Or this fantastic globalist free market economic system British based "free market" system they created and the Economist is the news rag that promotes this is falling apart and plunging the world into a disastrous economic collapse.

This is the guy whose own book The New Cold War is filled with inaccuracies/lies to justify the thesis of the book of the Russian threat. In fact if you get the truth about the issues he raises you'll see that the West is more of a threat to itself and Russia.

All WW2 documentaries here in Britain and about the Balkans Wars in the 90's which includes the woefully bad "Death of Yugoslavia" were the subtitles were not even right or every documentary about contemporary Russia since the collapse of the USSR for that matter are essentially British propaganda.

I've reviewed this film at Lessons from Byzantium

Anyone instrested in the rise and fall of tByzantium should read A History of the Byzantine State, George Ostrogorski, Rutger Univesrisity Press, 1953. The third edition (1969) is available at Amazon.

When you read the book, long used as the definitive text-book on the Byzantine State you will realise how close is the movie's narrative to the historical timline and facts. Most Byzantine Emprerors devoted some of their time in documenting the history of their empire and reign. Much of the written script has survived, some of which can be found in libraries in Paris and other European cities.

The Byzantine State was in some decline mainly because it was in a state of perpetual war. Economic/trade wars existed with Genoa and Venice. Its territory was constantly under attack from one side of the compass or the other. Goths from the West, Arabs from south, Seljuks from soth east and Bulgars from North. Byzantium was always able to secure its borders. The walls of Constantinople (on which I walked on not long ago) were a formidable defence against three Arab attacks, saving Christiandom from Islam for over 1,000 years. The Byzantines were the consumate diplomats. They were able to manage complex relationships with delicate attention. Royal marriages in Germany were sanctioned in Constantinople. Infighting among the noble families, rivarly and often murder of emprerors were also a destabilising factor.

However, the Byzantines could not defend themselves against the 4th Crusade. Funded by the Venetians who were smarting from losses of trade concessions by Constantiople, their invasion and subsequent break up of the empire into four administrative units, mortally weakened the Byzantine Empire. The subsequent theft of its riches was documented not long after it occured by an observer who described it as the greatest plunder that has ever talken place.

The Orthodox religion was spread to Slavic speaking people using the Bible translated in the Old Macedonian Slavonic dialect.

After the fall of the empire, Russia saw itself as the guardian of the Empire's lagacy, its orthodox religion. Moscow assumed the spiritual role of the Third Rome. Russian leaders hoped to win back Constantinople for Christiandom. Russia came close to so doing in late 19th century. Russia's army was two days march from Constantinople; on the verge of victory. The move was thwarted by the French and English who threatened war if Russia took the city. The San Stafano Treaty, signed in 1874 between the Ottomans and Russia, giving control of the Balkans to Bulgaria was annuled by the Berlin Congress and much of Russia's territorial gain was reversed. Constantiople and the large part of the Balkans remained in Ottoman hands.

The history of Byzantium is fascinating reading. There are many parallels with contemporary developments such as EU/NATO expansion east and USA global hegemony. America's military expansion and economic decline most notable parallels.

Someone replied to this post with the following:

Thanks for sending this link. I love Byzantine history, although I do not like to call it "Byzantine" since they called themselves "Romans." Interestingly, I noticed even today in Turkey and middle eastern countries, Orthodox are still called "Romans" or "Rumeli." and Catholic, whereas Roman Catholics are called by their correct definition: Franks. For some reason in high school, the teachers covered Roman history from Julius Caesar - approx. 500 AD. They somehow managed to miss the 1000 year plus history that followed, which had an influence on Western civilization (laws, hospitals and some other particulars).

****

As noted, things can get categorized in a different way from what was evident.

As an example, someone noted to me how "Kievan Rus" is a latter day academic term, that goes contrary to how "Rus" is used in the documented Chronicles of that period. This point touches on how Russo-Ukrainian history can get politicized in a historically inaccurate way, that gets overlooked (particularly within some mainstream Western circles).

Okay Leos.

It's just that a combination of factors can lead to some faulty impressions. IMO, it's therefore good to follow-up in clarifying certain particulars.

Awhile back, I came across a blog post that found a Tryzub (or Trident, which is modern day Ukraine's coat of arms) in the center of the Russian flag. It was suggested that this flag constituted a form of imperialism.

It was brought to my attention that the mentioned flag relates to this organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_of_Russian_Solidarists

Whether left or right, a good number of Russians and Ukrainians share some vision of closer Russo-Ukrainian ties. Some divide and conquer enthusiasts view this sentiment as misguided and/or imperialistic. I see it as more of a reasonable sympathy, based on a number of historical and cultural realities. This is said without challenging the present independent status of Ukraine, inclusive of its borders.