Here is a short history of Ukraine I was able to piece together. It explains why Ukraine never really culturally absorbed into Russia. Russia was united rather late in history. What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history. The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas. But at some point Muscovy (today Moscow) developed and became a powerful focal point. Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs. The kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia can be seen as an early precursor to the later "Russian" nation, in which Kiev and Muscovy were united, but this shattered from the Mongol invasions beginning in 1236. In 1328, Muscovy first began to expand. By 1464 it was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Muscovy began to conquer the north. Novgorod was captured in 1478 by Muscovy king Ivan III in 1478. By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine. Kiev was conquered by Lithuania in 1362. Lithuania controlled most of Ukraine by 1399. It was then not long after that Lithuania and all its territory became, in 1569, absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian union, in which Poland dominated. It would not be until 1503-1518 that Muscovy took Kiev, but they did not hold western half of Ukraine, and did not hold Kiev for very long, but continued to hold the eastern 40 percent of Ukraine. Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland for over 350 years, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire. The Ukrainian territory was divided between Pland and Russia from the mid-1600s to 1792. This was during a critical period of national identity development, which explains why Ukraine did not develop a Russian identity. In fact Ukraine never really developed a national identity in the same sense as other nations. Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide. I'd also argue that Kiev, being further south, began developing earlier, that the area of Ukraine had more population. Yet another reason it was not as quickly absorbed. Russia was able to get Kiev in 1667 after the conclusion of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) after Poland was financially weakened from its long fight in the "Northern wars" (1655–1660) with Sweden. This marked the rise of Russia as a European power. The Ottomans (Muslim) controlled the southern third of Ukraine after 1667, although the Crimean Khanate (Muslim) had controlled a smaller sliver of territory along the coast from the 1520s. Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. This history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.
I read this text with great interest. And I want to add some comments to it. Before the Mongol invasion, Russia was actually a single state. Although it was a conglomerate of small principalities ruled by independent princes, nevertheless they had a single Supreme Ruler, the Prince of Kiev, and there was a single religion, the Christian faith. In addition, the Russian tribes had a common set of laws, the forerunner of the constitution. It was called "Russian Truth" and appeared a hundred years before the Magna Carta. Its author was Yaroslav the wise. It clearly spelled out the rights and obligations of all categories of society, from the nobility to the most disenfranchised peasants.
What else can I say about the Slavs? Strangely enough, initially Slavic tribes lived on the Elbe, and Germanic tribes lived in the northern Black Sea region. So it is likely that Julius Caesar fought not with the Germans, but with the Slavs. Another interesting fact: Venice was also founded by the Slavs. These were the Slavic tribes of the Veneti. They were driven to the coastal lagoons by the Atilla tribes. By the way, the word "Venice" is Slavic and it means "crown". Until now, in Slavic languages there is an expression "to go down the venec", that is, to get married. At the same time, a crown is held over the newlyweds.
History is generally a very interesting thing! And it deserves more attention than the search for enmity between people. I once read that scientists found in the Komi Republic (this is in the north of the Urals) an old woman had an ancient Roman silver bowl that she used as a drinking bowl for chickens. Of course, she got to her ancestors sometime during Attila's campaigns against Rome.
