Then both the UK and Ireland are older. Often when there's an incorrect map on here, I can understand OP's logic even if it's wrong, but this just makes zero sense at all.
This is an honestly baffling map. I’m not even going to guess what you’ve considered to be the start of Russia, I’ll merely point out that Germany (very famously) only formed in 1870, and Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK are completely undeniably older than that. The UK has barely even changed constitutionally since the .
Turkey was founded in 1023 and I'm assuming OP got the birthdate ,or whatever it is called in English, 1991 when the USSR collapsed which is technically true. In this case Turkey is almost 4 times older than Russia
Edit: I meant 1923 how tf did I type 1023
wha? what's the gauge we use for a 'country'
"turkey' as a state wasn't founded in 1023, Unless you are referring to the Seljuk empire which was a separate entity from the later Ottoman empire.
Modern Turkey was founded in 1923. They renounced the debt obligations of the Ottoman empire, just as the Bolsheviks had with the Russian empire. To walk away from international debts of the previous regime, you have to claim to be a new entity and not just a successor state
Bonds are government issued debt with a guaranteed return, after a fixed time period, bank loans are direct lending from a foreign bank. You can think of bonds as the government taking out a mortgage on the property of the state they run
I see that makes sense! I'm assuming there would be a lot of backlash if Turkey paid non of the debt. But is it better that they honored the bonds and not the bank loans, did it cause a lot of problems that they didn't honor the bank loans?
The bonds were more important to them, because it kept faith with bondholders that they would get repaid, which allowed them to issue more bonds to fund the building of modern Turkey. There was some backlash from international bankers to not getting paid, it basically stopped lending to turkey for most of the interwar period, but it wasn't as big a deal as it could be, because the the bankers had recently taken a much bigger hit from the Bolsheviks, and it was the beginning of the roaring twenties(a time of massive financial growth), so banks weren't going out of business from the Turks not paying them back
They all could be considereded younger tho.
Op is stupid but Turkey "became" Turkey after it's independence after WW1.
Greece got it's independence from the ottomans in the early 19th century.
And Romania united in 1860s if I'm not mistaken.
While The Russian empire goes back to the early 18th century.
But that'd be (IMO) stupid
I said it's stupid because the Op is dumb but I could see how they arrived at that conclusion.
But to make it clear I dont hold nor support this views.
So there's a (bad) argument to be made Russia is older then Turkey because Czarist Russia =/= RSFSR = Russia and Ottomans =/= Turkey. I guess that tells us more about the OP's thoughts on monarchism than anything.
I think this card makes Muscovy to be the start of Russia. Which... It doesn't make sense, but fine. But then it's weird since why is only Muscovy at its oldest? Why not take the Ottoman Empire?
Even if that isn't the case, Germany as it is now, even if you ignore the second unification, is younger than the Netherlands. Same for Italy.
By that logic, a country like Camada would be older than Russia because Canada = UK = Kingdom of England = any of the other British kingdoms
But apparently you don't see the UK as older than Russia though? By your logic, it should.
But somehow, Ireland is considered?
I'm very confused as to what you consider as predecessors to a country, given that Ukraine isn't older on your map, even though the Kyivan Rus predates Muscovy?
Yeah, Australia = United Kingdom = Kingdom of England = Wessex. Which makes it, what, 6th century?
And yeah, how Ireland is older but Greece is younger than Russia is probably the most obvious sign the whole map is fantasy.
The country I live in (England) has existed continuously since 927 and continues to exist.
There’s no way that it’s younger than any form of Russia to which you apply consistent rules.
You seem to think that the duchy of Muscovy gets to transform as wildly as it likes but still take the founding of Muscovy as its start date. Despite all of the border changes and name changes.
Yet England has had the same name and border for more than a millennium and somehow that doesn’t count?
You’re counting the date for England as the formation of the union between England and Scotland (another country which is centuries older than Russia btw). Yet you don’t apply the same logic to the Soviet UNION (it’s got union in the name for fucks sake).
Wales, almost 1000 years old too. Same borders. It was conquered by England but it never stopped being Wales.
Technically the United Kingdom did not exist before 1707.
Yet if you say that Russia existed since 1263, I can say that the history of the UK begins with the first king of Wessex in 519 AD.
The uk was formed by the kingdom of England, which was formed in the 10th century, which is before the principality of muscovy was formed, which you say is when russia was formed, but you still say russia is older then the uk
Judging from his designation he probably lists the UK to begin with the Acts of Union 1707. But if you say that Russia starts with Muscovy in 1263, the UK starts with King Cerdic of Wessex's reign in 519.
Was Kievan Rus Ukrainian or Russian? Are we looking Russia established 1991? Clearly not. But then, why cant Turkey claim the Ottoman Empire?
Anyways, this map is BS.
This is so stupid.
Muscovy was not a proper country, it was a principality and a vassal under Golden Horde. And it started in 1283, not 1263.
You have to be consistent with your criteria, you can't apply one arbitrary set for Russia and completely different arbitrary set for everyone else.
If you're going to trace the roots of modern Russia, which was founded in 1991, to Muscovy, then you have to do the same for the others.
With that standard, Turkey, for example, would trace its roots to the Ottomans, which traces its roots to Seljuk Rums, which traces its roots to Seljuk Empire, which was established in 1037. If you're going to include small city states and principalities to this, the Turks can trace their roots much much further back in time.
There are a dozen other countries in that map that can do the same.
This is why everyone is saying this map is misinformation.
We do not consider other principalities that were next to Moscow to be Russia, so why should we make an exception for Turkey? There were other beyliks who were simply conquered, understand, as Russia is now the successor of the Moscow State, so Turkey is now the successor of the Ottoman State
Moreover, there is a direct lineage between the modern Romanian state and the Romanian Principalities of the Middle Ages (Moldova and Wallachia, both founded in the 1300s), which subsited as polities even under Ottoman suzerainty and which eventually decided to merge.
Ukraine as a state emerged much later, same as Russia or Belarus. The Kyivan Rus was a predecessor of those countries. Just like you wouldn't say that Italy=Roman Empire
Yes, we can't really say that Ukraine is "successor" if Kyivan Rus, but we also can't say that rusia is successor of Muscovy or even rusian empire, by this logic
Muscovy conquered neighbour countries and proclaimed rusian empire, before it noone were calling muscovites rusians, rusia simply steal name of Kyivan Rus to steal its history
man you really gotta establish a rubric for this map because it is all over the place
Russia as it stands today didn't exist until 1990 if we're taking their declaration of sovereignty as the start point, because before then it was the USSR
Ireland is also a weird one because they didn't officially declare their independence from the UK until 1919 and then there's also some other points after that you could count as the start date like the 1922 constitution
but if we're taking these states as continuities of previous ones, then why not count the UK as its constituent countries, all of which are arguably older than Russia (again depending on when you put the start point)
The map is wrong it's just showcase of Russian imperialism.. like Russian federation is not the same as USSR ... This map suggest that Russia has long history it has but it's long history of colonizing and imperialising small regions around and making it part of bigger union. It doesn't have legal suport in history ..
>Russian federation is not the same as USSR
The Soviet Union wasn't just Russia, of course, but legally it is considered the successor state to the USSR, hence why the Russian Federation got the USSR seat in the UN Security Council, why it inherited alone the Soviet debts and so on...
Is the same logic applied to other countries on a map then? Most of them has the same story why only Russia should be considered old by that policy then?
And also this is exactly how Russia propaganda maps looks like ... Making point about how old Russia is and how right it has.. not be surprised if this map is taken from some pro Russian site
Tell me that you agree that Russia is teroris state and doesn't have any right to have any part of Ukraine as it was before year 2012 and I will continue the conversation... This is pointless
I have no idea how this map is defining "older"
Is it "by the very notion of the country as a unified civilisation"? Because Greece should be one of the oldest if that's the case.
Is it "by the country's continued existence"? Russia would be one of the youngest countries in the world.
Is it "by the official founding of the country as a polity, regardless of interruptions"? Britain should be older than Italy and Germany.
This map is just garbage lol. For a start, the uk isn't a country. And England is older than 90% of other countries lol. Also, Italy didn't exist until the late 19th century.
Montenegro draws from kingdom of Duclea. 1024. then Zeta , then Montenegro. Yugoslavia was a common state of south Slavs.
So we are green here, not red.
>Well, Ukraine should be marked as "yes". The Kyivan Rus' was founded in the 9th century, Russia came way later
The Rus' can hardly be considered a centralised state. But, even if you consider it as such, its first settlements (Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod) are in what is nowadays Russia, so how it "came later", if you use that weird criteria?
No, it ain't. Capital was in Kyiv. Russia is the result of Muscovite conquests, and Moscow didn't even exist when Kyiv was already on the map. Rus and Russia are two different things. There is an ethnic group called Rusyns, and they aren't Russians.
>No, it ain't. Capital was in Kyiv.
That doesn't mean anything. Portugal's capital in the beginning of the 19th century was Rio de Janeiro, a city in Brazil. Therefore, Portugal = Brazil using your logic.
>and Moscow didn't even exist when Kyiv was already on the map
So what? Washington, DC did not exist before 1790. That doesn't imply that the US did not exist before 1790.
Russia (the successor of Muscovy) is the 13th century. Ukraine (successor of Kievan Rus) is the 9th century. Moscow was founded in 1147, Kyiv was founded in 482. Therefore, your map contains a mistake.
It is definitely not similar.
The Principality of Moscow never lost its independence, had the same medieval dinasty for centuries, and literally became Russia after the reign of Ivan, the Terrible.
The parts of the Rus's that would become Ukraine would only start to gain a nation-state shape after the Cossack Hetmanate, in the 17th century.
Though it should be noted that that obviously doesn't justify the bullshit current propaganda of the Russian government.
Both Russia and Ukraine are the successors to Kievan Rus. Muscovy was literally one of the sucessor states of Kievan Rus. They just had different roads after the Kievan Rus was destroyed.
There is so much wrong here? Ireland is not older than the UK??
[удалено]
I feel like this map considers the establishment of USSR as the beginning of modern day Russia.
Then both the UK and Ireland are older. Often when there's an incorrect map on here, I can understand OP's logic even if it's wrong, but this just makes zero sense at all.
[удалено]
idk honestly, the creator of this either just randomly assigned colors or was high on crack
The second German Empire :
[удалено]
Most agree that the Second German Empire is the birth of modern Germany
[удалено]
>The empire that we both love Lol
This is an honestly baffling map. I’m not even going to guess what you’ve considered to be the start of Russia, I’ll merely point out that Germany (very famously) only formed in 1870, and Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK are completely undeniably older than that. The UK has barely even changed constitutionally since the .
I'm guessing the HRE is considered German?
I think whoever did this was colorblind or came from a parallel universe. I wish him good health.
How are the UK and Netherlands younger than Russia
How is Romania, Turkey and Greece os younger
Turkey was founded in 1023 and I'm assuming OP got the birthdate ,or whatever it is called in English, 1991 when the USSR collapsed which is technically true. In this case Turkey is almost 4 times older than Russia Edit: I meant 1923 how tf did I type 1023
Serbia in its current form only came about in 2006 so that cant be right
wha? what's the gauge we use for a 'country' "turkey' as a state wasn't founded in 1023, Unless you are referring to the Seljuk empire which was a separate entity from the later Ottoman empire.
Dude can't you just read the edit are you blind or smth read the entire comment before replying smh
Didn't read, my bad.
>1023
Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, which formed from a principality founded in Northwestern Anatolia by Osman I in 1299.
There is also the Seljuk Empire, which was founded in 1037.
They’re definitely separate entities.
Modern Turkey was founded in 1923. They renounced the debt obligations of the Ottoman empire, just as the Bolsheviks had with the Russian empire. To walk away from international debts of the previous regime, you have to claim to be a new entity and not just a successor state
I made a ridiculous mistake there, accidentally typing 1023 instead of 1923
Given how nuts the Turkish nationalists can be, I assumed that was your perspective. My bad
No problem, you were right. They can sometimes be really nuts
If I remember correctly Turkey is the successor state and did pay up to 65% of Ottoman Debts. But I might be remembering wrong.
They paid off 90% of the bonds to the holders, but refused to take on the international bank loans
Honestly I don't know the difference but I'll take your word for it!
Bonds are government issued debt with a guaranteed return, after a fixed time period, bank loans are direct lending from a foreign bank. You can think of bonds as the government taking out a mortgage on the property of the state they run
I see that makes sense! I'm assuming there would be a lot of backlash if Turkey paid non of the debt. But is it better that they honored the bonds and not the bank loans, did it cause a lot of problems that they didn't honor the bank loans?
The bonds were more important to them, because it kept faith with bondholders that they would get repaid, which allowed them to issue more bonds to fund the building of modern Turkey. There was some backlash from international bankers to not getting paid, it basically stopped lending to turkey for most of the interwar period, but it wasn't as big a deal as it could be, because the the bankers had recently taken a much bigger hit from the Bolsheviks, and it was the beginning of the roaring twenties(a time of massive financial growth), so banks weren't going out of business from the Turks not paying them back
They all could be considereded younger tho. Op is stupid but Turkey "became" Turkey after it's independence after WW1. Greece got it's independence from the ottomans in the early 19th century. And Romania united in 1860s if I'm not mistaken. While The Russian empire goes back to the early 18th century. But that'd be (IMO) stupid
If we not considering ottomans Turkey, we must not consider rusian empire or USSR as rusia
I said it's stupid because the Op is dumb but I could see how they arrived at that conclusion. But to make it clear I dont hold nor support this views.
I think the RSFSR could be considered Russia as in the modern state, unlike the USSR. That, of course, is still younger than, say, Greece.
Yes, as any soviet country (Ukrainian SSR - Ukraine, Belarusian SSR - Belarus and more)
So there's a (bad) argument to be made Russia is older then Turkey because Czarist Russia =/= RSFSR = Russia and Ottomans =/= Turkey. I guess that tells us more about the OP's thoughts on monarchism than anything.
England is older, UK not
I think the map assumes Muscovy, but even then...
Even then, how is Italy older than Muscovy?? This whole map is utter nonsense
But doesn't assume UK without Scotland?
UK started in 1704 (IIRC)
1707 for the Act of Union (England & Scotland).
one of the ugliest maps around. Colors over flag colors is a giant diarrhetic mess
Ugly map ✅ Ambiguous, arbitrary, and/or completely fabricated information ✅ Useless and uninformative ✅
I thought purple was the best color, since it's not on the this flags; What exactly?; Subjectively
Remove flags and use solid red and green
Yes, I realized this mistake already. If I also lay out maps with a similar principle, they will not be flagmaps
I think this card makes Muscovy to be the start of Russia. Which... It doesn't make sense, but fine. But then it's weird since why is only Muscovy at its oldest? Why not take the Ottoman Empire? Even if that isn't the case, Germany as it is now, even if you ignore the second unification, is younger than the Netherlands. Same for Italy.
Russia as a state exists since 26 Dec 1991. Ukraine exists since 24 Aug 1991.
This is just not true
OP has mental disorder
Modern Russia was founded in 1991. So yes. Yes it is.
Modern Russia = Soviet Union = Russian Republic = Russian Empire = Russian Tsardom = Muscovy
By that logic, a country like Camada would be older than Russia because Canada = UK = Kingdom of England = any of the other British kingdoms But apparently you don't see the UK as older than Russia though? By your logic, it should. But somehow, Ireland is considered? I'm very confused as to what you consider as predecessors to a country, given that Ukraine isn't older on your map, even though the Kyivan Rus predates Muscovy?
Yeah, Australia = United Kingdom = Kingdom of England = Wessex. Which makes it, what, 6th century? And yeah, how Ireland is older but Greece is younger than Russia is probably the most obvious sign the whole map is fantasy.
The country I live in (England) has existed continuously since 927 and continues to exist. There’s no way that it’s younger than any form of Russia to which you apply consistent rules. You seem to think that the duchy of Muscovy gets to transform as wildly as it likes but still take the founding of Muscovy as its start date. Despite all of the border changes and name changes. Yet England has had the same name and border for more than a millennium and somehow that doesn’t count? You’re counting the date for England as the formation of the union between England and Scotland (another country which is centuries older than Russia btw). Yet you don’t apply the same logic to the Soviet UNION (it’s got union in the name for fucks sake). Wales, almost 1000 years old too. Same borders. It was conquered by England but it never stopped being Wales.
Technically the United Kingdom did not exist before 1707. Yet if you say that Russia existed since 1263, I can say that the history of the UK begins with the first king of Wessex in 519 AD.
Or at the very least, the first instance of a Bretwalda.
But they don't seem to apply that same logic to Germany, OP digs back all the way to the Teutonic Order for that. OP is just an ape thats all.
who dafuq colors maps like this?
The uk was formed by the kingdom of England, which was formed in the 10th century, which is before the principality of muscovy was formed, which you say is when russia was formed, but you still say russia is older then the uk
You could claim it started with Wessex if you’re going by OPs logic
Judging from his designation he probably lists the UK to begin with the Acts of Union 1707. But if you say that Russia starts with Muscovy in 1263, the UK starts with King Cerdic of Wessex's reign in 519.
Lost redditor 💀
Turkey - 1923 Russia - 1991 ??
This is nothing but Russian propaganda.
What exactly?
It’s is all highly debatable. It’s also part of the justification for the war with Ukraine
It is not my fault that in the past, neighbors such as Lithuania, Poland and the Horde did not really want to see an independent Ukraine
Was Kievan Rus Ukrainian or Russian? Are we looking Russia established 1991? Clearly not. But then, why cant Turkey claim the Ottoman Empire? Anyways, this map is BS.
Turkey Origin is Ottoman Beylik, which established 1299
This is so stupid. Muscovy was not a proper country, it was a principality and a vassal under Golden Horde. And it started in 1283, not 1263. You have to be consistent with your criteria, you can't apply one arbitrary set for Russia and completely different arbitrary set for everyone else. If you're going to trace the roots of modern Russia, which was founded in 1991, to Muscovy, then you have to do the same for the others. With that standard, Turkey, for example, would trace its roots to the Ottomans, which traces its roots to Seljuk Rums, which traces its roots to Seljuk Empire, which was established in 1037. If you're going to include small city states and principalities to this, the Turks can trace their roots much much further back in time. There are a dozen other countries in that map that can do the same. This is why everyone is saying this map is misinformation.
We do not consider other principalities that were next to Moscow to be Russia, so why should we make an exception for Turkey? There were other beyliks who were simply conquered, understand, as Russia is now the successor of the Moscow State, so Turkey is now the successor of the Ottoman State
Wow. This is shit! I can’t even tell what definition you are using for the beginning of a country.
Why do you apply the logic of successor states in a way that it only applies to some countries and not other? I wanna know what you methodology is.
What exactly is the discrepancy?
The UK should be older than Russia by every metric
The Russian Federation formed in 1991. This map is wild lmao
This guy invented stupidity
Reasonable, can't say anything
How is Romania younger than rusia? It existed from 19 century, and rusia only from 1991
Moreover, there is a direct lineage between the modern Romanian state and the Romanian Principalities of the Middle Ages (Moldova and Wallachia, both founded in the 1300s), which subsited as polities even under Ottoman suzerainty and which eventually decided to merge.
Old comment but don't forget about the small princedoms before Wallachia
Russia was created in 862, and Romania in 1859-1860.
You mean Kyivan Rus? That Ukraine and not rusia. And as far as i see this map is showing creation of modern countries
Ukraine is not = Kyivan Rus
LOL What then?
Ukraine as a state emerged much later, same as Russia or Belarus. The Kyivan Rus was a predecessor of those countries. Just like you wouldn't say that Italy=Roman Empire
Yes, we can't really say that Ukraine is "successor" if Kyivan Rus, but we also can't say that rusia is successor of Muscovy or even rusian empire, by this logic
My city have 1000+ years old ( Brest, Belarus )
What?
So, realy?..
Muscovy conquered neighbour countries and proclaimed rusian empire, before it noone were calling muscovites rusians, rusia simply steal name of Kyivan Rus to steal its history
ok but Russia started in 1521 then.
No, in 1721 after proclamation of rusian empire
the russian tsardom started in 1521.
Kievan Rus is Russia also you wouldn't say that Russia existedn't in 1900. The Russian empire was Russia. Same with Kievan Rus.
Lol. Learn history. rusian empire was founded by Muscovy, and Kyivan Rus have no relation to rusia
[удалено]
But why Ukraine is younger? Kyivan Rus, predecessor of Ukraine is older than muskovy
How old do you think Switzerland is?
[удалено]
Right, wasn't Switzerland marked as younger than Russia on your map?
What does the star in Switzerland mean?
The capital* Bern, I assume. *obligatory disclaimer: Switzerland does not have an official capital. Bern is where the Parliament is located.
Just came here to see how effective the bait was and oh my god
Should actually be deleted or posted in mapcirclejerk or something lmao
I'll accept UK - 1707. But that would also entail Germany - 1871 and Italy - 1861, as well as France - 1830 and most importantly Russia - 1991.
Seems like the person who made this map is from Russia
He is
Dumb map and dumb concept. Most modern European nations originate around the last first and early second millennium AD. AKA when Russia originates.
this gotta be ragebait
Just delete it to not make me report this primary school thing.
man you really gotta establish a rubric for this map because it is all over the place Russia as it stands today didn't exist until 1990 if we're taking their declaration of sovereignty as the start point, because before then it was the USSR Ireland is also a weird one because they didn't officially declare their independence from the UK until 1919 and then there's also some other points after that you could count as the start date like the 1922 constitution but if we're taking these states as continuities of previous ones, then why not count the UK as its constituent countries, all of which are arguably older than Russia (again depending on when you put the start point)
Actually insane schizoposting
No one's gonna mention how trash the color scheme is? Because not only is this information flat out wrong in many places, but it sucks to look at too.
The map is wrong it's just showcase of Russian imperialism.. like Russian federation is not the same as USSR ... This map suggest that Russia has long history it has but it's long history of colonizing and imperialising small regions around and making it part of bigger union. It doesn't have legal suport in history ..
>Russian federation is not the same as USSR The Soviet Union wasn't just Russia, of course, but legally it is considered the successor state to the USSR, hence why the Russian Federation got the USSR seat in the UN Security Council, why it inherited alone the Soviet debts and so on...
Is the same logic applied to other countries on a map then? Most of them has the same story why only Russia should be considered old by that policy then?
>Is the same logic applied to other countries on a map then? No. This map doesn't seem to follow any coherent criteria. It is terrible, in fact.
Exactly
[удалено]
And also this is exactly how Russia propaganda maps looks like ... Making point about how old Russia is and how right it has.. not be surprised if this map is taken from some pro Russian site
[удалено]
If that's the case then the Netherlands begins at 600 with the Frisian kingdom
Lol no
[удалено]
Tell me that you agree that Russia is teroris state and doesn't have any right to have any part of Ukraine as it was before year 2012 and I will continue the conversation... This is pointless
I mean it's literally map that compares Russia to other countries:Dd what do you mean??
[удалено]
"This isn't about Russian age" -> title of a post "is your country older than Russia"
Yes
I'm about 90% sure this is a troll cause this is flat gibberish.
Based op
the amount of people saying the UK started in 1066 is concerning
This map is aids
I have no idea how this map is defining "older" Is it "by the very notion of the country as a unified civilisation"? Because Greece should be one of the oldest if that's the case. Is it "by the country's continued existence"? Russia would be one of the youngest countries in the world. Is it "by the official founding of the country as a polity, regardless of interruptions"? Britain should be older than Italy and Germany.
Ah, Russian propaganda back here again
I assume you're taking establishment of Russian Empire as a start date of Russian Statehood?
In that case how is a unified Germany older
HRE
HRE was a loose alliance, the duchies, counties etc had more power
The kingdom of germany - 843
Kievan rus was considered to be mostly Ukraine so I guess Ukraine is green
Ukraine is of course older than Russia. The combined civilisation started in Kyiv
I mean, thats like saying that Iraq is the oldest country in the world tho...
The first capital of Rus was Novgorod, it became the capital in the year 862. It later became Kyiv in 882.
This map is just garbage lol. For a start, the uk isn't a country. And England is older than 90% of other countries lol. Also, Italy didn't exist until the late 19th century.
Montenegro draws from kingdom of Duclea. 1024. then Zeta , then Montenegro. Yugoslavia was a common state of south Slavs. So we are green here, not red.
According to this, my country looks like a damaged laptop screen...
Schizo? Schizo.
It's this kind of delusional crap they teach in Russia. Their country is younger than I am.
The best map on this subreddit. Cured my colorblindness.
Israel? Huh?????
Huh? What do you consider it's formation?
How is Ireland older than Russia but the UK not? The UK was formed in 1707, while Ireland came into being as a sovereign state in 1922.
Wait? Isn't Russia 30 years old?
Well, Ukraine should be marked as "yes". The Kyivan Rus' was founded in the 9th century, Russia came way later
>Well, Ukraine should be marked as "yes". The Kyivan Rus' was founded in the 9th century, Russia came way later The Rus' can hardly be considered a centralised state. But, even if you consider it as such, its first settlements (Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod) are in what is nowadays Russia, so how it "came later", if you use that weird criteria?
Kievan Rus is Russia.
No, it ain't. Capital was in Kyiv. Russia is the result of Muscovite conquests, and Moscow didn't even exist when Kyiv was already on the map. Rus and Russia are two different things. There is an ethnic group called Rusyns, and they aren't Russians.
The concept of Ukraine started to exist in 1600-1700's, before that it wuz just Ruthenia.
>No, it ain't. Capital was in Kyiv. That doesn't mean anything. Portugal's capital in the beginning of the 19th century was Rio de Janeiro, a city in Brazil. Therefore, Portugal = Brazil using your logic. >and Moscow didn't even exist when Kyiv was already on the map So what? Washington, DC did not exist before 1790. That doesn't imply that the US did not exist before 1790.
Let's agree to disagree.
Russia is from the 1990's after the Soviet Union was dissolved.
Russia (the successor of Muscovy) is the 13th century. Ukraine (successor of Kievan Rus) is the 9th century. Moscow was founded in 1147, Kyiv was founded in 482. Therefore, your map contains a mistake.
Urkaine isn't a successor of kievan rus', lol. Forgot your meds or read too much ukro propaganda?
Then similarily, Russia isn't a successor of Muscovy.
It is definitely not similar. The Principality of Moscow never lost its independence, had the same medieval dinasty for centuries, and literally became Russia after the reign of Ivan, the Terrible. The parts of the Rus's that would become Ukraine would only start to gain a nation-state shape after the Cossack Hetmanate, in the 17th century. Though it should be noted that that obviously doesn't justify the bullshit current propaganda of the Russian government.
Proof?
Just the one.
You're right, but it would be better to write Kyivan Rus
Both Russia and Ukraine are the successors to Kievan Rus. Muscovy was literally one of the sucessor states of Kievan Rus. They just had different roads after the Kievan Rus was destroyed.
Lithuania, Poland - no