Not very well-known statements by T. Shevchenko about Ukrainians and Katsaps. Quotes about Ukraine and Russia by Otto von Bismarck

Today Taras Shevchenko as a poet and writerthe most dedicated monuments in the world. Throughout to the globe 1,100 Shevchenko monuments have been installed.

What did the “classic of Ukrainian literature” think about the Katsaps and Ukrainians?

"They believe that this poem is a fake andreworking of Derzhavin’s poem “The Nobleman”:

"A donkey will remain a donkey
Although shower him with stars;
Where should one act with the mind,
He just flaps his ears.
ABOUT! the hand of happiness is in vain,
Against the natural rank,
Dresses a madman as a master,
Or into the hype of a fool."

: There is an opinion that crests have always been divided into two. Some licked Europe's ass. Others gravitated towards Muscovy. Some betrayed the faith of their fathers and became Uniates, Baptists and Catholics. Others remained Orthodox, i.e. Russians. So Shevchenko could well have written this about Ukrainians—Westerners (Zapadentsy)—traitors to the Russian idea.

And here is the opinion of the true “Ukra”:

It’s hard to believe that this simple folk poem was written by our genius Shevchenko: after all, he never doubted the planetary greatness of the Ukrainian nation. After all, it was the Ukrainians who invented the wheel, taught humanity to sculpt pots and wear embroidered shirts, along the way discovered America and sank Atlantis, which tried helplessly to challenge the global priority of our nation. Military Valor Ukrainians generally know no limits: Gatilo conquered the entire ancient world, Ukrainians led Crusades, a Corsican (he was born in Korsun-Shevchenkovsky) burned Moscow, and Oles Makeevsky (the Muscovites turned him into Alexander the Great) annexed Crimea and Kamchatka to Ukraine. Glory to Ukraine, as well as to all the heroes (from Bandera to Pan Yarosh)!

Let's bring the revelation people's artist Ukraine, deputy from the VO "Svoboda", nationalist B.M. Benyuk from 03/24/2014: “Ukrainians are a nation of traitors, those who are constantly looking for a warm place.” Benyuk explained this phrase by the fact that in the character of Ukrainians there is a craving for betrayal and they know how to adapt and ingratiate themselves. But the Ukrainians themselves, according to Benyuk, do not understand this. He regarded his words not as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

In 1840, Taras Grigorievich asks his brother not to write to him in Russian: “So that I can at least read your letter on a foreign side in human language.”

Muscovites are strangers
It's hard to live with them.
No one to cry with
No talking.

Another thought from Shevchenko T.G. about the Katsaps:

“The Jewish principle is in the Russian man. He cannot even fall in love without a dowry.”

This well-known and not so well-known Taras Grigorievich Shevchenko gave everyone “nuts” and earrings to all the sisters.

: The demand for recognition often outweighs economic interest: new countries, say Ukraine or Slovakia, could well be better off in the composition larger country, but what they need is not economic prosperity, but their own flag and a place in the UN.

Alexander Zaldostanov "Surgeon":

Slobodan Milosevic:

Slobodan Milosevic:

Leonid Ivashov:

Marine Le Pen:

Victor Yushchenko:

Victor Yushchenko:

Sergey Lozunko:

Sergey Lozunko:

Evgeny Shestakov:

Stas Yankovsky:

George Bush Sr.:

Noam Chomsky:

Evgeny Zharikov:

Arseniy Yatsenyuk:

Arseniy Yatsenyuk:

Nikolay Rastorguev:

Dmitry Rogozin:

Dmitry Rogozin:

Nowadays it has become fashionable to throw around expressions such as “Ukrainophobia.” They say that Putin’s Kiselevism paints a propaganda image of Ukrainians that is being implanted in the country. It is worth understanding how the Ukrainian idea was perceived among authentic Russians - before the Revolution and in the White emigration.

First, it is worth understanding that the “Ukrainians” we know and love (at least we know) were born in the Soviet Union and with the support of the Soviet government. The very concept of Ukrainian nationalism existed before the Revolution; it appeared in the second half of the 19th century. But that “Ukrainianism” was a marginal phenomenon; We wrote about its origins. In Russian society, these people were considered freaks and sectarians. Ukrainians were criticized by various segments of the population, both among the guardians of the Black Hundred movement and among nationalist critics of the Tsarist government. On the conservative side, it is worth noting Andrei Vladimirovich Storozhenko, a famous historian, Slavist and literary critic. He is considered one of the main experts on Ukraine and was a member of the Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists, one of the main right-wing intellectual centers in the country. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks shot Club members according to lists; Storozhenko is one of the few who managed to escape from the Cheka.

Storozhenko interpreted Ukrainian nationalism as cultural atavism; as a retreat from Russian culture provoked by the Poles and Austrians. In his opinion, the Russian population, having lost Russian culture, becomes a barbaric non-donation. A. Tsarinny cites in his book “Ukrainian separatism in Russia. The Ideology of National Schism” quote from Storozhenko, in which he outlined these thoughts very briefly:

“Getting acquainted with the figures of the Ukrainian movement, starting from 1875, not from books, but in living images, we got the impression that “Ukrainians” are precisely individuals who have deviated from the all-Russian look towards reproducing the ancestors of foreign Turkic blood, standing in the cultural relations are significantly lower than the Russian race"

Because on the territory of the so-called “Ukraine” there is no other culture other than Russian; Ukrainians or “Mazepas,” as they were called before the Revolution, have to turn to other cultures, including autochthonous ones, i.e. nomads. As Storozhenko notes:

“The “Ukrainian idea” is a gigantic step back, a retreat from Russian culture to Turkic or Berendey barbarism”

Storozhenko was a major expert on the history of southern Russia, a true scholar and a convinced Russian patriot and nationalist - he was a member of the Kyiv Club of Russian Nationalists and the All-Russian National Union. After he was nearly shot by the Bolsheviks, his works were banned in the Soviet Union. They were declared “bourgeois-landowner, great-power” literature, because they interfered with Ukrainization.
The Ukrainian idea itself was by no means associated with Little Russians or even Galicians. Especially the Galicians were still Russian patriots at that time, to the point that the Austrians had to build the Talerhof concentration camp and hang Russian nationalists from Galicia en masse. By the way, at one of these trials, the great-grandfather of the famous Ukrainian nationalist Oleg Tyagnibok, Longin Tsegelsky, acted as a witness for the prosecution.

Carriers Ukrainian idea, in addition to sectarians from Austrian test tubes and city madmen, Poles and Jews were perceived primarily. For example, the famous Russian nationalist and publicist Mikhail Osipovich Menshikov describes the demonstration Ukrainian nationalists in 1914 near the Austrian embassy in Kyiv thus:

“So, we waited for this shame: in Kyiv the red banner of the separation of Little Russia from Russia was thrown out. Let this banner, thrown away by the Jews and boys, be immediately torn down and the criminal brawlers beaten by the crowd. Revolutionary crowds wandered from the polytechnic to such central points as St. Vladimir Cathedral and Bogdan Khmelnitsky Square. The same crowds moved along Kyiv's Nevsky Prospekt - along Khreshchatyk. “Long live independent Ukraine!” Long live Austria! Down with Russia!” - this is what the Jews and Mazeppians shouted and roared in front of the Austrian consulate, and, as the telegram says, “demonstrators beat those who protested from the public.” If not for the intervention of the Cossacks and soldiers, the rebels would undoubtedly have gained the upper hand: “Among the demonstrators, more than half were Jews. It was led by a Jewish student, who rode around the city on horseback and made his orders...”

Three years earlier, the creator of the All-Russian National Union and Stolypin’s personal friend Menshikov gave the following characterization to the Ukrainian movement:

“The most ardent of them refuse the historical names “Russia”, “Russians”. They do not even recognize themselves as Little Russians, but have invented a special national title: “Ukraine”, “Ukrainians”. They hate the common people's closeness of the Little Russian dialect to the Great Russian, and so they compose their own special language, perhaps more distant from the Great Russian. There is no need that the allegedly invented Ukrainian jargon is completely ugly, like a gross falsification, ugly to the point that the Little Russians themselves do not understand this gibberish - the fanatics of Ukrainian separatism print books and newspapers called gibberish. The Mazeppians introduce systematic distortions and forgeries into the science of Russian history in general and southern Russian history in particular, and the most extreme psychopaths of this party proclaimed the need for Little Russians to marry Jewish women in order to move as far as possible from the all-Russian culture with blood and flesh.”

It is obvious that these people, in general, had little in common with modern Ukrainian nationalists. The Ukrainian nationalist before the Revolution was an urban madman, trying to introduce more Polish words into the Russian language and offering to have intercourse with Jews in order to distance himself from Great Russian heredity. Just a few years later, Ukrainian nationalism became famous for the fact that, in the person of Petliura, it organized such monstrous pogroms against Jews that the “white punisher” Ungern nervously smoked on the sidelines.

The Russian nationalist White Guards faced the latest, militant version of Ukrainian nationalism after the Revolution. First of all, Ukrainian nationalists were perceived as Judas, traitors, traitors. One of the leaflets of the Armed Forces of Southern Russia for 1919 announced:

“The Southwestern region is Russian, Russian, Russian... and it will not be given over to either Ukrainian traitors or Jewish executioners”

At the same time, the traitors knew that they were traitors, and at first they tried to avoid clashes with yesterday’s brothers. Pavel Feofanovich Shandruk, staff captain of the Russian Imperial Army, later a Prometheist and cornet general of the Ukrainian Army People's Republic, described the incident at the very beginning in his memoirs Civil War: His Ukrainian armored train entered Melitopol, where he found some soldiers speaking Russian. Thinking that they were Bolsheviks, he ordered fire on them. In response, “polite people” opened counter fire and raised the Russian tricolor. The soldiers turned out to be a detachment of Mikhail Gordeevich Drozdovsky; they were on the famous “Drozdovsky campaign” from Romania to the Don. Shandruk sent an envoy to Drozdovsky, and Drozdovsky announced that he would leave the city - with or without a fight. Shandruk, realizing that he would have to deal not with the grimy Red Guards, but with the “First Brigade of Russian Volunteers,” was afraid of them and ordered them to be let through. The Drozdovites calmly continued on their way.

Drozdovsky, a hero of the First World War, a holder of the Order of St. George and a monarchist, left a note in his diary about his attitude towards the Ukrainians. Of particular interest is the behavior of the Germans, who had no illusions about their Murzilkas:

“The Germans are enemies, but we respect them, although we hate them... Ukrainians - there is nothing but contempt for them, as for renegades and unbridled gangs. The Germans treat Ukrainians with undisguised contempt, bullying, pushing. They call it a gang, a rabble; When the Ukrainians tried to seize our car, a German commandant was present at the station and shouted at the Ukrainian officer: “So that this doesn’t happen to me again.” The difference in attitude towards us, hidden enemies, and towards Ukrainians, allies, is incredible. One of the officers of the passing Ukrainian train said to the German: it would be necessary to disarm them, that is, us, and received the answer: they are also fighting the Bolsheviks, they are not hostile to us, they are pursuing the same goals as us, and he would not have dared to say such a thing, he believes dishonest... The Ukrainian jumped back..."

There were no negotiations with the separatists. General Mai-Maevsky clearly stated that “Petliura will either stand on our platform as a single indivisible Russia with a broad territorial identity, or he will have to fight with us.” followed fighting and the capture of Kyiv - in fact, these events are the only episode in history that can be called a “Russian-Ukrainian” war. This war was brilliantly won by the Whites (i.e., the Russians), and the White Guards who entered Kyiv dispersed the entire UPR army. There were 18 thousand regular UPR fighters in Kyiv, in addition, there were 5 thousand partisans in the city area. 3,000 White Guards and another thousand soldiers from officer squads entered the city - the Ukrainian “army” capitulated without offering resistance. General Bredov announced after the “battle” that “Kyiv has never been Ukrainian and never will be.”

There were no further negotiations - only with the “Western Ukrainians”, or rather, the Russian people from the Ukrainian Galician Army. Bredov continued negotiations with them and achieved the Zyatkov Treaty - the entry of the Galician Army into the Armed Forces of Southern Russia. Bredov ordered the rest of the so-called “Ukrainians” to be told that “...let them not come, they will be arrested and shot as traitors and bandits.”

However, the White Guards clashed with the Ukrainians not only in the South. Patriots of the Wild Field came across in other regions, which sometimes led to funny episodes. The Knight of St. George and hero of the White Struggle in Siberia, General Sakharov, describes one of these cases:

“I had to travel in the carriage with several officers. Two of them were sitting, but one did not have enough space and stood. In the corner stood some railway worker with a bright yellow-blue “Ukrainian” ribbon in his buttonhole and ranted about “independent Ukraine” in exaggerated Khokhlatsky jargon. The lieutenant listened to him, listened, and said:

- “That’s it, sir, get out of the corner, I want to sit.” The road is Russian, and the Samara province is also Russian; it won’t get to Ukraine.”

- “How so?” Excuse me, what right do you have?” the blue-and-yellow railway worker switched to literary Russian.

- “And this, sir, is that I’m Russian, which means I’m at home here, master.” So go to Ukraine and sit there. Well! get out!“
Looking around in confusion, the newly-minted Ukrainian emerged from the compartment and even from the carriage to the laughter of the rest of the audience.”

The polemics with the Ukrainians continued after the Bolshevik victory in exile. Even more - only in emigration were Ukrainian traitors finally able to calmly write their separatist books and draw maps of Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Kuban, since, unfortunately, there were no longer steel regiments of the White Army nearby. One of the most remarkable Russian responses to Ukrainianism was published in Belgrade, in 1939. It was written by a controversial and controversial figure - V.V. Shulgin, but we cannot disagree with his arguments in this work. This work is called “Ukrainians and We.” In it, he briefly describes the history of the Ukrainians, proves the absurdity of their historical and national concept, and gives an overview current situation. In his opinion, the established Ukrainian nation is a product of unfortunate historical events and, naturally, the defeat of Russia. He summarizes:

"Here Short story Ukrainianization. It was invented by the Poles (Count Jan Potocki); brought to its feet by the Austro-Germans (“I made Ukraine!” - statement of General Hoffmann); but it was consolidated by the Bolsheviks, who have been Ukrainianizing without waking up for 20 years now (Stalin’s constitution of 1937)”

This is the verdict of the Russian people. No matter who among the real Russians encountered the so-called Ukrainians - tsarist scientists, nationalist publicists, White Guard officers, ordinary Russian peasants - they all met the Ukrainians with hostility. As staunch supporters Historical Russia, seeing in it a moral ideal, we can only repeat Shulgin’s prophecy and dream, which he put at the very end of his work:

“The time will come when, instead of the lies and misanthropy of Ukrainian schismatics, truth, harmony and love will triumph under high hand United Indivisible Russia!

EXTRACTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH A JOURNALIST
D.S.: The Ukrainian nation, which has been in a state of national building for more than a hundred years, the people who are engaged in this - the Ukrainian national intelligentsia - they lovingly cultivated contradictions between people who call themselves Ukrainians and Russians from Greater Russia. There was also a split between us along religious lines.

On Grushevsky Street in Kyiv I saw monks of the Uniate Ukrainian Church and monks of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra standing shoulder to shoulder on the line of confrontation. Rockets, firecrackers, rubber bullets and stones flew through them.

It seemed to me, and I really wanted, that after this the contradictions between our churches would dry up. But this was not destined to come true. In just a few months, in relations between Russians and Ukrainians, all the veils were torn off, all the wounds were etched, fingers were inserted into them, and these wounds were torn.

Unfortunately, we will be enemies for a very long time. I don’t know how the events in Slavyansk, in the South-East of Ukraine, will end, but the fact that we will continue to be hostile for a very long time is true.

Y.K.: I studied in Lvov during the decline of the USSR, when Banderaism was raising its head. Then this mass was formed, the energy was collected at certain points. But there have been no attempts at such obvious radical protest yet. It matured and accumulated with a pronounced anti-Russian, anti-Russian character. On the Maidan in Kyiv, I felt like in Lvov more than 20 years ago, I recognized and remembered the same nature of Russophobic energy. But some political scientists in Moscow said that the Maidan is a protest, there is a healthy force there.

Tell us about the morphology of your views about what is happening in Ukraine.

D.S.: At first we perceived Maidan favorably, seeing there what Russia lacks, some kind of national revival, or something. I really envied the Ukrainians that they could sing two dozen of their folk songs in a row. I was jealous that they had distinct national clothes. I still don’t know what Russian people’s national clothes are. Red blouse? Maybe. Accordion boots? They had it all.

But I was looking for an excuse for them. I was looking for an excuse for their Russophobia. I told myself how much they had heard from the Russians good words about your nationality? Only bad jokes, mockery of the language, anecdotes, fuss for gas and everything else. I realized that Russia, in principle, for twenty years had done nothing to bind Ukraine to itself. On the contrary, I just watched as this abscess was opened. Then on Instytutskaya Street they deliberately shed blood in order to legitimize this coup - with the help of blood it is very convenient, and in order to identify the enemy: the conditionally pro-Russian Yanukovych and Russia.

After the blood, the attitude towards us instantly changed. We were not allowed into the hotel because we were Muscovites, although we lived there and paid for the rooms. They bullied us when we spoke Russian. They pointedly refused to speak to us in our language, although people, of course, knew Russian perfectly well and we explained to them: "We're filming for Russian television and not everyone will understand the language, but you want to convey your thoughts to Russia. Talk to us in a language that will be understandable to viewers of our TV channel “Komsomolskaya Pravda”. And then, at the end, when the Maidan won and turned into a huge memorial, littered with fresh flowers and half-rotten mourning signs...

Case in point. We spent a week transmitting materials over the Internet from the apartment of our Kyiv friends. During this time, four concierges changed before our eyes. The first three immediately called the police and the SBU, saying that spies had arrived from Russia, they needed to be arrested, interrogated and shot. The police reluctantly came to the third call, and then did not respond to calls - the Kiev police somehow became smarter, or calmer, or the Maidan gave them some kind of inoculation against loyalty to the new authorities. The fourth concierge simply became angry with us - she expressed everything that she thinks about the Russians, about Russia, about the Kremlin, about the fact that we grabbed God by the beard, that having arrived in Ukraine, if you please, speak Ukrainian, etc.

And then I understood everything. I am terribly disappointed in the Maidan. For 11 years I worked on mass unrest, ethnic clashes, revolutions, and wars. I feel the energy of any crowd with my skin. Behind last week our work on the Maidan, it was approximately the first ten days of April, Sasha and I did not utter a single Russian word on the Maidan. We just didn't talk. If they asked us about something, we kept silent. When, during the attempt to storm the building of the Dnepr Hotel by the Right Sectors, some guy asked me which hundred I was from, I mumbled something in response.

Y.K.: The Maidan, which gathered under the slogan of the fight against the oligarchs, brought to power Poroshenko - a man who, so to speak, is “flesh oligarch”, “chocolate king”. Oxymoron, is there some kind of paranoia going on?

D.S.: No, not paranoia, this is a perfect example. There are two types of logic. There is Aristotelian logic, where one statement is true and the other is false. And Maidan and the current Ukrainian government and, in general, the worldview of part of Ukraine are an example of quantum logic, where all statements are conditionally true. Therefore, in the wake of the fight against the oligarchs, they had an oligarch president. In fact, there is a different background there. I think that, as Napoleon said, you cannot sit on bayonets. It also seems to me that you cannot build your power only on hatred of Russians and Russia.

Why is the Ukrainian haystack doomed?

Y.K.: Hatred for everything Russian was camouflaged at first, but already at the inauguration Poroshenko voiced principles that deprive the Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine of any alternative. These are the very pillars of the genocide that is now being carried out in Slavyansk.

Why Ukrainians do not like Russian? Some will say: “Why love them? They poke their nose into our affairs. They came to our country with weapons at the ready. They are imposing their culture and their language.” They will also remember Peter the Great, Catherine, the Soviet Union.

Others stare at the questioner with an uncomprehending look: “What hatred? My wife is Russian. I studied for five years at an institute where half of the students were Russian. I still communicate with many of them. And I don’t feel any hatred towards them. I even love and respect.”

Still others will remember that the Ukrainian hit the Russian who was standing next to him on the barricades. I heard an insult directed at myself and hit him in the face. So he “went” not because he was Russian. And for rudeness. However, questions remain. Why don't crests like Russians? Why do Ukrainians call Russians Katsaps? Below we present the most common answers to these questions and counterarguments to the answers. Where the truth lies is up to you to decide.

Childish resentment

Why do Ukrainians hate Russians? The roots of this resentment are quite deep. Therefore, there is no way to overcome it. Schematically, the birth of hatred and resentment can be depicted as follows.

1. Initially, the Slavic people gathered near Kyiv. A powerful power was formed - Kievan Rus. And Kyiv became the “father of Russian cities.”

2. Then new centers of gravity formed. Muscovy appeared (some Ukrainians say with gloating that there was not even the name “Russia”). Nevertheless.

3. The Great Russians gradually took a leading position, pushing aside everyone else.

That is, the younger brother ascended to the throne, which rightfully belonged to the older brother. The Ukrainians were offended. And they remembered all the unpleasant historical facts. It’s not fair, they say, the throne is occupied. Bloodshed and betrayal of their brothers.

The deeply national resentment has not gone away centuries later. And at the right moment, people were reminded of this, helped to inflate the “psychology of the people,” and made hatred the driving force.

The feeling of deprivation makes it humiliating for Ukrainians to join any political entity created by Russia. To Europe? Please. You can also play supporting roles with them. But “for Russia” - never. This is a slap in the face, a reminder of the loss of a leading position.

Counter argument

Not even an argument, but simply a reasoning-refutation of the supposedly existing great-power chauvinism. Russians do not suffer from Napoleonism. We are not talking about politicians now, but about ordinary people.

Russians are ready to look at any country as an older brother or father. Show honor and respect. No problem. And they would look at Ukraine...

Suffice it to recall the not so distant Soviet era. When Gorbachev mentioned the possibility of infiltrating Europe. With what lust the Russian people looked at everything European. How his face changed when he saw a foreign tourist.

No, there were, of course, deeply politicized individuals who perceived any foreign citizen as a spy. But this was not due to a sense of self-importance. In addition, the majority of Soviet citizens wholeheartedly desired to enter Europe.

The desire to defend independence

The main points with which Ukrainians explain their “natural” hatred. We put the word “natural” in quotation marks, because not everyone thinks so. We will try to be impartial: we will present both arguments and counterarguments.

1. Russia sells its gas to Ukraine at the most high price in Europe.

And it is not just the President who is to blame for this, but all Russians. Who elected this president. Who support him and consider correct policy against Ukraine.

Counter argument

Until a certain point, Ukraine received gas at the lowest price in Europe. And then she managed to get into debt. Now, of course, she has paid them. But only those that she recognized.

Why should Gazprom keep the price it was? This is unprofitable and irrational.

2. The Kremlin interferes in the internal affairs of Ukraine.

Mainly, it’s a shame about the language and television. The imposed Russification is not to the liking of ethnic Ukrainians.

Counter argument

Russification began in the past. There is no point in talking about this phenomenon now. No one imposed a “foreign” language on Ukraine. It was her choice, the choice of her citizens.

There are many Ukrainians who speak disparagingly about their language. Of course, there is nothing to praise them for. But there is nothing to blame Russia for. How many countries were part of the USSR? Do any of them complain about the imposed Russification? Many chose their state native language. They managed to maintain respect for their roots. Why didn't Ukraine manage to do this?

3. Russia condemns the national heroes of Ukraine.

Throughout history, Ukrainian heroes fought against occupiers, defending their people and their land. Ukrainians also glorify those who once fought against Moscow. And Russia perceives these speeches as a manifestation of anti-Russian policy.

But Ukrainians have never accused Russia of anti-Ukrainian policies. Even when the Russians put down Peter the Great, who destroyed Zaporozhye. And Catherine, who again struck a blow at the Zaporozhye Sich and took care of the introduction of serfdom in Ukraine.

Counter argument

Ukrainians turned to history because this is the only thing on which their grievance is based. Someone pulls the strings, points out offensive moments. And the people are being “led” and demonstrating their hatred.

For some reason, Ukraine avoids the shameful historical events that took place in “its own garden.” Like every country. But Russia can remember who actually burned Khatyn. Even textbooks on this subject should be rewritten. There is a lot of historical research and evidence.

And what do historical events have to do with today’s situation? Why were Ukrainians silent about this before?

4. Russia took a piece of Ukraine.

We are talking about Crimea. There was even a note in the news that Ukraine had filed a lawsuit against Russia for this theft. And the current President confidently asserts that Crimea will still return to the “bosom of its state.”

Counter argument

The Crimeans themselves asked to come to Russia. And the elections that were held on this occasion were recognized by the West as legitimate. Therefore, there can be no complaints against Russia.

These are the kind of contradictory opinions that can be found on the Internet. Where the truth is, let everyone decide for themselves. Ardent opponents of Russia claim that there was never any friendship, there was no brotherly love. The Ukrainians beat the Russians more than once (Hetman Vyhovsky is remembered here), and more than once marched on Moscow in alliance with other nations. And the one who was still friends with a Russian person was not a real Ukrainian. That's so categorical. But is it fair? Is it reasonable?