Politically, Ukraine has been part of Russia for the last 1000 years, regardless of any ethnic composition or lack of any dominant ethnic composition.
In the late nineteenth century there was still no “Ukraine” on the map and the word “Ukrainian” simply meant a rebel separatist from that borderland area (Ukraina literally means borderland in Russian) generally known as Galicia or Ruthenia that had mostly been under Polish rule before being added to the Tsarist empire during Catherine’s reign.
Who benefits from dividing Russia?
If the Germans had won WWII Ukraine would be flourishing now.
Well, the fertile plains would have been settled by Germans, and the indigenous Slavs were to be removed to the far north (north of Moscow) or exterminated.
There is no jewkraine…. only jews cryin
I know there is a strong propaganda push underway using selected historical facts and historical maps with selected features to attempt to create a separate (from Russia) and superior (to Russia) history for “Ukraine.” Ukrainian also becomes a separate language “unto itself,” instead of a regional or transitional dialect as it had always been considered before. Yes, I know the recent best-selling books and journal pieces by those “Ukrainian history” experts at Harvard, and some other Ivy League universities. Old books are better, more reliable on this subject.
“The YouTube feed is strong this morning.”
Speaking of the YouTube feed being on point, here’s one that popped up on mine the other day (nothing to do with Ukraine): https://youtu.be/f0uhy2ZxbQs. Good overview the history and present situation of 10 ethnicities of America. I feel like I’ve heard this fella in videos you’ve linked to before. Just thought it was interesting.
I’ll second that. It is an interesting video, though not from a White racialist perspective.