"Ukraine is not 'the outskirts' of Russia, but an ancient state!" – a historian debunks the most prevalent myth.

For centuries, Russian propaganda has sought to impose the notion that the name "Ukraine" derives from the word "okrain," implying its alleged secondary status and dependence on Russia. But does this align with historical truth?

Ukrainian historian Alexander Alferov debunks this dangerous narrative by relying on historical facts and documents. He demonstrates that Ukraine is not an "outskirt," but an independent state with its own millennia-old history.

A Dangerous Myth Embedded in All Spheres

According to Alferov, this myth has become so deeply entrenched in the Russian consciousness that it has become part of their understanding of Ukraine. It has even infiltrated international politics. Recall the visit of U.S. President George H.W. Bush to Kyiv in 1991, where he urged Ukrainians to remain part of the USSR, justifying it by stating that Ukraine is an "outskirt."

Linguistic Manipulations and Historical Facts

Alferov notes that the meanings of words can change across different languages. Russians attempt to link the Ukrainian term "Ukraine" to the meaning of "outskirt," but this is a manipulation. He urges a critical approach to information from Wikipedia, as the Ukrainian version of the article on the origin of the name "Ukraine" is often a translation from Russian, where a Kremlin-favorable interpretation is promoted. The first mention of the term "Ukraine" dates back to 1187, when the death of the Pereyaslav prince Vladimir Glebovich was recorded, after which "all Ukraine mourned." The historian points out that the chronicle was not written immediately after the event, so the term may have been used earlier. Importantly, the chronicler used the word "Ukraine" itself rather than "Rus" or "Pereyaslavshchyna."

Ukraine – Not a "Mark," but an Independent Land

Russian historians attempt to compare the term "Ukraine" to the European concept of "mark" – a border territory. Alferov rejects this analogy. Unlike a "mark," "Ukraine" was used to designate a specific territory, not merely a border zone.

Moscow Sources Refute the Myth of the "Outskirt"

Alferov turns to Moscow sources to demonstrate the absurdity of the "outskirt" myth. In tsarist documents from the 17th century, the term "Ukraine" was used to refer to different states, such as "Lithuanian Ukraine" or "Polish Ukraine." This indicates that in Muscovy, "Ukraine" was perceived as a distinct territory, not simply an "outskirt."

Peter I, in his addresses to the Ukrainian population, referred to the Little Russian region (that is, Ukraine) as "Ukraine," indicating an identification of these concepts. Elizabeth Petrovna, the wife of the hetman's brother, wrote about the restoration of the hetmanate in Ukraine, suggesting that Ukraine was seen as a separate political entity with its own institutions.

The myth of the "outskirt" is a tool of Russian propaganda aimed at belittling Ukrainian identity and denying its historical independence. Historical sources and linguistic analysis convincingly prove that Ukraine is an ancient state with its own history and culture, not just a periphery of Russia.

Previously, "Telegraph" reported that in ancient times Kyiv had a second and even third name. The key document revealing this mystery is the treatise of Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos.