the way to the estuary

<https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_4615823>
.. The Russian state originated in the Eastern European plains and was
originally the Grand Duchy of Kievan Rus established in the ninth century.
The reason why the country was born so late is because here has been a
migration channel for nomads since ancient times. A batch of nomadic
tribes seemed to pass by in a hurry, so that the locality was
channelized. ..

* * *

Recent improvements of machine translation make it more comfortable to
read the Chinese texts intended for the domestic public. I notice some
whiters present in part inaccurate or 'weird' stuff. Among other topics,
the early Russia's history still remains a vague and speculative topic,
so I have written the below.

Basically, the origination of Russia cannot be correctly understood out
of context of the whole Slavic expansion which happened in the post-Huns
period (about 6 to 10 century) in the area corresponding to the modern
eastern and cental Europe. Since the 6th century, about a half of Europe
became Slavic, while 'old' peoples like the Illyrians and the Thracians,
dissapeared. This image <http://bit.ly/3002Dq7> shows the Slavic
expansion geographically, and since this is a 'western' picture, one can
notice they have used term 'dispersion' rather than expansion. The Slavs
were not like a single united organized force, their groups made wars
against each other as well, but the fact they managed to vastly expand
area of Slavic language and Slavic cultural customs (either by conquest
or by gradual slavicization of neighbours) means they were a regional
culturally dominant element at the time.

In the Western version of history, there is a well-entrenched agenda to
always present the Slavs as a passive element leading by some else ones.
The agenda forces the Westerners to make ridiculous claims. For example,
one can read in the Western texts that the Slavs "emerged from obscurity"
and occupied "the lands abandoned by Germanic tribes fleeing the Huns"
<http://bit.ly/2TWTZGq>. So the proto-Germans were greatly afraid of the
Huns, but the Slavs were supposed to be detached bystanders who simply
'migrated' and easily settled on 'abandoned' lands. Such interpretations
are clearly absurd, but they are repeated thoughtlessly in persistence.

The Western agenda to diminish the Slavs started from the Germanic-Slavic
wars in the 9-13 centuries, that ended up with conquest of a Slavic area.
The main events were in the 10th century, when the Germans had won a few
decisive victories. Many captured Slavs were enslaved and treated badly,
and it gave origin to 'slave' term in the west-European languages.

The wars happened in the area that amout corresponds to the eastern half
or third of today Germany, which by the 9th century was occupied by the
Polabian Slavs. Ideologically, the Germans fought them under the guise of
Christianization and the war was patronaged by Papism. Centuries later,
the Catholic ideologues realized the fact that the treatment the Germans
showed against the captured Slavic people does not fit well the image of
Christianity. So they created rationalizations intended to distract from
this historical specifics. It produced the Western theory that the word
'slave' emerged simply because 'the Slavs were often enslaved'.

Those developments had peculiar implications to Poland. Poland adopted
the [Papal] Christianity in the 10th century, and the Poles helped the
Germans to conquer the pagan Slavs to the west of the Polish area. Thus
the Poles contributed to what later became the basis for the Germano-
Catholic racist-like theory towards the Slavs, which later targeted also
the Poles as a kind of Slavs. At the Age of Enlightenment, when all those
romantic racist-ethnic theories became popular, the Polish nobles, in
order to distance themselves from 'low' Slavic image, promoted a theory
that the Polish nobility was descent not from the Slavs, but from another,
superior, tribe. The theory was known as 'Polish Sarmatism' (its non-nice
true meaning is well-muffled today <http://bit.ly/2WeODsF>).

The Germanic crusading activities against the Polabian Slavs in the area
between Poland and Germany were continued up to the 13 century,
strengthening the Western idea of supremacy and patronage over the Slavs,
and 1000 years later, at the WW2 time, this medieval heritage contributed
to the German Nazis' drang nach Osten impulse, which ended up not well.

The events described above had little to do with Russia as such, but it's
necessary to take them into account for better understanding of following
history of Russia and popular historical concepts attributed to Russia.

Russia emerged in the 9th century as a peculiar offshoot of the general
Slavic expansion in a very periferal north-eastern area of that expansion
- the present day Novgorod region - where the east-Slavs were living in
close neighborhood with the Finnic people. The early Russians from
Novgorod then conquered Kiev, that gave rise to 'Kievan Rus' as the
subsequent formation. The very initial developments were mainly intended
to expand the river trade business (see below).

The writer's "migration channel for nomads" idea is off the mark. The
migration channel concept is relevant for (the western part of) the Great
Eurasian Steppe <http://bit.ly/2NnRjip>. It really gave an easy way for
nomadic moves to Europe. In particular, about the same time with the
origination of Russia, the Finns from the Urals (a.k.a. the Ugres) used it
to come to Europe and establish Ugria in Europe <http://bit.ly/2vmmjcU>.
Russia was originated much further north of this steppe area though.

Answer to the why "it born so late" question is about written language.
Some state(-like) formations likely existed in the area before. But the
peoples in the eastern and central Europe at the time were not culturally
high enough to maintain chronicles or even did not have developed written
languages. The written culture and then the culture of chronicling was
introduced with Christianization. The chronicles included some memorable
issues from the pagan past as well, - but from the Christian missionary
perspective and in a fragmentary manner. So the formations that had not
survived before chronicling have now remained either in vague or unknown.

A notable thing about the Novgorod area in the 9th century is that it was
the northern endpoint of the Volga trade route. The Volga route provided
trade between the Caliphate in the south and the Baltic area in the north,
involving intermediate locations. The upper Volga at the time was a brisk
market place. Intensive trade and cultural exchanges happened there. It
contributed to the initial formation of the formation that had then grown
up to what later became known as 'Russia'.

The Western history seeks to interpret the Volga trade route as a Vikings'
"posession", which is unrealistic. The Volga's lower reaches (the north
Caspian area) were a part of Khazaria, and in the middle Volga there was
Volga Bulgaria state (a Turkic-Finnic formation). Scandinavian merchants
surely took an active part in the trade, but they did not "own" the route.
Moreover the very idea of Vikings makes sense only in the west-European
medieval context, - ferocious pagan northern savages intruding relatively
'mild' Christian environment. However, in the eastern areas at the time
all the people(s) were as ferocious pagans as the Scandinavians, so the
Vikings fetish simply doesn't make sense outside of the European medieval
Christian context.

Russia formed as somewhat a business project linked to the river trade
opportunities. Its the first expansionist pursuit was to get control
over 'alternative' Dnieper route. Dnieper was much less convenient for
shipping in comparison to Volga, but it looked like something that can
be 'appropriated'. So the Russians conquired Kiev and transferred their
control center there. Novgorod still remained an important Russian city
for a long time, particularly for the Baltic and the northern affairs.

(to be continued)

(continuation of the first part)

The very initial Russia was a cooperation of Slavic and Finnic clans, -
about half to half. Such 'multi-ethnicity' looks pretty weird, but it
should not seem weird against the prehistory mentioned above. The Slavs,
in the previous centuries, intruded eastward, on the lands populated by
the Finnic peoples, so they incorporated the Finns into themselves. The
east-Slavs in the Novgorod area in the 9th century were already partly
Finnic. In turn, the neigboring Finns, even if they kept their Finnic
identity, were affected by the Slavic cultural intrusion. So the Slavs
and the Finns in the area at the time were culturally close (and the
common business interest distracted them from clannish-kinship fights).
This multi-ethnic business-driven origin contributed to the Russia's
capability to incorporate various ethnic groups at subsequent stages of
the national history.

As Russia expanded, it included into itself mostly Slavic-populated lands
lying between then Hungary's and Khazaria's areas of influence. It was
something like "you paid tribute to the Khazars before, now you'll pay it
to us (and we'll fight the Khazars)." Some too romantic historians seek
to interpret it as 'liberation', but it was not so, it was rather like an
orginized crime gang seeks to take control over businesses controlled by
another orginized crime gang. Such was 'political culture' at the time.

In the 11th centiry - for 200 years of development - Russia had become
quite a huge <http://bit.ly/36RZhrY> (by the European standard) territory
populated by the Slavs in its most part with a large share of the Finns
in the east and to the north of Novgorod. A Germanic chronicler in the
12th century <http://bit.ly/37YrOfE> described it as the most strong
contemporary Slavic state which the Europeans also "call Eastland because
being located in the east, this land is replete with all the wealths".
The passage from the chronicle reveals the fact that at the time, for the
northern Euros, "wealths" were associated with The East, and those
"wealths" were coming to them through the river trade routes that were
largely under Russia's control. Later, in the 13th century, the Western
Crusaders looted out Constantinople, and the Nomadic ('Mongol') invasion
happened, and it made the river trade routes game over.

In the European concept, promoted later also in the whole world, Russia
is associated with the Slavs, but the Russia's developments from the most
early stage happened in close cultural ties with the Finnic area (and
also, before emergence of Russia, the Slavs, while intruding eastward,
incorporated into themselves the Balts <http://bit.ly/33bmkwR>). This is
what contributed to the Russian differences from the east-European Slavs.
And then there were also the Turks.

Already in the 10th century, the Russians reached that steppe "migration
channel", and it became a natural obstacle and limit to the expansion, -
the Russian squads were able to pass through the steppe already since the
9th century, but it was impossible to establish a 'constant control' over
the steppe area until the 18th century.

The steppe was dominated by the nomadic Turkic people, and such a
neighborhood also greatly affected Russian both culture and genetics. The
early Turkic contribution is especially noticeable in the Ukrainian case,
because it was the Russia's area closest to the steppe Turks. For example,
"maidan" is a Turkic word (which the Volga Tatars understand well without
any translation). Russian relations with the steppe nomads included both
cooperation and wars. Russian princes involved the nomadic cohorts to
participate in their feuds. The nomads also made predatory raids in the
southern Russian areas, which made agricultural life in the south
discomfortable and stimulated migrations to the northern forest areas,
which in turn made the north-east less Finnic / more Slavic.

For example the today Moscow area in the pre-Russia time was populated by
the Finns, and also the most eastern group of the Balts, the Galindians
<http://bit.ly/3aMVrBP>, was living there. The oldest toponyms (the
rivers) in the area are clearly Finnic. The area was slavicised both
culturally and through intensive Slavic migration, so by the 12th century
it became Slavic-speaking. Similar developments happened in the Novgorod
area and to the north of it. The modern northern Russians in the White and
Barentz sea area share well-entrenched Russian identity, but they are more
special genetically - more Finnic and Nordic genes - due to the fact that
a large part of their ancestry were native northerners slavicised 900-600
years ago, while Slavic migrations to the region never were too massive.

Since the 16th century, most of the Russia's migrations went on from the
west to the east, so about a third of the Russians today have some
western (Ukrainian or Belorussian) ancestry, while in Siberia and the Far
East this share is about half (cf. <http://bit.ly/2xxeZMf>). It's what
makes the Ukraine-related issues emotionally painful to the Russians.

* * *

Also, about Europe

<https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_4615823>
.. Russia .. has always been attracted by advanced Western Europe, and
for this reason it is eager to pursue the estuary leading to the West.
The Russian elite has always considered that this country is neither an
Asian country nor an Eurasian country, but a European country. Social
surveys have also shown that society is basically identified as a
European country. ..

* * *

The early Russian developments went on outside of the major European
history, and the Russians tend to consider it their unique history rather
than somehow 'European'. The Euros are jealous of that, which explains
their unhealthy zeal to attach their Vikings fetish to Russia. Before the
Mongol empire managed to undermine Eurasia and give Europe a favor of
outrunning development, Europe was itself not as much important as it
became later. There were high contemporary cultures in the Middle East
and Central Asia, and Russia originated through interaction with those
cultures. For example, Arabic coins supplied through the rivers shipping,
were in wide use in the Russia'a domestic monetary transactions at the
time, before the Russian princes started to coin their own coins.

The Russian Europhilia was stimulated mainly by czar Peter-1 whom the
Euros call Peter the Great for his Europhilic attitudes and policies,
but his reign was in fact marked by certain controversial developments.

The cited writer puts "always" and "advanced Western Europe" in one
sentence. Do the Chinese really think in centuries, or is it a popular
myth? The western Europe became advanced only in the recent centuries,
as a result of their Age of Discovery, so that the exploitation of the
colonies and the African slave labor gave the West more profits for its
developments. The Russia's focus on Europe in the later time is natural,
given that Europe came forward in various cultural, social, scientific
fields. Still, Russia never was an integral part of what the Euros call
Europe, and the Russian estrangement from Europe is rooted in deep. If
China or some Asian one else could provide cultural-social models worth
borrowing, then the Russians might take it the same way like they had
taken European elements. For example, when the Ottoman empire was at
its heyday, the Russians arranged some domestic things following the
example of the Ottomans (although these facts became much less known in
the post-Peter-1 period).

GERMAN CHRISTIAN EXPANSION into
SLAVIC BERLIN BRANDENBURG low lands which was SLAVIC MARCHE LOW LAND
FULL of water ...

GERMAN TEUTONIC CHRISTIAN EXPANSION into
Pagan Prussia who wete SLAVONIC PEOPLE...

PRUSSIA LANDS bordering the North Baltic sea from Pommery region stretching all the way east to Lithuania were all SLAVONIC PAGAN PRUSSIA of SLAVONIC PAGAN ,
not German ....

REAL Prussians were originally PAGAN not German ... REAL ORIGINAL PRUSSIANS and Prussia Lands were origianlly SLAVONIC LANDS bordering the north sea shores .. ORIGINAL REAL PRUSSIANS were PAGAN SLAVONIC people ..
not German
the GERMAN MIGRANTS who entered into the SLAVONIC Prussia PAGAN LANDS of PRUSSIAN PAGAN SLAVONIC people
after the Teutonic knights have cleared the PAGAN PRUSSIA lands of all SLAVONIC PAGAN PEOPLE ...started to call themslves German migrants in Slavonic PRUSSIA PAGAN LANDS as NEW PRUSSIANS ..


SO GERMAN have been faking as PRUSSIANS for the last 800 years ...

German are still faking as PRUSSIANS in 2020 , because GERMAN stole THE ORIGINAL PAGAN PRUSSIAN LANDS
.. just like CHINESE are faking as MALAYSIANS in 2020 in MALAYSIA ...

REAL PRUSSIANS were not German ....

REAL PRUSSIANS were originally CELTIC SLAVONIC PAGAN PEOPLE of PRUSSIA which was not German ...

PRUSSIA not not German at all ...

PRUSSIA was ORIGINALLY CELTIC SLAVONIC LANDS and was also originally Slavonic PAGAN PRUSSIAN PEOPLE ...

PONTIC -EURASIA steppes were
tge migration route for horses
and for horse people
from KAZAHSTAN TARIM BASIN
since 10 000 BC ... people from CASPIAN IRAN went East to TARIM to MONGOLIA
and people migrated back to CASPIAN -BLACK SEA ...from MONGOLIA ...


so any types of races used this North CASPIAN steppes for the last 10 000 years ... I read KOREANS were originally from CENTRAL ASIA and KOREANS migratrd East via SOUTH MONGOLIA where the HUNS captured KOREAN WOMEN and
fucked KOREAN WOMEN to make Korean new generations of Korean descendants to become extremely white skin KOREAN children

Russians are the result of mixing between Slavonic Celts and Finns from URAL LOW LANDS....

RUSSIANS are very mixed people THE KAZANS Budhists ...

The migrants Cumens AVARS ALAINS CELTS GOTHS HUNS BULGARS MAGYORS all came out from PONTIC UKEAINE steppes ..
And MUSLIMS
So RUSSIANS are very mixed race people

Luckily RUSSIANS went through COMMUNISM


The best thing that has ever happened to RUSSIANS ...COMMUNISM made RUSSIANS more human