Randomly knocked out-Russians!

[al]

Yes. How is that relevant to this context?

You make unfalsifiable allegations.

And you ignore many facts and concepts trying to reduce everything to the extremes of nation-state vs total absence of bond, identity and care in a virtual feudal state.

As I mentioned previously, I'm Brazilian.

What would your feelings be if Chinese troops occupy your country and take total control of the government?

[Grelf]

Yes. How is that relevant to this context?

You make unfalsifiable allegations.

And you ignore many facts and concepts trying to reduce everything to the extremes of nation-state vs total absence of bond, identity and care in a virtual feudal state.

No, my friend, I'm not denying that there were bonds back then. They just had nothing to do with nation. Nationalism is different from ethnic identity/religious identity/some other identity. I understand what you are trying to say, but "nationalism" is a concept that simply does not fit here.

As I mentioned previously, I'm Brazilian.

What would your feelings be if Chinese troops occupy your country and take total control of the government?

Obviously I wouldn't like it, why do you ask?

[al]

Nationalism = industrial age tech. Discussion over.

Potjeh, let's go back to this:

Rus people (including those under foreign European rule) still indetified themselves as "Russkie" and thought of themselves as one nation, though separated (and that was perceived as a very tragic fact).

I doubt that common people cared much for borders, except when it meant that someone is coming to pillage their village. The concept of nation-states is a modern one.

Change "nation" to "people" (because it was used in this sense), and you'll understand what I meant (at least I hope you will). Nationalism has nothing to do with that.

[Potjeh]

Not really. The people were unified on clan or at most tribe lines before feudalism, a culture would cover much larger territory than those.

[Grelf]

Nationalism = industrial age tech. Discussion over.

Potjeh, let's go back to this:

Rus people (including those under foreign European rule) still indetified themselves as "Russkie" and thought of themselves as one nation, though separated (and that was perceived as a very tragic fact).

I doubt that common people cared much for borders, except when it meant that someone is coming to pillage their village. The concept of nation-states is a modern one.

Change "nation" to "people" (because it was used in this sense), and you'll understand what I meant (at least I hope you will). Nationalism has nothing to do with that.

Okay, let's forget the concepts and stick to the core of the subject. What makes the Rus people more "Russian" than "Ukrainian" or "Belorussian", considering that all of them were a single people back then? Maybe I really am failing to grasp this because my knowledge on the subject isn't much advanced, so do help me with this. What I understand is that Kievan Rus' got artificially divided into several parts and this division gave birth in the future to three different nations, correct? If that is the case I can't see what makes them more "Russian" than "Ukrainian" when they were all the same people and such divisions didn't exist back then.

[al]

Obviously I wouldn't like it, why do you ask?

Well, Russians (Rus people) didn't like it either.

Example. At some point Moscow and Grand Duchy of Lithuania became the only pretenders to unite Russian Princedoms. Lithuanian population and its territories were mostly Russian and, therefore, Orthodox. Because of the union with Poland Lithuanian monarchs turned to Polish traditions and religion (Catholicism). At some point they started to opress orthodoxies. This forced Russian knyazes of Lithuania to take the side of Moscow and swear allegiance to its monarch. And that was in the interest of the general population, because otherwise they were forced to change their religion and way of life.

Okay, let's forget the concepts and stick to the core of the subject. What makes the Rus people more "Russian" than "Ukrainian" or "Belorussian", considering that all of them were a single people back then? Maybe I really am failing to grasp this because my knowledge on the subject isn't much advanced, so do help me with this. What I understand is that Kievan Rus' got artificially divided into several parts and this division gave birth in the future to three different nations, correct? If that is the case I can't see what makes them more "Russian" than "Ukrainian" when they were all the same people and such divisions didn't exist back then.

As I said, their identity has shifted from "Russkie" under the influence of foreign culture of non-native rule (non-native to Rus people). It reflected clearly in the languages: they changed their original name from "Russkie" to "Ukraintsi" and "Belarusi".

As for language, the Old East Slavic language (which was called Russian (as a form of adjective "Russkie") or Slavic (earlier) by its speakers) splitted into different dialects after Rus declined. Western dialects, collectively known in English as "Ruthenian", were called by their speakers Russian or simple language. Those dialects continued to evolve into separate languages under the influence of Polish. While dialects under Russian rule slowly merged and were standardized into modern Russian.

The name "White Rus" (from which "Belarus" is derived) were used to describe all independent lands of Northen Rus (including and mainly Moscow Princedom). Modern "Belarus" is derived from the name of the governorship of the Russian Empire in the area of modern Belarus.

As for Ukraine. After Rus as a state had declined, territories of modern Ukraine were still known as Rus and their Knyazes (under Lithuanian rule) had words "Rus" (country) or "Russian" (adjective "Russkie") in their titles. The name "Ukraine" itself is of Polish origin and derived from the word root which means "border" and later "territory" (in both Polish and Russian). The term "Ukranian" is coined by a Polish nationalist in XIX.

Again as I said, these three identities are very close. They were forced to be perceived as separate ethnicities in three main stages: during the Russian Revolution by communists, during the WWII by Nazi, and after 1991 by local governments of all three states (and especially Ukrainian).

[al]

Not really. The people were unified on clan or at most tribe lines before feudalism, a culture would cover much larger territory than those.

Rus started as a union of tribes. Most of those tribes were of the same people (with common language, common religion, common ancestry, common way of life, common landscape and geography, common external enemies) who were calling themselves collectively "Slovene".

As a one state Rus was never truly feudalist. When it started to evolve into feudalism it declined collapsing into several Princedoms. When it happent Rus people still perceived themselves common and of one country (country in a sense of land associated with the people) and those around them as foreigners.