Russian Discussion Thread I

[Czervenika]

I feel like if we want to discuss China then that should be taken to another thread anyway. I feel like we're diverging off-topic.

Does the "CCP Discussion Thread" even exist?

I'm honestly not sure. I just returned recently after a three year hiatus.

[Keira]

Does the "CCP Discussion Thread" even exist?

I'm honestly not sure. I just returned recently after a three year hiatus.

- 中文聊天 (Chinese Discussion Thread)
- Islamic Discussion Thread
- Cancel the Beijing Olympics ASAP
- The Chinese Communist Party is right or wrong?
- Treatment of Uyghurs in China

[The North Polish Union]

The initial claim that was made (not by you) is that genetic studies show that Russians are Slavs. I explained that the claimed articles do not show that is true. Then you moved to saying that physical features are proof of the Slavic genetic origin of Russians, but this is just the discarded racial science of 100 years ago. The DNA studies do not show proof that Russians are Slavic and we cannot rely on outdated theories that led to genocide.

My point is that Russians are not Slavic. Even though there are some cases of cultural influence because of proximity, these influences also exist for the Romanians who nobody claims are Slavs.

Different genes lead to different looks, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not outdated in any way. Just how your own family looks alike, people bounded by national borders, culture, linguistics, geography, etc. are going to look alike.

So the original conversation was about how genetically Slavic Russians were. Now, for some reason, you're talking about culture. What are you even doing here? It's like you're desperate to exclude Russians from the greater category of "Slavic" in any way you can. If you wanna talk genetics, talk genetics and don't bring up culture (or anything else). If you want to discuss how Slavic Russians are in all departments, then you're going to lose when it comes to linguistics.

Romanians aren't considered Slavic because they don't speak a Slavic language. That's the only reason AFAIK. If they spoke a Slavic language, they'd be as Slavic as Serbs and Bosnians.

Why are you complaining that I discuss Russian culture? You asked me "what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?" and I responded. I have examined the sources provided earlier in the thread and shown that they conclude that north Russians are Finnic and south Russians are Germanic and that Poles and Russians share the same similarities with each other that each shares with the Lebanese. Clearly the Russians are not genetically Slavic.

When I mention language, it cannot be denied that Old Church Slavonic influenced Russian, and I have said this previously in the thread. But it also cannot be denied that Slavic languages have influenced Romanian, Hungarian, and virtually every language of Central and Eastern Europe. That does not make all of them Slavic.

I'm too lazy and not super invested in this to do any additional research. However, here's some related stuff from my personal archives. Hopefully it helps in some way.

(Image)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

That is an interesting map. If R1a haplogroup determines Slavicness, then none of the South Slavs are Slavs, and yet you said earlier in the same post that Serbs and Bosnians are Slavs?

Also, the Wikipedia page has another interesting map that says that R1a haplogroup is even more common in India than in Russia. So Indians are more Slavic than Russians?

I am not sure of the difference between "transcription" and "transliteration".

Clearly you need to stop talking out of your ass and not use words you don't understand.

Look, use the proper names instead of Polonizing everything. You have no more claim to Kyiv than the Russians, who actually make up a sizeable part of the city's population. To say nothing of Veliky Novgorod, Kalinigrad or Belarus.

As for "irredentist fantasies" I have already said that I am not an irredentist, and support Prometheism and Intermarum concept. These are not irredentist theories, and cooperation such as the Visegrád Group and recently-signed Lublin Triangle are steps in this diresction and are not Polish-centered. Dmowski led the nationalist faction during the II Rzeczpospolita, and the difficulties between him and the more international-thinking Piłsudski led to many of the foreign-policy failings of the II Rzeczpospolita that worked against Intermarum federation.

So why are you using Polish names for places that are not Polish, exactly like how an irredentist does it?

As I have explained earlier I am not an irredentist, how many times must I tell you this? For place names of a langauge that does not use the Latin alphabet I have had to render them into Latin text. In the case of Białoruś I have used the form of the Łacinka orthography in use there for their language for hundreds of years. If you want the others' "proper names" I can keep them in Cyrillic for you, but this will be confusing for those who do not read Cyrillic.

The fate of his wife does not excuse his crimes. We have also renamed cities such as "Stalingrad" and "Karl Marx Stadt".

Congrats on missing the point. The guy had no power, so he couldn't even save his own wife from the purge. He was a figurehead who performed only ceremonial functions - so much so that other Soviet leaders, like Khrushchev, remarked that they felt sorry for him.

I care little who the shoe-banging lunatic felt sorry for, Kalinin is a criminal and does not deserve a city with his name.

[Duvniask]

In the case of Białoruś I have used the form of the Łacinka orthography in use there for their language for hundreds of years. If you want the others' "proper names" I can keep them in Cyrillic for you, but this will be confusing for those who do not read Cyrillic.

In Łacinka script, it's Biełaruś, not Białoruś. You're not even writing it properly in that script, for fuck sake. And this doesn't explain your Polonization of Ukrainian and Russian place names as well.

[Lady Victory]

It literally is lmao. Some of the least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism. This isn't hard to figure out unless you only trust conspiracy theorists and state-run media, in which case you have my pity.

"least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism"
Source: either itself or other, conveniently Western-based sources

This isn't hard to figure out unless you only trust conspiracy theorists and state-run media, in which case you have my pity.

I'd honestly trust a conspiracy theorist like Richard Medhurst over Reuters any day. Or any news outlet for that matter.

There are not enough words in the English language to describe how profoundly stupid this is.

Thank you for making me laugh.

[Ansarullah]

"least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism"
Source: either itself or other, conveniently Western-based sources

I'd honestly trust a conspiracy theorist like Richard Medhurst over Reuters any day. Or any news outlet for that matter.

There are not enough words in the English language to describe how profoundly stupid this is.

Thank you for making me laugh. :lol2:

Yw

[Diarcesia]

In the case of Białoruś I have used the form of the Łacinka orthography in use there for their language for hundreds of years. If you want the others' "proper names" I can keep them in Cyrillic for you, but this will be confusing for those who do not read Cyrillic.

In Łacinka script, it's Biełaruś, not Białoruś. You're not even writing it properly in that script, for fuck sake. And this doesn't explain your Polonization of Ukrainian and Russian place names as well.

It only explains it if NPU is Polish himself if he's not an irredentist. Which would mean he'll call Germany Niemcy or Hungary Węgry.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Different genes lead to different looks, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not outdated in any way. Just how your own family looks alike, people bounded by national borders, culture, linguistics, geography, etc. are going to look alike.

So the original conversation was about how genetically Slavic Russians were. Now, for some reason, you're talking about culture. What are you even doing here? It's like you're desperate to exclude Russians from the greater category of "Slavic" in any way you can. If you wanna talk genetics, talk genetics and don't bring up culture (or anything else). If you want to discuss how Slavic Russians are in all departments, then you're going to lose when it comes to linguistics.

Romanians aren't considered Slavic because they don't speak a Slavic language. That's the only reason AFAIK. If they spoke a Slavic language, they'd be as Slavic as Serbs and Bosnians.

Why are you complaining that I discuss Russian culture? You asked me "what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?" and I responded. I have examined the sources provided earlier in the thread and shown that they conclude that north Russians are Finnic and south Russians are Germanic and that Poles and Russians share the same similarities with each other that each shares with the Lebanese. Clearly the Russians are not genetically Slavic.

When I mention language, it cannot be denied that Old Church Slavonic influenced Russian, and I have said this previously in the thread. But it also cannot be denied that Slavic languages have influenced Romanian, Hungarian, and virtually every language of Central and Eastern Europe. That does not make all of them Slavic.

I'm too lazy and not super invested in this to do any additional research. However, here's some related stuff from my personal archives. Hopefully it helps in some way.

(Image)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

That is an interesting map. If R1a haplogroup determines Slavicness, then none of the South Slavs are Slavs, and yet you said earlier in the same post that Serbs and Bosnians are Slavs?

Also, the Wikipedia page has another interesting map that says that R1a haplogroup is even more common in India than in Russia. So Indians are more Slavic than Russians?

Clearly you need to stop talking out of your ass and not use words you don't understand.

Look, use the proper names instead of Polonizing everything. You have no more claim to Kyiv than the Russians, who actually make up a sizeable part of the city's population. To say nothing of Veliky Novgorod, Kalinigrad or Belarus.


So why are you using Polish names for places that are not Polish, exactly like how an irredentist does it?

As I have explained earlier I am not an irredentist, how many times must I tell you this? For place names of a langauge that does not use the Latin alphabet I have had to render them into Latin text. In the case of Białoruś I have used the form of the Łacinka orthography in use there for their language for hundreds of years. If you want the others' "proper names" I can keep them in Cyrillic for you, but this will be confusing for those who do not read Cyrillic.

Congrats on missing the point. The guy had no power, so he couldn't even save his own wife from the purge. He was a figurehead who performed only ceremonial functions - so much so that other Soviet leaders, like Khrushchev, remarked that they felt sorry for him.

I care little who the shoe-banging lunatic felt sorry for, Kalinin is a criminal and does not deserve a city with his name.

Who knows more, you, or Wikipedia. Your clearly one of those pan-Slavic poles who hates Russia and wants to call them Nordic.

[The North Polish Union]

In Łacinka script, it's Biełaruś, not Białoruś. You're not even writing it properly in that script, for fuck sake. And this doesn't explain your Polonization of Ukrainian and Russian place names as well.

It only explains it if NPU is Polish himself if he's not an irredentist. Which would mean he'll call Germany Niemcy or Hungary Węgry.

I have explained that this is an issue of writing words in Cyrillic alphabet using Latin script. Earlier I referenced "Visegrád" instead of "Wyszehrad"

Why are you complaining that I discuss Russian culture? You asked me "what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?" and I responded. I have examined the sources provided earlier in the thread and shown that they conclude that north Russians are Finnic and south Russians are Germanic and that Poles and Russians share the same similarities with each other that each shares with the Lebanese. Clearly the Russians are not genetically Slavic.

When I mention language, it cannot be denied that Old Church Slavonic influenced Russian, and I have said this previously in the thread. But it also cannot be denied that Slavic languages have influenced Romanian, Hungarian, and virtually every language of Central and Eastern Europe. That does not make all of them Slavic.


That is an interesting map. If R1a haplogroup determines Slavicness, then none of the South Slavs are Slavs, and yet you said earlier in the same post that Serbs and Bosnians are Slavs?

Also, the Wikipedia page has another interesting map that says that R1a haplogroup is even more common in India than in Russia. So Indians are more Slavic than Russians?

As I have explained earlier I am not an irredentist, how many times must I tell you this? For place names of a langauge that does not use the Latin alphabet I have had to render them into Latin text. In the case of Białoruś I have used the form of the Łacinka orthography in use there for their language for hundreds of years. If you want the others' "proper names" I can keep them in Cyrillic for you, but this will be confusing for those who do not read Cyrillic.


I care little who the shoe-banging lunatic felt sorry for, Kalinin is a criminal and does not deserve a city with his name.

Who knows more, you, or Wikipedia. Your clearly one of those pan-Slavic poles who hates Russia and wants to call them Nordic.

I have explained several times with academic sources as well as Wikipedia that the evidence does not support the idea the Russians are Slavs

[Duvniask]

It only explains it if NPU is Polish himself if he's not an irredentist. Which would mean he'll call Germany Niemcy or Hungary Węgry.

I have explained that this is an issue of writing words in Cyrillic alphabet using Latin script. Earlier I referenced "Visegrád" instead of "Wyszehrad"

You're literally just writing in Polish language and pretending that's Łacinka.

[Rio Cana]

While surfing for something else found out that Russia had its war 2021 expo of military hardware last month.

The following video shows the inside of the expo. and some of the hardware. It also shows the government representatives from nations which went there. Video is from a Mexican youtuber who has a weapons-pedia channel. He bought a $500 suit in order not to look out of place and then got access to the expo. He went with his camera assistant his cousin. Yes, its in Spanish but you can see what they saw. Russias defense department signed 41 contracts worth $6.8 billion US with 27 defense contracting companies that were at the expo.

Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9qE0SjP6XY

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

It only explains it if NPU is Polish himself if he's not an irredentist. Which would mean he'll call Germany Niemcy or Hungary Węgry.

I have explained that this is an issue of writing words in Cyrillic alphabet using Latin script. Earlier I referenced "Visegrád" instead of "Wyszehrad"

Who knows more, you, or Wikipedia. Your clearly one of those pan-Slavic poles who hates Russia and wants to call them Nordic.

I have explained several times with academic sources as well as Wikipedia that the evidence does not support the idea the Russians are Slavs

Ah yes, Wikipedia the source which denies the Russians are Slavs.

[The North Polish Union]

I have explained that this is an issue of writing words in Cyrillic alphabet using Latin script. Earlier I referenced "Visegrád" instead of "Wyszehrad"

I have explained several times with academic sources as well as Wikipedia that the evidence does not support the idea the Russians are Slavs

Ah yes, Wikipedia the source which denies the Russians are Slavs.

viewtopic.php?p=38997784#p38997784
viewtopic.php?p=39000352#p39000352

Twice already in this thread posters have used Wikipedia to claim that Russians are Slavs. I have gone through both the articles themselves and their sources and shown that even though Wikipedia claims the Russians are Slavs it does not back this claim up and even contradicts it.

[Duvniask]

(Image)
Ah yes, Wikipedia the source which denies the Russians are Slavs.

viewtopic.php?p=38997784#p38997784
viewtopic.php?p=39000352#p39000352

Twice already in this thread posters have used Wikipedia to claim that Russians are Slavs. I have gone through both the articles themselves and their sources and shown that even though Wikipedia claims the Russians are Slavs it does not back this claim up and even contradicts it.

Dude. Will you just stop it already. Like, you can easily look up studies that show the genetic make-up of Russians and other Slavic people (especially East Slavs) is very similar - this, for example. And genetics is not directly translatable to ethnicity - the old Magyars of the migration around 1000 AD have only slight genetic connection to the modern Magyars (Hungarians). Like, you're very obviously just some random Polish dude who's supremely butt hurt about Russia, so you have to invent these really fucking stupid conspiracy theories about Russians pretending to be Slavs so they can invade Ukraine (lol).

[Keira]

Different genes lead to different looks, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not outdated in any way. Just how your own family looks alike, people bounded by national borders, culture, linguistics, geography, etc. are going to look alike.

So the original conversation was about how genetically Slavic Russians were. Now, for some reason, you're talking about culture. What are you even doing here? It's like you're desperate to exclude Russians from the greater category of "Slavic" in any way you can. If you wanna talk genetics, talk genetics and don't bring up culture (or anything else). If you want to discuss how Slavic Russians are in all departments, then you're going to lose when it comes to linguistics.

Romanians aren't considered Slavic because they don't speak a Slavic language. That's the only reason AFAIK. If they spoke a Slavic language, they'd be as Slavic as Serbs and Bosnians.

Why are you complaining that I discuss Russian culture? You asked me "what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?" and I responded. I have examined the sources provided earlier in the thread and shown that they conclude that north Russians are Finnic and south Russians are Germanic and that Poles and Russians share the same similarities with each other that each shares with the Lebanese. Clearly the Russians are not genetically Slavic.

When I mention language, it cannot be denied that Old Church Slavonic influenced Russian, and I have said this previously in the thread. But it also cannot be denied that Slavic languages have influenced Romanian, Hungarian, and virtually every language of Central and Eastern Europe. That does not make all of them Slavic.

I'm too lazy and not super invested in this to do any additional research. However, here's some related stuff from my personal archives. Hopefully it helps in some way.

(Image)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

That is an interesting map. If R1a haplogroup determines Slavicness, then none of the South Slavs are Slavs, and yet you said earlier in the same post that Serbs and Bosnians are Slavs?

Also, the Wikipedia page has another interesting map that says that R1a haplogroup is even more common in India than in Russia. So Indians are more Slavic than Russians?

I'm not complaining about you discussing Russian culture. I was complaining about you not being clear enough. You were simply saying "Russians are not Slavic" without elaborating what type of Slavic you're talking about. Finally, in this post, you confirm that you're talking about culture - not language, history, genetics or ethnicity. So what about Russian culture isn't Slavic in your eyes? And what is Slavic culture even?

Language-wise, Russian is a Slavic language due to its ancestry. It developed from Proto-Slavic, just like Polish did. It's not "influences" that determine a language's family, but rather its origin. So yeah, of course Romanian isn't Slavic, regardless of how much Old Church Slavonic influence it has. It's all about the ancestry, not influence.

As for haplogroups, they denote common ancestry and seem to have an influence on looks. The map shows which haplogroups dominate certain areas, but it ignores all other haplogroups. R1a1a7 being dominant western Russia, Belarus and Poland, is a proof of close genetic relationship (and indication of similar looks aka physical ethnicity). "R1a1a7" doesn't equal to "Slavic", though. It just is what it is; reread the paragraph if you're confused.

The map you pulled up to "own" me is a poor quality map of the broader R1 gene. I can't tell based on your map, but it's probably not R1a (or even R1a1a7) in India. R1b dominates western Europe, for example, and that's not gonna make me call Spaniards Slavic. R1b simply denotes Latino-Celtic origins. My guess is that R1 in general is just the "Indo-European" haplogroup, hence its widespread presence from India to Iceland.

Regarding South Slavs - they're Slavs. "Slavic" is first and foremost a linguistic term. Languages and ethnicities are closely tied together, as are genes. Like, obviously, a group tied by a single language is going to largely stay together, because they can all understand each other. This "being together" is going to lead to a distinct ethnicity, culture, genetics, and looks which is going to differentiate them from other groups of people. Further isolation is going to make those differences more extreme.

R1 isn't a dominant haplogroup in the Balkans probably because the R1 Slavs who migrated south were outnumbered by other haplogroups. Yet, for some reason, the Proto-South-Slavic folk adopted the migrants' tongue.

Of course, there still are people in the Balkans with R1a, they're just not the majority. All you need to do to see that is visit. There's plenty of Polish-looking folk in Croatia, for example. Hell, even my ex-gf from South Tyrol looks very Polish/Slovak, even though she's not aware of any non-Italian ancestry.

So, to sum up, my main point is that labels like "Slavic" and "Romance" are linguistic more than anything. However, since language tends to glue us together, speakers of the same language tend to stay amongst each other, which leads to ethnic groups which map onto languages almost perfectly. Hence why "ethnolinguistic group" is a thing. Therefore, Russians are Slavic (or labelled as Slavs) due to linguistic (and thus, also, ethnic) ancestry. "Slavic" is an ethnolinguistic category, as is "Russian". "Russian" and "Polish" are two twigs who share a branch, who share a tree (Indo-European).

[The North Polish Union]

viewtopic.php?p=38997784#p38997784
viewtopic.php?p=39000352#p39000352

Twice already in this thread posters have used Wikipedia to claim that Russians are Slavs. I have gone through both the articles themselves and their sources and shown that even though Wikipedia claims the Russians are Slavs it does not back this claim up and even contradicts it.

Dude. Will you just stop it already. Like, you can easily look up studies that show the genetic make-up of Russians and other Slavic people (especially East Slavs) is very similar - this, for example. And genetics is not directly translatable to ethnicity - the old Magyars of the migration around 1000 AD have only slight genetic connection to the modern Magyars (Hungarians). Like, you're very obviously just some random Polish dude who's supremely butt hurt about Russia, so you have to invent these really fucking stupid conspiracy theories about Russians pretending to be Slavs so they can invade Ukraine (lol).

"A largely autochthonous component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies."

And this is written by mostly Russians too, even they say it.

Why are you complaining that I discuss Russian culture? You asked me "what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?" and I responded. I have examined the sources provided earlier in the thread and shown that they conclude that north Russians are Finnic and south Russians are Germanic and that Poles and Russians share the same similarities with each other that each shares with the Lebanese. Clearly the Russians are not genetically Slavic.

When I mention language, it cannot be denied that Old Church Slavonic influenced Russian, and I have said this previously in the thread. But it also cannot be denied that Slavic languages have influenced Romanian, Hungarian, and virtually every language of Central and Eastern Europe. That does not make all of them Slavic.


That is an interesting map. If R1a haplogroup determines Slavicness, then none of the South Slavs are Slavs, and yet you said earlier in the same post that Serbs and Bosnians are Slavs?

Also, the Wikipedia page has another interesting map that says that R1a haplogroup is even more common in India than in Russia. So Indians are more Slavic than Russians?

I'm not complaining about you discussing Russian culture. I was complaining about you not being clear enough. You were simply saying "Russians are not Slavic" without elaborating what type of Slavic you're talking about. Finally, in this post, you confirm that you're talking about culture - not language, history, genetics or ethnicity. So what about Russian culture isn't Slavic in your eyes? And what is Slavic culture even?

Language-wise, Russian is a Slavic language due to its ancestry. It developed from Proto-Slavic, just like Polish did. It's not "influences" that determine a language's family, but rather its origin. So yeah, of course Romanian isn't Slavic, regardless of how much Old Church Slavonic influence it has. It's all about the ancestry, not influence.

We have discussed all of the list of things you mention, and I have pointed out many times that Russians are not Slavic by any of them.

As for haplogroups, they denote common ancestry and seem to have an influence on looks. The map shows which haplogroups dominate certain areas, but it ignores all other haplogroups. R1a1a7 being dominant western Russia, Belarus and Poland, is a proof of close genetic relationship (and indication of similar looks aka physical ethnicity). "R1a1a7" doesn't equal to "Slavic", though. It just is what it is; reread the paragraph if you're confused.

The map you pulled up to "own" me is a poor quality map of the broader R1 gene. I can't tell based on your map, but it's probably not R1a (or even R1a1a7) in India. R1b dominates western Europe, for example, and that's not gonna make me call Spaniards Slavic. R1b simply denotes Latino-Celtic origins. My guess is that R1 in general is just the "Indo-European" haplogroup, hence its widespread presence from India to Iceland.

Regarding South Slavs - they're Slavs. "Slavic" is first and foremost a linguistic term. Languages and ethnicities are closely tied together, as are genes. Like, obviously, a group tied by a single language is going to largely stay together, because they can all understand each other. This "being together" is going to lead to a distinct ethnicity, culture, genetics, and looks which is going to differentiate them from other groups of people. Further isolation is going to make those differences more extreme.

R1 isn't a dominant haplogroup in the Balkans probably because the R1 Slavs who migrated south were outnumbered by other haplogroups. Yet, for some reason, the Proto-South-Slavic folk adopted the migrants' tongue.

Of course, there still are people in the Balkans with R1a, they're just not the majority. All you need to do to see that is visit. There's plenty of Polish-looking folk in Croatia, for example. Hell, even my ex-gf from South Tyrol looks very Polish/Slovak, even though she's not aware of any non-Italian ancestry.

So, to sum up, my main point is that labels like "Slavic" and "Romance" are linguistic more than anything. However, since language tends to glue us together, speakers of the same language tend to stay amongst each other, which leads to ethnic groups which map onto languages almost perfectly. Hence why "ethnolinguistic group" is a thing. Therefore, Russians are Slavic (or labelled as Slavs) due to linguistic (and thus, also, ethnic) ancestry. "Slavic" is an ethnolinguistic category, as is "Russian". "Russian" and "Polish" are two twigs who share a branch, who share a tree (Indo-European).

If you do not think haplogroups do not determine Slavicness why even bring them up? It was you and not me that posted the Wikipedia article for R1a haplogroup. It seems to me like you disown previous arguments when they are shown false and act as if you never made them?

[Keira]

I'm not complaining about you discussing Russian culture. I was complaining about you not being clear enough. You were simply saying "Russians are not Slavic" without elaborating what type of Slavic you're talking about. Finally, in this post, you confirm that you're talking about culture - not language, history, genetics or ethnicity. So what about Russian culture isn't Slavic in your eyes? And what is Slavic culture even?

Language-wise, Russian is a Slavic language due to its ancestry. It developed from Proto-Slavic, just like Polish did. It's not "influences" that determine a language's family, but rather its origin. So yeah, of course Romanian isn't Slavic, regardless of how much Old Church Slavonic influence it has. It's all about the ancestry, not influence.

We have discussed all of the list of things you mention, and I have pointed out many times that Russians are not Slavic by any of them.

Yeah, you've claimed something preposterous. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You can't go around claiming nonsense and not expect to not get shit on.

As for haplogroups, they denote common ancestry and seem to have an influence on looks. The map shows which haplogroups dominate certain areas, but it ignores all other haplogroups. R1a1a7 being dominant western Russia, Belarus and Poland, is a proof of close genetic relationship (and indication of similar looks aka physical ethnicity). "R1a1a7" doesn't equal to "Slavic", though. It just is what it is; reread the paragraph if you're confused.

The map you pulled up to "own" me is a poor quality map of the broader R1 gene. I can't tell based on your map, but it's probably not R1a (or even R1a1a7) in India. R1b dominates western Europe, for example, and that's not gonna make me call Spaniards Slavic. R1b simply denotes Latino-Celtic origins. My guess is that R1 in general is just the "Indo-European" haplogroup, hence its widespread presence from India to Iceland.

Regarding South Slavs - they're Slavs. "Slavic" is first and foremost a linguistic term. Languages and ethnicities are closely tied together, as are genes. Like, obviously, a group tied by a single language is going to largely stay together, because they can all understand each other. This "being together" is going to lead to a distinct ethnicity, culture, genetics, and looks which is going to differentiate them from other groups of people. Further isolation is going to make those differences more extreme.

R1 isn't a dominant haplogroup in the Balkans probably because the R1 Slavs who migrated south were outnumbered by other haplogroups. Yet, for some reason, the Proto-South-Slavic folk adopted the migrants' tongue.

Of course, there still are people in the Balkans with R1a, they're just not the majority. All you need to do to see that is visit. There's plenty of Polish-looking folk in Croatia, for example. Hell, even my ex-gf from South Tyrol looks very Polish/Slovak, even though she's not aware of any non-Italian ancestry.

So, to sum up, my main point is that labels like "Slavic" and "Romance" are linguistic more than anything. However, since language tends to glue us together, speakers of the same language tend to stay amongst each other, which leads to ethnic groups which map onto languages almost perfectly. Hence why "ethnolinguistic group" is a thing. Therefore, Russians are Slavic (or labelled as Slavs) due to linguistic (and thus, also, ethnic) ancestry. "Slavic" is an ethnolinguistic category, as is "Russian". "Russian" and "Polish" are two twigs who share a branch, who share a tree (Indo-European).

If you do not think haplogroups do not determine Slavicness why even bring them up? It was you and not me that posted the Wikipedia article for R1a haplogroup. It seems to me like you disown previous arguments when they are shown false and act as if you never made them?

I brought up haplogroups, because I wasn't sure what the fuck you were talking about. Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic genetically"? Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic linguistically"? Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic culturally"? Were you saying "Russians aren't at all connected to Poles in any way"? I had no idea what you were saying. How could I when you're simply throwing silly claims around without any desire to explain yourself or show proof?

Where did I claim haplogroups "determine Slavicness"? Quote me saying that. You can't because it's an assumption you made. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Duvniask]

Dude. Will you just stop it already. Like, you can easily look up studies that show the genetic make-up of Russians and other Slavic people (especially East Slavs) is very similar - this, for example. And genetics is not directly translatable to ethnicity - the old Magyars of the migration around 1000 AD have only slight genetic connection to the modern Magyars (Hungarians). Like, you're very obviously just some random Polish dude who's supremely butt hurt about Russia, so you have to invent these really fucking stupid conspiracy theories about Russians pretending to be Slavs so they can invade Ukraine (lol).

"A largely autochthonous component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies."

And this is written by mostly Russians too, even they say it.

How obnoxious and obtuse can you be? This autochthonous component has no bearing on the overall findings.

[The North Polish Union]

We have discussed all of the list of things you mention, and I have pointed out many times that Russians are not Slavic by any of them.

Yeah, you've claimed something preposterous. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You can't go around claiming nonsense and not expect to not get shit on.

And I have backed up my claims through this whole thread.

If you do not think haplogroups do not determine Slavicness why even bring them up? It was you and not me that posted the Wikipedia article for R1a haplogroup. It seems to me like you disown previous arguments when they are shown false and act as if you never made them?

I brought up haplogroups, because I wasn't sure what the fuck you were talking about. Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic genetically"? Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic linguistically"? Were you saying "Russians aren't Slavic culturally"? Were you saying "Russians aren't at all connected to Poles in any way"? I had no idea what you were saying. How could I when you're simply throwing silly claims around without any desire to explain yourself or show proof?

Where did I claim haplogroups "determine Slavicness"? Quote me saying that. You can't because it's an assumption you made. Don't put words in my mouth.

In this post I said "The DNA studies do not show proof that Russians are Slavic", and you replied with the haplogroup map and the Wikipedia link. What am I to think of this other than an attempt to argue this?

"A largely autochthonous component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies."

And this is written by mostly Russians too, even they say it.

How obnoxious and obtuse can you be? This autochthonous component has no bearing on the overall findings.

I have read the paper. It is interesting that they do not note the component for other Slavic populations, including the South Slavs, who a number of posters in this thread have claimed are more ethnically mixed with pre-Slavic groups.

[Duvniask]

How obnoxious and obtuse can you be? This autochthonous component has no bearing on the overall findings.

I have read the paper. It is interesting that they do not note the component for other Slavic populations, including the South Slavs, who a number of posters in this thread have claimed are more ethnically mixed with pre-Slavic groups.

You haven't read shit, you liar.

The results of our study have shown the close genetic proximity of the majority of West and East Slavic populations inhabiting the geographic area from Poland in the west, to the Volga River in the East (Fig 2A and 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File). Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [28,36] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [38].

In contrast to this apparent genetic homogeneity of the majority of West and East Slavs, the gene pool of South Slavs, who are confined to the geographically smaller Balkan Peninsula, differs substantially and shows internal differentiation, as testified by their NRY and autosomal variation (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 3, Tables A,B in S1 File). Consequently, we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55].

And here's the full section you quoted from.

Most West and East Slavs of Central-East Europe form genetically a compact group of populations that, as a general rule, differ from their western (Germanic-speaking) and eastern (Finno-Ugric-speaking) neighbors (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 4A and 4B). However, so-called ‘contact’ zones of this group with non-Slavic peoples are characterized by various patterns of genetic clines or sharp genetic borders [27,32,56–58]. For example, there is a pronounced genetic proximity between Czechs and their immediate Germanic neighbors in the west (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3) [27,58] that could be attributed to the pre-Slavic gene pool formation of Central-East Europeans. In contrast, a clear genetic border exists nowadays between Poles and their immediate western neighbors Germans, and even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority–Sorbs–and their German host population (Fig 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File) [43,59]. It has been suggested, that this genetic boundary predates massive resettlements of people after World War II, and could have been shaped during medieval migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in the Vistula and Oder River basins [60]. In the north-east, a largely autochthonous (pre-Slavic) component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from northern regions of the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies and supports substantial admixture of expanding Slavs with indigenous populations and, perhaps, language shift in the latter.

So you just tunnel visioned onto what was said about Russians having a pre-Slavic component; which others Slavs also have with nearby populations. Also, it was only Russians from the Northern part of European Russia that had this component - again, it is a component, some genes they share with their neighbors, it doesn't mean they aren't genetically similar to other Slavs.

[Keira]

@Duvniask, nice. Unsurprisingly, this all perfectly matches the map I posted earlier.

[The North Polish Union]

I have read the paper. It is interesting that they do not note the component for other Slavic populations, including the South Slavs, who a number of posters in this thread have claimed are more ethnically mixed with pre-Slavic groups.

You haven't read shit, you liar.

The results of our study have shown the close genetic proximity of the majority of West and East Slavic populations inhabiting the geographic area from Poland in the west, to the Volga River in the East (Fig 2A and 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File). Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [28,36] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [38].

In contrast to this apparent genetic homogeneity of the majority of West and East Slavs, the gene pool of South Slavs, who are confined to the geographically smaller Balkan Peninsula, differs substantially and shows internal differentiation, as testified by their NRY and autosomal variation (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 3, Tables A,B in S1 File). Consequently, we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55].

And here's the full section you quoted from.

Most West and East Slavs of Central-East Europe form genetically a compact group of populations that, as a general rule, differ from their western (Germanic-speaking) and eastern (Finno-Ugric-speaking) neighbors (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 4A and 4B). However, so-called ‘contact’ zones of this group with non-Slavic peoples are characterized by various patterns of genetic clines or sharp genetic borders [27,32,56–58]. For example, there is a pronounced genetic proximity between Czechs and their immediate Germanic neighbors in the west (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3) [27,58] that could be attributed to the pre-Slavic gene pool formation of Central-East Europeans. In contrast, a clear genetic border exists nowadays between Poles and their immediate western neighbors Germans, and even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority–Sorbs–and their German host population (Fig 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File) [43,59]. It has been suggested, that this genetic boundary predates massive resettlements of people after World War II, and could have been shaped during medieval migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in the Vistula and Oder River basins [60]. In the north-east, a largely autochthonous (pre-Slavic) component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from northern regions of the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies and supports substantial admixture of expanding Slavs with indigenous populations and, perhaps, language shift in the latter.

So you just tunnel visioned onto what was said about Russians having a pre-Slavic component; which others Slavs also have with nearby populations. Also, it was only Russians from the Northern part of European Russia that had this component - again, it is a component, some genes they share with their neighbors, it doesn't mean they aren't genetically similar to other Slavs.

Remember that earlier in the thread there was a source that established that north Russians have Finnic ancestry and south Russians have Germanic ancestry. Now we compare this fact with the multidimensional scaling analysis (which will analyze how similar the data points will be) of Slavic populations from your study.

Notice even though West Slavs and South Slavs are practically on top of each other, it is possible to note a clear distinction between them and the Russians. There are definitely Russians in the north Russian and Finnic group, but the rest are very separate from the South Slavs and West Slavs, which supports the idea that they are descending from Germanic Swedish Rus'.

[Duvniask]

You haven't read shit, you liar.

The results of our study have shown the close genetic proximity of the majority of West and East Slavic populations inhabiting the geographic area from Poland in the west, to the Volga River in the East (Fig 2A and 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File). Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [28,36] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [38].

In contrast to this apparent genetic homogeneity of the majority of West and East Slavs, the gene pool of South Slavs, who are confined to the geographically smaller Balkan Peninsula, differs substantially and shows internal differentiation, as testified by their NRY and autosomal variation (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 3, Tables A,B in S1 File). Consequently, we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55].

And here's the full section you quoted from.

Most West and East Slavs of Central-East Europe form genetically a compact group of populations that, as a general rule, differ from their western (Germanic-speaking) and eastern (Finno-Ugric-speaking) neighbors (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 4A and 4B). However, so-called ‘contact’ zones of this group with non-Slavic peoples are characterized by various patterns of genetic clines or sharp genetic borders [27,32,56–58]. For example, there is a pronounced genetic proximity between Czechs and their immediate Germanic neighbors in the west (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3) [27,58] that could be attributed to the pre-Slavic gene pool formation of Central-East Europeans. In contrast, a clear genetic border exists nowadays between Poles and their immediate western neighbors Germans, and even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority–Sorbs–and their German host population (Fig 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File) [43,59]. It has been suggested, that this genetic boundary predates massive resettlements of people after World War II, and could have been shaped during medieval migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in the Vistula and Oder River basins [60]. In the north-east, a largely autochthonous (pre-Slavic) component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from northern regions of the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies and supports substantial admixture of expanding Slavs with indigenous populations and, perhaps, language shift in the latter.

So you just tunnel visioned onto what was said about Russians having a pre-Slavic component; which others Slavs also have with nearby populations. Also, it was only Russians from the Northern part of European Russia that had this component - again, it is a component, some genes they share with their neighbors, it doesn't mean they aren't genetically similar to other Slavs.

Remember that earlier in the thread there was a source that established that north Russians have Finnic ancestry and south Russians have Germanic ancestry. Now we compare this fact with the multidimensional scaling analysis (which will analyze how similar the data points will be) of Slavic populations from your study.

Notice even though West Slavs and South Slavs are practically on top of each other, it is possible to note a clear distinction between them and the Russians. There are definitely Russians in the north Russian and Finnic group, but the rest are very separate from the South Slavs and West Slavs, which supports the idea that they are descending from Germanic Swedish Rus'.

You literally cherry-picked only a single measure of genetics (mtDNA) that even shows Poles next to Russians and further showing Russians alongside Ukrainians and Belarusians, in an attempt to make your dumb point that Russians aren't Slavs.

I'm fucking done with you, holy shit. You have no reading comprehension and you misrepresent and omit data to argue in favor of your insane drivel. That, or you're just insincere and you enjoy getting a rise out of people.

[Keira]

This is, indeed, a waste of time.

"It's so much easier to light a few small fires than to put them out" - I just heard Sam Harris say this and thought it was fitting. Conspiracy theorists, revisionists, etc - they always have a much bigger advantage. Disproving their shit requires a lot more energy than it requires for them to spread misinformation. It's not worth it.

[The North Polish Union]

Remember that earlier in the thread there was a source that established that north Russians have Finnic ancestry and south Russians have Germanic ancestry. Now we compare this fact with the multidimensional scaling analysis (which will analyze how similar the data points will be) of Slavic populations from your study.

(Image)

Notice even though West Slavs and South Slavs are practically on top of each other, it is possible to note a clear distinction between them and the Russians. There are definitely Russians in the north Russian and Finnic group, but the rest are very separate from the South Slavs and West Slavs, which supports the idea that they are descending from Germanic Swedish Rus'.

You literally cherry-picked only a single measure of genetics (mtDNA) that even shows Poles next to Russians and further showing Russians alongside Ukrainians and Belarusians, in an attempt to make your dumb point that Russians aren't Slavs.

I'm fucking done with you, holy shit. You have no reading comprehension and you misrepresent and omit data to argue in favor of your insane drivel. That, or you're just insincere and you enjoy getting a rise out of people.

There is one outlying data point for Poles in close to Russians. the rest are very distinct. For someone who accuses me of "cherry-picked" data, you've cherry-picked that one data point yourself.

This is, indeed, a waste of time.

"It's so much easier to light a few small fires than to put them out" - I just heard Sam Harris say this and thought it was fitting. Conspiracy theorists, revisionists, etc - they always have a much bigger advantage. Disproving their shit requires a lot more energy than it requires for them to spread misinformation. It's not worth it.

Indeed, trying to demonstrate that Russians are Slavs is a waste of time.