting rivalry between the Rus' and this northeastern principality—one some might argue continues to this day.

But where does all this tie into the argument of historic continuity of Rus' through Kyiv and Vladimir-Suzdal through Moscow? Let’s take a look at the history of the original Rus' lands from the Mongol invasion onwards:

1240–1362: Mixed control of Golden Horde and Kingdom of Ruthenia 1362–1648: Kyivan Voivodeship under Lithuania and later Poland 1648–1764: Cossack autonomy (Hetmanate) 1764–1917: "Russian" Empire 1917–present (excluding 1941–44): Ukraine (UNR/SSR/modern)

As one can observe by looking at the history of Rus' lands, Muscovy the state that formed from Vladimir-Suzdal and later became known as the Russian Empire, only had full control over the original Rus' lands for a mere 153 years.

So how did Muscovy become known as "Russia", while the people whose ancestors actually emerged from the Rus' lands lost their original name?

The answer is simple: the name "Rus'" carried prestige. It gave one the legitimacy to rule over others, as in the old days of Kyiv’s centrality.

So beginning in the 16th century, Muscovy began calling itself the "heir of all Rus' lands"—claiming succession to anything that had once been ruled from Kyiv.

In 1721, Peter the Great, driven by a mission to Europeanize Muscovy and legitimize its expansion and place within Europe, officially changed the name of the Muscovite Tsardom to the "Russian Empire", with the newly founded St. Petersburg as its capital.

But the people who had continuously been known as Ruthenians/Rusyns, and who had always considered the Rus' lands their own, now found themselves carrying the same name as the rising imperial power to the north.

With the rise of 19th century nationalism in Europe, they needed a name that would distinguish them, so as not to be absorbed or erased by the more powerful “Russians.” This became especially urgent due to ongoing Russification policies from St. Petersburg.

The name they ultimately chose, one that would resist the pressure of time and eliminate confusion with "Russians”, was "Ukrainians" as this was another name for their land. And so the land they had always called Rus' land would now only be known to the world as Ukraine.

But “Ukrainian” wasn’t a denial of the Rus' past. It was a way to assert a separate identity from the imperial power that had adopted the name Rus'. The real rupture wasn’t between Rus' and Ukraine. It was between Rus' and Muscovy.

So now, dear reader, I ask you to think over this question: Who should be the rightful heir to the name Rus' and its associated lands?

The people who have inhabited these lands since medieval times, who have retained the cultural and historical memory of Rus', and who have tried to establish an independent state on those lands since at least 1648?

Or the empire that only held full control over the core Rus' lands for just 153 years, and adopted the name "Russia" almost five centuries after Kyiv and the original Rus' had ceased to be the heart of East Slavic civilization?

@2Russophobic4u Russians were never called Moscovites. The term literally means residents of Moscow. That’s a modern construct, and term Moscovia was only used in the West for a region of Rus — Russian lands. Ukrainians are famous for silly fairytales.

@Stan23387461 Just made another thread on a topic, that should answer your question. In the Pereiaslav Agreement of 1654 Muscovy was referred to as "Московское государство" and "Царство Московское", not "Русское Царство". https://x.com/2Russophobic4u/s...

@2Russophobic4u You are wrong already in your first post. They originally c entered around Pskov and Novgorod and then sacked Kyiv and made it the capital

@demian6421 There's a difference between actual historical terms and modern terms created in Moscow Novgorodian Rus', Kyivan Rus', Moscovian Rus'— no such thing

@2Russophobic4u Old Ladoga. In 862-864, the first capital of Rus. The coat of arms of Old Ladoga is the family coat of arms of Rurik, brought by him to Kyiv, where it was later transformed into a trident.

@KZPR_102

@2Russophobic4u А чия це мара та якого року? Дякую за відповідь.

@svitloua Planisphere (1587) author: Urbano Monti Here another one: Carta marina (1539) author: Olaus Magnus

@2Russophobic4u #Fellas, you know that russians steal everything. Find out the details of this theft⬆️⬆️⬆️

@2Russophobic4u Interesting. As far as Ive heard the name Rus originally came from the passing vikings who traveled from Roslagen in Sweden in 700 -1100, up and down the Dnipro. Roslagen literally means "teams of rowers" The finnish name for Swedes is Routsi which also derives from this name.

@2Russophobic4u Russia's real name is Zalesye https://youtu.be/-aHWAp0GlXA?s...