Russia is called that because Moscow was founded during Rus' times, and as such, had as much of a stake in the wider cultural identity as the other Rus' cities. After the Mongol conquests, it was the Muscovites that restored the old political order, so it was only natural for them to take the lead. Similar things have happened in other places which is one of the reasons capitals can "move."
The controversy arises from the immediate conflation of this continuity with modern political context; that Moscow's leadership somehow infallibly dictates what is or is not "Rus'." But it's all moot because the other countries (Belarus, Ukraine) have shown no interest in actually taking the lead in leading "Rusia." Ukraine especially wants to separate from that continuity all the while claiming that they must be Rus' because Kiev is technically their capital. They're much more interested in claiming this 16th-century Cossack identity, and cleave to the West. Any historical Rus' leader including Olga of Kiev or Taras Bulba would have considered them separatists which isn't far from Russians' modern opinion of them.
Russian for "onion" is "look/лук" which is also Norse word
Rus is Ukraine, muscovy stole it
Mistake.
The majority of tribes – 3/5 -made an agreement to hire the neighbouring vikings as servant dukes (for court and guard purposes) was ugorian.
در کشور من افغانستان نیز ما آن ها را روس میگویم
Waldemar = Volodymyr
Russia is called that because Moscow was founded during Rus' times, and as such, had as much of a stake in the wider cultural identity as the other Rus' cities. After the Mongol conquests, it was the Muscovites that restored the old political order, so it was only natural for them to take the lead. Similar things have happened in other places which is one of the reasons capitals can "move."
The controversy arises from the immediate conflation of this continuity with modern political context; that Moscow's leadership somehow infallibly dictates what is or is not "Rus'." But it's all moot because the other countries (Belarus, Ukraine) have shown no interest in actually taking the lead in leading "Rusia." Ukraine especially wants to separate from that continuity all the while claiming that they must be Rus' because Kiev is technically their capital. They're much more interested in claiming this 16th-century Cossack identity, and cleave to the West. Any historical Rus' leader including Olga of Kiev or Taras Bulba would have considered them separatists which isn't far from Russians' modern opinion of them.
Kievan Rus.
And thus the rightful rulers of those lands are the swedes, of course! Just following contemporary Russian state policy 🙂
But why don't they still call them that way? Seems weird