Ping
Interesting question
because its been ukraine for awhile. no need to change it.
Because the Russians (Stalin) committed genocide on the Ukranian people in the 1920s and 30s, decimating the population. After cleansing the region, ethnic Russians moved in to occupy, overwhelming the few Ukranians left...
Just don't change it to Maecedonia.
Nice keyword someone added to your thread.
Kievan Rus fell to Batu Khan in December 1240. It was ruled by the Golden Horde from Sarai after the conquest. Subsequently, Ukraine was ruled at different times by Poles, Krim Tartars, and eventually, the Russians. During WW I the Germans got most of it in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Western Ukraine was part of Poland until Hitler and Stalin carved Poland up in 1939. In short, I think the history is too complicated to consider Ukraine a successor to Kiev as a polity. As a culture, however, their claim is much stronger than Muscovy's.
Ping
I've always thought there were better names for Ukraine, following its independence from the USSR:
Malorus, as Kiev lies farther down the Dniepr River.
Derevni Rus (the ancient Rus)
Ukrainians seem to identify themselves (from my exp) in terms of not being Russian or Polish or Belorussian, and not being Orthodox. As Uniates that share a heritage with the Poles and Lithuanians, whose state was founded by Swedes and Greeks, it's always held my curiousity. We maybe able to propose new names if partition happens....