EVERY WAR In Russian History 

...to the third reich

Good idea

also doubles as a history of the Habsburgs as well lol

Every successor state of Austria...@@EmperorRyuTokugawa

Also Austria is the one who caused both the world wars

1) The wars of Rus’, like Rus’ itself is absolutely not the direct and only predecessors of Russia and shouldn’t be included here. Rus' directly influenced the formation of all three modern East Slavic nations; however, this does not mean that the “largest and most famous” of these nations is a direct continuation of the state of Rus', no matter how modern Russia tries to convince everyone of this. It’s political statement, not a historical one. So the beginning of this video quite correctly shows what kind of wars Russia has waged in its history. 2) The self-name “Russia” is also somehow foreign, it is literally the Greek version of the pronunciation of Rus', and modern Russia seems to have no problems with this. The name “Muscovy” was simply assigned to this political formation in Western sources, like, for example, the name “Persia” or “India”, the peoples of which did not call themselves that. It is clear that the Hellenized version of the name of the state-forerunner of homeland sounds much more respectable than some kind of “Muscovy”, but I personally didn’t particularly notice in the textbooks of Russian historiography the more “correct” self-names of some East Slavic or Central Asian peoples, such as “Georgians”, who call themselves "Kartvels" and who never called themselves “Gruzines”, therefore, the presumption of the correctness of the self-name sounds doubtful.

@@unbridled_rage 1) The wars of Rus’ and its history also extend to the peoples of Ukraine and Belarus, and are not excluded from these countries, but it is the peoples and not the states. And the continuation of Rus’ as Russia is based not on the fact that Russia is the largest of them, but on the fact that Russia preserved the ruling dinasty of Rus’, the dominant faith of Russia and was a state that united the former lands of Rus’. At that time, such processes stopped due to the entry of these countries into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Russian principalities, although they temporarily lost their full independence, did not cease to exist and eventually united into a single state at that time that considered itself a continuation of Russia. It is this version that is most common all over the world, including the Western one. You may be convinced of some other, but the fact is that it is the new versions that are most shaped by political motives. In addition, according to these versions, there are no serious scientific papers, or even any information at all. You may well have a different opinion, but if you do not have proof in the form of scientific articles published in scientific journals or international historical conferences proving that Russia is not the heir of Rus’ or it is another state, then I will not comment on further statements concerning this, since it is precisely such a conversation that is politically conditioned and cannot be resolved by scientific methods 2) And again, your comments come out of the consideration that I just don't like the name of Muscovy, although there is nothing humiliating in it, but it is incorrect, at least because of the fact that this foreign term denotes several different states at once, the Moscow principality and the Russian tsardom, and in general, the Russian lands under the rule of Moscow and not a specific state. In this video, this name figures as a full-fledged name only for the Moscow Principality, without taking into account the context. With regard to your statements about the names of other countrys, there are different reasons for each of them, related, for example, to the one who presented the history of these states to the public, which still had to be searched for, and if some state does not agree with how it is called or was called, it can send a diplomatic request on this occasion. For example, India now wants to be called Bharat, but until it does, it will remain India.

@@user-ru6yl9zr2z 1) Let's start with the fact that Rus' has never been an integral state, it is, roughly speaking, a confederation of principalities which, in turn, included a certain number of different Slavic and other tribes that made up the main population of the country and were ruled by the main prince in Kiev. This state was finally and irrevocably fragmented after the Mongol invasion of Rus' 1237-1241, which divided the history of all the peoples living on its territory into before and after. The population of the northwestern part of the Rusines territories was influenced by the Balts and became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, forming a new identity and culture, but retaining their faith and their own language. The population of the southwestern part for a long time maintained independence as part of the Galician-Volyn Principality, having received recognition from many European states and the Pope as the only heir of Rus, largely preserved the culture of Rus, literature and the dominant religion (like all others, in fact), and after destruction this state for a long time retained its culture and language being part of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, having gone a long way from centuries of oppression and assimilation to the formation of a unique culture and political system based on democracy. The northeastern population of Rus came under the strong influence of the Golden Horde and adopted a lot from it, starting from state institutions, to some extent the structure of society and some state symbols, creating a completely new cultural and ethnic community, a state system and, ultimately, a hypercentralized a state with a new center in Moscow after the victory over the collapsing Mongol Empire, which had claims to all Rusines lands under dubious pretexts and eventually conquered a significant part of them, but almost no principality became part of it voluntarily, this is the path of expansion and assimilation and not “reunification” ". All three nations in the future have a common ancestor in the person of Kievan Rus, but certainly not Russia is a direct continuation of that state, it is certainly older and in many ways more powerful than the others, but is completely different in its state structure and other factors from both Rus' and other states that emerged from Rus'. 2) Well, I was probably mistaken in my judgment on this particular issue, I apologize. As for the next question, I meant that Russia really doesn’t like being called incorrectly, but at the same time it absolutely does not respect the desire of other peoples to call themselves authentic, this also applies to the history of some peoples, especially those that were previously under its influence . For me, this is a sign of imperialism and hypocrisy, which is also spread by Russian citizens, which, apparently, you are.

@@unbridled_rage 1) You have again given statements that are not based on any serious scientific foundations, and some are also known to be incorrect. I think if you had the slightest desire to understand the issue, you would have found processes that you consider as a counterargument, a clear proof of the course in Russia of precisely such state and nationally unifying processes that were then characteristic of the states that formed in the Middle Ages around the world and Europe in particular. But I doubt that you have the desire to take seriously something that contradicts the views that you have now, so, as I said in the previous comment, I will not comment on why you are wrong. 2) Russia respects the historical desires of peoples, but often people confuse the desire of countries, framed in the form of documentaries, for only being formed in the people. Almost all countries of the world have distorted the names of a country and if countries want other countries to call them differently, then I believe they need to make a little more diplomatic efforts than none

@@unbridled_rage The name "Rus" itself comes from the Scandinavian tribe that came to rule the Slavs in the 9th century. This tribe founded the ruling Rurik dynasty. Where the Rurikovichs ruled, there was Rus'. In the Middle Ages there were no nationalities; in the Middle Ages the dynastic principle was in effect. All lands and peoples living on it belonged to a certain dynasty. The last Rurikovich to rule in Russia in the 17th century was Ivan Shuisky. Therefore, Russia is the direct heir of Rus'.

Because people love to think that russia existed only when moscow was founded. Its a weird logic

No it wasn't when Novogorod created that Russia was too, its funny how when people say Moscovy formed Russia "its a weird logic" but when you say Novogorod just was created its "the real Russia"

@@sprintfoxy1240 Muscovy (more like Vladimir, but there's that) gathered the broken apart pieces of former Russia, reuniting it once more. Moscow didn't create Russia, only reinfocred it.

@@dimas3829 Russia was never united to begin with, its like saying "When Austria was emperor of the HRE Greater Germany was unified" its just wrong.

@@sprintfoxy1240 oh, yeah, divided Rus plundered Eastern Roman Empire twice and ensured trade agreement and forced Romans to convert slavs into Christianity ,sure. All that trully divided, if you say so.

He ignored it because of Rus' was Ukrainian state, look at the symbols

@@snertmoskalyam No one heard about Ukraine it that time, Ukraine as nation was established only in XIX age

@@snertmoskalyam The symbols are made up by historians, Kievan Rus is the predecesor of Russia, and in some sort of Belarus and Ukriane as well, but more for the Russians

@@AmadoDom why? Proves?Look: what was the stamp of Volodymyr the Great? Ukrainian trident. Where was the capital of Rus'? In Kiyv. Look at the small birch planks with text near the Novgorod- clear ukrainian! Look at the inscriptions at Sofia the Kyiv- also clear ukrainian! Also look at the historical path: most of Rus' history Kyiv was the center, and what we now call "russia" even weren't included in Rus'. Volldymyr-Suzdal' principality army pillaged and almost destroyed Kyiv in 1169. If Rus' is predecesor of russia, would the most "russian" prince destroy the capital of Rus'? Zaliss'a("russian") principalities were the first to collaborate with mongols, de-facto leaving Rus' , meanwhile the other parts of Rus' bravely fought against mongols. Would most "russian"( in that time- muskovyt)(historically too, if you watch the video you must know that principality of Moskva was russian ancestor) principality, the predecesor of russia first fully leave Rus', who are too predecesor of russia? True Rus', the richest principalities were on UKRAINIAN lands, there ukrainian nation lived, lives, and will live. The Danylo of Galych, prince of Galicia-Volyn, get crown of the Rex of Rus' from Roman Pope, look closely: not "yarlyk" from mongols, like muskovy, crown from Pope. He united almost all south Rus', what we now call Ukraine and parts of historically ukrainian territory in russia and belarus. Again, let's look on the map: Rus' preserved only on the south, on ukrainian lands, in north there are mongol puppets. All the way to XX century ukrainians continued to call themselves "Rusins" or "Rutens", russia started to calm itself russia only after Petr I rule in 1721. So, we can made conlusion: Rus' is not russia, but Ukraine, even more: because of ukrainian lands in Rus' was much richer, and because of cultural differences we can made even more shocking conclusion: Zaliss'a ("muskovyt", "russian" lands) was colony of Rus'-Ukraine.

@@snertmoskalyam Symbol of Ukraine is a Khazar tamga. Rus was founded by Ryurik in Novgorod. Ukraine was unknown and Kiev was not in Rus yet

Киев не был столицей Руси т.к не было никакой единой Руси до торжества Московского княжества, была масса княжеств которые имели в том числе междоусобные конфликты.

Тезис киевская Русь исторический и озночает просто Русь до татаро монгольского ига не больше и не меньше.

​@@user-ro1fh6zh7hбыла сначала Новгородская земля, затем, после переноса столицы в Киев, Киевская Русь, и только после этого в 1132 году она разделилась на отдельные княжества, враждовавшие между собой

@@dinozavrizm4534 они всегда меж собой враждавали , единое централизованное государство появилось только при торжестве Московского княжества .

​@@user-ro1fh6zh7h тем не менее они были связаны, князья переезжали из одного города в другой по лествичному праву

Because Moscow unified Russia, i mean it would be based to count all of them into Russian victories but gotta pick one and its better to take the unifier

В западной историеграфии так принято, не забивай голову. Они то с наследниками римской и китайской империи до сих пор разобраться не могут. Куда уж им до нас😊

Here the countdown begins with the formation of statehood, not the people

​@@sprintfoxy1240well rurik also unified russia so start from that

@@McHallel no he didn't it was Ivan that unified Russia

"Go the sleep my little muscovite, i'll protect you from the dangers outside." - Mother Russia (probably)

Sir, this is a wendy’s

Yes no no yes no yes no yes yes😊

Bro called England a country 💀

@@that1countrieschannel When it was ps he was probaly referring to The UK as well and British empire

​@@that1countrieschannelbro really doesn't know history

Novgorod was not Rus. All russian main historians said that. Novgorod was started at 930, Kiyv at 500+-

@@dmitriystoyanov933 ссылатся на пидивики, себе дороже. Тем более там твои хлопцы каждую неделю меняют, переписывают, дополняю, сочиняют.

@@schlangen7889значит авторитетные российские доктора исторических наук - это мои хлопцы? Ну ок, пусть будет так. Даже Янин, самый авторитетный историк из Новгорода, говорит о том, что Новгород основан в 10м веке. Радиоуглеродный анализ первых мостовых об этом тоже говорит.

@@dmitriystoyanov933 если ты не в курсе, но сам разработчик Википедии говорил, что ей нельзя верить потому что её каждый может редактировать. Если твои знании остаются на уровне вики, мне жаль. Теперь ясно почему твоя страна не вышла с 90х Ты сейчас реально меришься, чей город старше? Ты что ли комплексуешь? У тебя что ли писка маленькая или как. Населённый пункт может основан в любом века, и только спустя несколько столетий записан как село или город. Возраст не важен, а важно что он из себя представлял. На территории Месопотамия находятся старейшие города в мире, и что. Новгород не уступал Киеву. Термин Киевская Русь появился как термин, чтоб назвать определённый период в истории. И она не было единой. Новгородская Русь это Новгородская земля если не знал

​@@dmitriystoyanov933 Новгород стал первым центром государства Русь и тогда появилась Новгородская русь, Рюрики Хююрики и прочая скандинавская хуета. Год основания Новгорода 850, НО, Киев на тот момент не был ни Славянским, ни Сарматским городом. Киев стал центром лишь благодаря князю Олгу Вещему после захвата Киева в 882 году и переносом туда княжеского престола, так и пошло -

😂 I can't watch this 🐂💩 as a comedy as you do

an actual constructive comment, with its only reply looking like a feckin’ troll (seriously, the punk above seriously didn’t need all those emojis to make the point, just look at their recent comment history for proof) cool

Yes, it is its heir, but so are Ukraine and Belarus, so he surely wanted to make it distinctly Russian

@@bfdiepictennisballbfdi2359 yea, good logic

Because russia =/= rus, russia = moscovia

@@ukrainskiszpieg9612 Russia was formed by Ruric descendant that ruled Rus while Ukraine formed as a Polish colony on a territory of former Rus (aka Borderland) so, what is your point?

@@harrybalanovsky2169 Rurik is a mythical character whose existence is not confirmed, since according to archaeological excavations, Novgorod, appear only in the 930. Rus is not Russia, at the time when from 1199 to 1349 there was a kingdom of Rus on the territory of western Ukraine, Muscovy was on the territory of russia. And you can not tell me your fantasies.

@Alexandre-sz2jbTell ‘em to bring out the whole ocean

Indo-European people were always present in modern day Ukraine. Some people even credit Ukraine for possibly being slavic people's homeland. Turkic people, Huns and later Mongols were invaders.

So what? For example, Prussia and Austria were bitter enemies.

@@Unknown_Planet That really depends on what time in Austro-Germanic history we're talking about. "Frienemies" probably describes it best.

Кто тебе сказал что авары или гуны тем более были тюрками?) нет нет нельзя так делать всех тюрки записывать и удревнять себе историю

Inaction of Russian generals was insturmental in the defeat, Japan had no chance in land battles if not for cowards in high Russian command.

​@@dimas3829120 тыс. Японцев и 15 тыс. Русских.

Русско-Японская война была проиграна из-за тупого, продажного и трусливого начальства. +Логистика и география сделало своё дело. Япония воевало рядом с домом, а Русским приходилось с Европы чёрт знает сколько добираться через Сибирь и тонны снега к порту Артуру. Не забываем, что у Русских было старое говно на кораблях, а у японцев новенькие европейские крейсера и т.д. И даже так, в сухопутной схватке японцы теряли в разы больше людей. А командование Русских даже после отбития атак, приказывало отступать. Уход из порта Артура и вовсе бредятина. Отдать то, что не могут взять. Поэтому о каких-то сверх секретных службах - это говно. Япония тогда напоминала богатого ребёнка, у которого есть дорогие игрушки и бабахалки. СССР в 39 году показал как должна была закончиться Русско-Японская, если бы руководство не давало дёру. 1945 год тута же. Квантунская армия, привет)

Japan had horrendous losses on land. Japan's main advantage is the support of the main maritime powers: Great Britain and the USA, both wanted to reduce Russia's influence in the Pacific Ocean.

@Alexandre-sz2jb im Christian

Qing in the 20th century: *dies*

Кстати это не совсем война русские проиграли при этом потеряв 650 а китайцы 2500

Found something to compare in the 17th century it was clear fields without good supply bases from the western part of the country, Russia simply could not afford to move a normal army to the east, over the years this problem was solved

They simply fought off a gang of Russian conquistadors)

Потому что там уж совсем домыслы и крайне мало источников.

​@@_b_x_b_1063ну, о большинстве событий не так уж и мало. Те же походы Святослава и в русских и в византийских источниках описаны

​@@_b_x_b_1063 как мало, византийские писания, Византия вообще описала огромный пласт времени, и является настоящим кладом, вы чего

@@_b_x_b_1063 Источников полно - византийских, арабских путешественников, и самих русских летописей.

бомба 💩

Yes, for Russia to survive such a tremendous threat daily is a miracle on its own....and to maintain such an empire despite so many ethnicities and subjects...

​@@JK-qn9qrsomeone threated russia? Look at it wars. 90% is russian agression against somebody

"oh wow I'm gonna disregard one of the main advantages of another country because I find it unfair even though it isn't"

Ah yes. Caucasian and siberian warlords Very stronk

​@@hugosenshida999 Lol. How about the European warlords*? Were they trash too?

There is one ongoing right this moment! You can vote here: forms.gle/G4JfoWUHVXW7ed6Y8

God bless you man! Good man yourself!!!@@possiblehistory

He already has a scenario made by a viewer about soviets winning the Cold War

Idk why but this reminds me of disco elysium

@Alexandre-sz2jb There are no gods. We broke them to pieces after our temporary alliance against Old Ones.

@Alexandre-sz2jb ok

The battle on Pyana river (year 1377). That's actually a historical fact. What is even more hilarious is that Pyana in Russian basically means "drunk". Surprisingly it is not some kind of antirussian bias or something, there were many cases of such scenarios all across medieval Europe :)

@@user-lv4ub7mx8x So, now you want to say that the toponym (the name of the river) has something to do with the sobriety of the participants in the battle? Let us assume (although this is unlikely to be true) that this is so, but “real Russian fashion” is already a bias. One thing that is not clear is how the supposedly usually "drunk" Russians of whom 1.8% of the world control the territory of the largest country in the world

@@msergey Bro, I'm Russian myself and it is a historical fact described in medieval Russian history books (letopis'), I even gave you the exact date, so you can google it. This story is eve taught at schools. The name of the river has nothing to do with the battle itself it is simply a funny coincidence. However, I agree that the phrase about "Russian fashion" is quite insulting but I'm already used to hearing such nonsense.

"russia breathed agressively and had severe internal crysis so we decided took some of its territories that righfully belong to us. Then time passed and these bastards come back and splitted us." (repeat this text in loop every ~100years)

Could be neat, cause there's this nationalist myth (which in some contexts veers into Polish Neo-nazism...) that Poland was never an empire that never invaded anybody & never annexed anything or colonized anybody - though they did all of it.

​@@ImPedofinderGeneral Since when did those territories rightfully belong to them?

@@justauser6078 thats a meme. Take the thing and declare "its rightfully belong to us". Voila, you are pole/russian/name it nationalist

@@ImPedofinderGeneral Alright.

Bro also forgot the novgorod time and when Oleg rurik conquered kiev and founded kievan rus aka great russia

Kievan rus was not a country. It was a period if time- pre-mongolian invasion.

@@McHallel LOL no, its like you are saying "Austria unified Greater Germany when they were emperor of the HRE" its dumb and false, Oleg never proclamed Russia and never annexed the regions to make Russia, so he didn't founded Russia.

@@sprintfoxy1240 Rhenish Franconia didn't called Germany yet it was german. The name doesn't matter its a weird logic you have so nobody has ever had history. So the tang dynasty isnt chinese because they didnt called themselfs CCP? so nazi Germany wasnt germany because Hitler called it 3. Reich? The ottomans are not türkiye because it didn't called türkiye? And the list goes on

@@McHallel "its a weird logic you have" this says it all, and the stuff you are on about is just out of line here

Bro ur information is so inaccurate. Now i see propaganda.

Ваша информация верная. СССР предлагал Финляндии территории в пять раз больше занимаемых, в Карелии. Если бы границы не отодвинули то Ленинград бы не выстоял в Блокаду. Так, что все верно .

Finland became an ally of Germany after the winter war*

Ну московией и московитами на сколько я знаю нас называли поляки, а сейчас просто это украина перенела и стало трендом

​@@user-tz6vf8to5fТем временем у вас на монетах для иностранцев писали московия, а сами себя називали московским государством.

Moscovia was the political and geographical name Russian state and the Tsardom of Russia in Western sources, used with varying degrees of priority in parallel with the ethnographic name Russia (Russian: Руссия, tr. Russiya) from the 15th to the beginning of the 18th century.[2][3] Initially, it was the Latin name of Moscow (for comparison: Latin: Varsovia, Kiovia) and the Grand Duchy of Moscow.[4][5] Later in Western and Central Europe it was transferred to the Tsardom of Russia, formed around Moscow under Ivan III. Various researchers believe that its use was facilitated by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth propaganda, which explicitly retained the terminology of feudal fragmentation, denying the legitimacy of the struggle of Ivan III and his successors for the reunification Rus' lands.[6] The Latinate Moscovia was not used,[7] entering the Russian language no earlier than the 18th century as an incompletely mastered borrowing. Московия - политическое и географическое название Российского государства и Царства Российского в западных источниках, использовавшееся с разной степенью приоритетности параллельно с этнографическим названием Россия (рус. Руссия, тр. Russiya) с 15 до начала 18 века.[2][3] Первоначально это было латинское название Москвы (для сравнения: латинское: Варсовия, Киовия ) и Великое княжество Московское.[5] Позже в Западной и Центральной Европе она была передана в состав Российского царства, образовавшегося вокруг Москвы при Иване III. Различные исследователи полагают, что его использованию способствовала пропаганда Речи Посполитой, которая явно сохраняла терминологию феодальной раздробленности, отрицая законность борьбы Ивана III и его преемников за воссоединение русских земель.[6] Латинское Moscovia не использовалось,[7] вошло в русский язык не ранее XVIII века как не полностью освоенное заимствование. Вроде статья не русскоязычная, а про монету я ничего не знаю, вы бы поинтересовались когда, кому были адресованы и где были эти монеты, а то вдруг польскими окажутся @@ukrainskiszpieg9612

@@user-tz6vf8to5f они чеканились как раз в москве, никакого руского царства не било, било Московское государство пока его не переименовали в российскую имерию.

​@@ukrainskiszpieg9612 Московия это иностранное название, монеты с надписями латиницей Московия чеканились при Петре I в небольшом количестве для внешних расчётов, потому что потому что Россию знали на Западе под таким названием. Гугли что такое "экзоэтноним", Московия это не самоназвание

Starting Barbarossa a month early could be interesting, though only so far as knowing that the Germans would still lose but would probably gain a little more ground before the winter came. Italy conquering the Balkans without German help is an entirely different matter lol.

@@CMitchell808, I have doubts about your first claim, that's why I really want to see a meticulous analysis. This channel has voiced the opinion that Germany could only realistically defeat the Soviet Union if the initial blitzkrieg attempt was more successful than it ended up being. Since the majority of the Soviet population lived close to the areas that were being fought over, if the Germans had conquered more land it would have significantly reduced the Soviet capacity to wage war. Their potential manpower would quickly plummet the more Germany advanced. I wonder how decisive this would have proved, if Germany had pushed past Moscow.

It's started in June 22

Of course modern Russia is better than the early Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but Russia is still dead. Russia is NOT a democracy. It has been rigged via to political system and media to ensure putin's permanant control. Russia is also an open opressor of islamic and turkic people in Siberia and the caucas. Not to mention, he litterally mutilated and later invaded a independant state. I am not even claiming the Us should begin lend-lease programs to ukraine. If anything, I think the US has no buisness in the ukrainian war. I am just saying, that Russia is easily the bad guys in this war. While sure, you as an eastern European may have no interest in fighting Russia, you atleast has to acknowledge how what russia is doing is wrong, especially since Hungary is catholic-Hunic nation, while Russia is a slavic-Orthodox nation.

Neutral? Hungary is not neutral, opurtinistic at best. They're part of the EU and NATO, they're much but definitely not neutral. Unedicated is what Hungary sadly is, in many regards. Russia doesn't have a political demecratic system. Elections are rigged, people are forced to apply to the current regimes opinions and point of view. Did you really say 3/4 of the worlds countries are neutral? Man, you'll be in for a ride. In regards to Russia.. possibly? But not overall neutral. You obviously don't know what neutrality means, hence claiming Hungary is neutral. Why exactly do you bring up the hypothetical example of Ukraine attacking Hungary? Seems like you're trying to push a narrative while blaming the west for blatand propaganda. Don#t get me wrong, *every* country has their own propaganda but you seem no better at this point. Be better! Why does Christianity have anything to do with politics? State and religion should *always* stay seperated. No country want's to fight wars really, it's the government that does, if at all. - So, why does the west see Russia as evil? Oh, idk, because they objectively are? They *supress their own people* (Laws that restrict journalism, Laws that stop civilians from protesting, Laws that restrict free speech, Laws that surprisingly tag any opposing polotical party as terrorists, the "sudden" deaths of political advisarys) ; They supress smaller neighbouring countries (Chechens, Georgia, North Caucasian States, Kazakhstan, Belarus (yes, they try to annex it very openly by 2030), Sweden, Ukraine (Including both puppet regimes Donetsk and Luhansk) and way more, ask what Wagner is doing in Africa.). Russia is evil, or at least the government is. Many people there are pretty nice, obviously. Many smart and educated people left the country by now tho, leaving the uneducated and idealistic people behind that support the regime. Russia is not much different from the Soviet Union. Both were lead by corrupt elites that will, in the end, bring them to their knees. - Now, think about what you're talking. Of course no country is purely good but the Russian State is purely evil. And don't bring up the U.S. to confront every of my arguments, I beg you. I'm not on the side of the U.S. they're also bad, in a different way. At least they still prevent any Nuclear War up to that point. And the U.S. definitely does a lot of propaganda but the Europe doesn't so much. Especially in my country there's sheer limitless access to neutral news and reports and it's up to yourself to educate yourself. Don't protect Russia though, worst thing to do

@@mr.gigagod9736 honestly, I disagree in your point of non-interventionism. That never served at any point of history, it just helps opressive states to slowly grow larger in power until it all escelates to something even bigger that could've been prevented from the beginning. Standing united against any violation of a democratic states sovereignity is at utmost importance to signal to opressors to stay within their boundaries of influence. Ask Europe how well appeacement has worked in the 1930's, or neutrality in the 1800's and I can just go on with examples like this. We need to learn from history and there's nothing standing against providing Ukraine with what they need as long as NATO's militarys do not interviene themselves. Russia doesn't want nor can take up a fight with NATO currently, and they know that. Putin also openly declared intentions to challenge NATO's Article 5 around 2030-'40. It's basically a game of chicken with authocratic regimes.

@@vnkmy Ok first of all, before I go on my ramble, I just wanna ask a few things. One, What role did the US have in the Napoleonic wars? There was no evil, authoritarian regime, and the civilian populations of that war was somewhat low compare do the wars to follow. Also, the US in the 1800s was to weak to meaningfully peace keep in Europe. But anyways, the US simply has no reason to care for this conflict. Russia is never invading America. America has a nuclear deterrent, and is separated from the rest of the world by two huge oceans with the largest fleet in the world in-between. I can justify things like diplomatic intervention or arms sale, but massive aid programs are basically just throwing American resources into something that will never benefit the US. Geopolitics are never, and where never, about morals. Just look at appeasement, where because the entente populations "felt bad" for the Germans, they pratically let Germany rebuild its strength and kill millions of people in the process, something that could have easily been preventable. If we put other people's citizens over our own, than we are doomed to a constant cycle of stagnation and pain. While you can throw many arguements at me, the fact is that you cannot explain how this war will help our people. Lastly, I just wanna state how Hitler would have lost WW2 anyways. I can honestly write a 5 paragraph essay explaining how the allies didn't need the US, but I won't for the sake of my sanity and time. Yet Possible history himself even admitted this FYI.

​@@mr.gigagod9736 bro, half you're comment addresses stuff I literally never said or stated and much of the other half just proves what I said. So, to your question, the U.S. didn't have any noteworthy role in the Napoleonic Wars. Why should they even have had any at that point in time? When stating that any kind of pacifism is just outright feeding evil I wasn't talking about the U.S. solely, obviously. Neither am I for Ukraine as the U.S. isn't the only one supporting them but of course the biggest contributor. Also that because they simply can at that point. To go on, geopolitics have never been and aren't about morals, but they should be. That's what I was trying to say. How it will help your people? Well, mostly just not. But the people aren't by far not the only one responsible for the U.S.' budget at all anyways. Not that the U.S.' democracy can actually be called a pure one anyways. How it will benifit the U.S. though? Well, in a lot of ways. As you said geopolitics aren't about morals, neither is what the U.S. is doing with helping Ukraine. It's about intimidation and weakening their enemys. Oh boy and is Russia weakend at this point. It also causes conflict *between* their enemys, as seen with China. To cut it short: If it wouldn't benefit the U.S. in any way, they wouldn't be doing it. The U.S. is definitely one of the countries acting the most little in morals around the world, although they try to sell it to the people in a different light. My point is that standing united against unjustified aggression will protect from escelation in the long term, as history has proved.

*With help* Without Russian heroism Nazi Reich would still exist. Ofc west helped Russia but i can't say what this is a 50/50 war. USSR still did the most job.

второй фронт открыли в 1944 году ,уже был Сталинград и Курская битва. Стало понятно, что СССР разобьёт Нацистскую Германию. Поэтому союзнички подоспели аккурат к разделу зон влияния Европы.

Может для тебя он и Россия, но автор то за рубежом. Это все равно, что какой-нибудь японец везде бы писал, что пол Сахалина принадлежит его стране.

@@mr.meiloks5917 🤣🤣🤣🤣 но Сахалин на данный момент не контролируется Японией. А Крым Контролирует Россия.

@@mr.meiloks5917 судя по твоей аве я немедленно удалю этот комент это я знаю вас напишешь что его ("ЦыВиЛиЗоВаНы" страны не признают )

@@mr.meiloks5917 Японцы пишут такое, вообще-то.

​@@mr.meiloks5917как Сахалин может принадлежать Японии если там нет японских войск, японского языка, граждан Японии, японской валюты и японского закона. Крым под властью России и это факт.

Kieven rus didnt exist in 13th century

@@slopeisdope2293 it did lol (at least this is what we call Russian states)

@@Darkseidsolosfiction no kiev rus didn't exist in the 13th century. U have a bunch of principalities and yea moscovy was one of them that later formed russia. BOT

@@slopeisdope2293 I know but we call them that in my country, I already explained it

My guy really called England a country 💀

or how about persia/iran or maybe even egypt for oldness

​@@that1countrieschannelAnd England was a country at one point. Your point being?

@@The_Otto_Von_Bismarck England isn't a country anymore and hasn't for the past ~300 years. He used the modern names for all of the others

@@that1countrieschannelannoying

Itd also have to include prussia since if they only involve the ones between 1871-1945 it would be very little

It’s super cut and vague, but not neutral in the sense that you imagine.

@@unbridled_rage What do you mean exactly by "not neutral in the sense that you imagine" ?

​@@sprintfoxy1240bro started from the moscow era a popular anti russian Propaganda. Russia started from the novgorod rus founded by king rurik.

@@McHallel God damnit asylum need to tighten their security to not let people like you on the internet Novogorod founded RUS but not RUSSIA Russia comes from Rus

​@@McHallelI consider Novogorod and the Kievan Rus' predecessor states and not Russia itself. So does most of the world. Russia itself for the longest time accepted that too. The only people who say Novogorod and the Rus' are Russia are the people who buy fully into Russian propaganda. If it progressed from Novogorod>Kievan Rus'>Muscovy/Russia, then you could probably say they're all the same, but that's not correct. The Rus' vanished from the map in the early 1200s following the Mongol invasion and their successors only gained independence in the mid 1300s when the Golden Horde allowed them to. It's fucking amazing how Russia has managed to rewrite their own history.

@Alexandre-sz2jb im muslim bro

@@algerieball.4156 it’s a bot