Lands that are presently collectively known under the name of “Ukraine” had a turbulent history, especially in the last 300 or so years. In this post I want to take a look at a few maps, and present some short historical information, pertaining the term “Ukraine” and how it came to be. I will finish this post with some quite obvious genetic discoveries.

Let us first start with the following 4 maps, and explanation to them, coming strait out of Lada Ray’s excellent Earth Shift Report 2. Ukraine: Truth, Lies & Future Hope. It is a highly recommended, well-researched for-donation report of a size of a small book, for everyone who want to learn what is going on in Ukraine behind the scenes, its history and what lies ahead.

This map shows how the size of Ukraine changed through history. NOTE! What is shown here in yellow as ‘Ukraine in 1654’ was in fact the territory of the Zaporozhie Cossacks (Zaporozhskie Kazaki). There was no country or territory called Ukraine before Lenin and Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the USSR.

This map shows one of the ideas of how the division of Ukraine should happen by oblast, if it was done in 2014, before civil war began. It shows one big DNR consisting of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhie, Kherson and Kharkov. For some reason it omits Dnepropetrovsk, which should be within this affinity, but that probably didn’t happen since at the time Kolomoysky was at the helm in Dnepropetrovsk . The center, incl Kiev, remains under Ukraine flag, western Ukraine’s 5 oblasts are obviously under nazi flag. Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) with Rusins (ruthenians) has its own republic with a flag resembling Russian. Red/white/gold Odessa flag with anchor on it unites Odessa and Nikolaev oblasts (I’d add Kherson and certainly Pridnestrovie, plus possibly Gagauzia – part of Moldova). This kind of voluntary peaceful divorce could have happened if we were dealing with mature people and if Ukraine was a sovereign state, not under foreign occupation.

This map shows a different version of Ukraine’s division. In gray is basically western Ukraine – on this map it’s entitled ‘Ukraine (Poland)’; Small Malorossia in the center in pink with Kiev as capital; large Novorossia in the south-east in blue, which here includes Denpropetrovsk and also Kirovograd, plus Odessa and Nikolaev. But Kharkov and Sumi are designated separately as Slobozhanshchina, which is historically correct. Kharkov, Sumi and Chernigov – Severshchina (on this map in light green in the north) were always Russian territories, Chernigov being one of the ancient Russian cities. These, together with Novorossia were given to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 over their population’s objections.

This map is self explanatory – a version of the ‘Future Map of Ukraine,’ giving some territory to foreign states, such as Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. All of Novorossia is under Russian flag, extending to Pridnestrovie and, presently Moldova’s, Gagauzia.

Incidentally, almost two years ago, I published the article Two Ukraines – with a Statistical and Historical View at Novorossia, which blends well with the maps, shown above.

But what is “Ukraine”? Lada’s Earth Shift Report 2 delves into it, and so does a larger documentary, which I am currently translating.

Here I will present two fragments of the translated script, along with two still images, illustrating the points made there.

What is “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian”?

The revolt, headed by Bogdan Hmelnitsky started in 1648. After 6 years of war, in 1654, Periaslav Rada was signed. This is a document about reunification with the Moskovy State of a part of Western Rus, including Kiev and the territories of Zaporozhje county. It was signed by Czar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov.

My the way, the phrase “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” appeared first in the Soviet history texts in 1920s.
The historians knew perfectly well that in 1654 there was simply no such country as “Ukraine”. Those territories were called Malorossia. While the words “Ukraine” – Ukraina (slight difference in stress here, both words are the same) was used in Poland and Russia about borderlands. For Poles it is the lands of the middle Dnepr – the central regions of the modern Ukraine.

Anna Razhny:
In Polish it is called “pugraniche”. It’s the border in the cultural, national, political, even historical meaning. Ukraina meant for Rech Pospolitaja a far away border, a territory, where different ethnos could live. In this context Ukraina no longer exists in the present time.

For Moscow, on the other hand, at one time Ukraina meant Tula, Kashira, Serpuhov – that was the Oka-river Ukraina – the border with the territories, from where nomads came.

The word “Ukrainian” in the Russian language of that time, is a profession – a border guard (or someone, who lives on the border). While a resident of Kiev or Poltava was called a Malorossian.

Still frame above is a fragment of a dictionary entry. Judging by the revision of the Russian alphabet used, specifically by the letter “Ѧ”, this is a text from before the 1710 language reform of Peter I. The example usages are from Ivan the Formidable’s texts of 1503. Here is a translation taking the pronunciation into account:

Ukrain’nik (Украиньникъ) – Noun, a resident of a border territory.
Ukrain’nyi (Украиньныи) – Adjective, as in “Ukain’nyi baron” – governor of a border territory.
Ukrainjanin (УкраинѦнинъ) – Noun, a resident of a border territory.

How and when did the term “Ukraine” as a national designation appear?

Ultimately Poland ceased to exist in 1795, when the large states performed the third division of the Polish lands.
Galicia, Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) and Bukovina, populated by Russians, or as it was said then – Rusins (Ruthenians), came under Austrai-Hungary, while almost all of the Kievan Rus territories were taken by the Russian Empire.

That is how a large portion of the Polish population ended up in the Russian Empire.

The Poles are, of course, dreaming about resurrection of their beloved Poland – Rech Pospolitaja, and what is more, in the wider borders as they were before the partitioning.

All their ire and hatred is directed at Russia. The idea is like this: sow separatism on those lands, tear them away from Russia, announce that the people there are not Russian, but close to Poles.

In 1795 the Polish writer and historian Jan Potocki published historically-geographical fragments about Scythia, Sarmatia and Slavs. In that work, for the first time, Russians of Malorossia were called “Ukrainians”, a separate people, descendants of the Scythian tribe of Sarmatians.

Potocki’s idea was very simple in its design: If Malorossian “Ukrainians” have nothing in common with Russians; if Malorossian “Ukrainians” is a separate people with its separate culture and history, then it follows that also Russia has no historical rights on the lands West for Dnieper, including Kiev. Then it follows that there is not gathering of Russian lands. It follows then that Russia annexed and occupied Malorossia/Ukraine.

Potocki’s propaganda was first and foremost directed at the Western reader, who traditionally had a very vague idea what is Malorossia, Raussia, Kiev, and where all this is found.

Pavel Kuzenkov:
We see very clearly how neighbours were calling these “Ukrainians”. Up until 20th century they were called Rus. Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, all who surrounded this territory, never were in doubt that what starts from Transcarpathia is “Rus”.

But it was the Polish publicists, who by the beginning of the 19th century turn a topographic term “Ukraina” into a name of a country. In 1801 the Polish bibliophile and publicist Tadeusz Czadzki published his work “About the name of Ukraine and the birth of Cossacks”. It was a new phase in forming of Ukranianism as an ideology. Tadeusz Czadzki further distinguished that Ukrainian Malorossians are not Russians, rather they are different people.
Czadzki started the history of Ukrainians from the horde of the “Ancient Ukros”, who according to him moved in the 7th century from somewhere in Urals, across Volga to the Drepr river. The fact that neither the Polish nor the Russian chronicles ever mentioned any “Ukros”, didn’t in the least bother Czadzki.

These theories may have remained as brain games of the intellectuals, if not for one “but”. Czar Alexander I, a liberal pro-Westerner, favoured the Polish nobility, considered it to be more educated and well-mannered, than Russian. During Alexander’s reign, Poles played an important role at the court, in the Academy. The Imperial Foreign Ministry was headed by an ardent russophobe Adam Czartoryski, and with his support the Poles got full control of the education system in Malorossia.

Czartoryski’s close ally was a priest and historian Valerian Kalinka, who wrote about Malorossia thusly: “This land is lost for Poland, but we must do it so, that it becomes lost for Russia too.”

The still frame above is a definition of “Ukraina”. Judging by the alphabet, and specifically the usage of the Latin letter “i” this text comes after the 1738 language reform of Peter I, when usage of double-dotted “ї” before vocals was abolished (single-dotted and double-dotted “i” and “ї” is what distinguished present day “Ukrainian” from Russian). Mentioning of A. Jablonovskij’s name in the text points to the end of the 19th century.

The beginning of the text translates as follows:

“Ukraina – thus were called the South-Western Russian lands of Rech Pospolitaja. This name was never official, it was used only in private conversations and became common in folk poetry. It is difficult to define the boundaries of the lands, known as “ukrainnyi”, more so that this name was not permanent and at different times covered varying stretches of land…

Recently, some of the Western-bread ultra-nationalists took up Tadeusz Czadzki’s segregation banner to a new low and started saying that Ukrainians and Russians are different people genetically, stating that Russians are not even Slavs… This propaganda was shot down in 2014 by a respectable study. I first learnt about it from the editorial column of Argumenty i Fakty. Here is a translated text of that note:

It was initially clear for any reasonable person that Ukrainians and Russians are brothers.

The recent massive and authoritative scientifically research proved: Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians do not differ from each other genetically.

Let’s say it at once: the scientists studied the DNA of the Ukrainians on the basis of the genetic material of the inhabitants of the western regions of the country, namely, the city of Lvov, with which we markedly differ in language and culture. But, as it turns out, not the origin. Thereby the allegations of the Ukrainian nationalists, who say that Russians, having moved from the territory of modern Ukraine, have so much mixed up with the Mongoloid race, and that they stopped being Slavs, is completely debunked.

However, as it was initially clear for any sensible person: Ukrainians and Russians are brothers. And let the borders, ideology, economic disputes divide us now – this is largely a consequence of the geopolitical game of Western politicians, who have managed to embroil us with each other. One just wants to exclaim along with the character of Kipling: “We are of the same blood!” But now, alas, we are unlikely to be heard hear – until someone (both inside Ukraine and abroad) harvest their own political dividends from our “brotherly spats”.

Digging further, I found the publication from 27.07.2014 in KM.ru, which presents the research by Anatoly Klyosov. My translation of that article below:

A leading scientist of the scientific direction of “DNA genealogy”, Doctor of Chemistry, professor of Moscow State University and Harvard University, Anatoly Klyosov in an exclusive interview KM.RU denied allegations of genetic differences between the Russians and Ukrainians.

Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians represent a set of the same genera

Nationalist school of Western Ukraine promotes the idea that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are not closely related. This point of view is “based” on the fact that although once upon a time, Russians moved from what is now Ukraine, later they allegedly severely mingled with representatives of the Mongoloid race and are no longer Slavs.

There is virtually no truth in this statement. Russians, Ukrainians and Beloarussians represent a set of the same genera, it is one and the same people from the genetic point of view. They have almost the same origin. Ethnic Russians have three main lines: R1a, I and N. 48% of Russians and 45% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup R1a. 22% of Russians and 24% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup I. Depending on sampling, these parameters may vary up to 4%.

A more noticeable difference between our peoples is observed in haplogroup N, which is common in Northern Europe. It includes, in particular, a portion of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians, part of the Russian population of the Baltic states and the Russian north-east. 14% of Russians, 10% of Belarusians, and 1% to 4% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup N. Such a significant difference is due to the fact that Ukraine is located more south of the Baltic states, than Russia and Belarus. If we take the Belarusians, 52% belong to R1a, 22-24% belong to I, and as I said, 10% belong to N.

I want to stress that when I say “Ukrainians”, I am referring to the inhabitants of the western regions. Furthermore, we specifically took the data from Lvov. Of course, we have somewhat different cultures, and different language, but not the origin.

Assertions about the differences of our people is a part of the information war

There is such a thing as a “haplotype tree”. It is formed by different means. The first option is for the population genetics specialists to go to the field, go to the cities and villages with a test tube. Researchers collect saliva or blood from the representatives of certain ethnic category and determine DNA by it. From the point of view of the academic science such data is considered to be more accurate. The second option is when people send their samples to commercial organizations. Science generally shuns such data, but in the end the results obtained by scientists and commercial companies, is approximately the same, and often times simply identical.

So, we modelled this haplotypes tree , including to data on Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians. To do this, we did a DNA analysis based on 111 parameters (DNA Y-chromosome markers), whereas normal “academic” analysis only takes into account 17 parameters or less – often 7-8 parameters. We tracked such details, that the researchers do not usually go into. We superimposed the haplogroups of our peoples, and found that there is a match everywhere. Again, the difference is observed only in haplogroup N. It is connected solely with the geographical reasons.

Thus, the question of the common origin of the Russian, Belorussians and Ukrainians is closed, although I am familiar with the “works” that deny this fact. They caused in me a great scientific and social resentment. These “scientists” spew nonsense and distort objective data. I regard such activities as a part of the information war.

For details of the research by Anatoly Klyosov see in the material in KM.RU “Professor Anatoly Klyosov ‘In DNA of Russians and Ukrainians there is no difference!'” (in Russian).