In short, you are grasping for straws.
I explained the mistake regarding the first date. It was because you wrote it earlier. It is pretty much obvious because there was already Ukrainian SSR in 1920s.
The rest of your points is illiteral nonsense, no offense.
I perfectly explained what Ruthenia was, originally a Hungarian term regarding people living East of them in Carpathia and beyond.
The term resurfaced in the 19th century to call Galicians and Carpathians. Funnily, after Ukraine was first established as SSR these territories weren’t originally included. Stalin only added them along with Galicia in 1939.
Ruthenia is actually a sort of geographic name based on all of the above, meaning the land on border between Hungary and Ukraine, for long time Austro-Hungarian, currently Ukrainian. The place is predominately Russian and Hungarian-speaking, and every other person holds a Hungarian passport. The place is particularly separatist on top of that and don’t want to be a part of Ukraine, but no noise on that from politicians guess why?
To put the birth place of the Ukrainian culture into Ruthenia is quite stupid in light of that.
Let’s be honest, all things Ukrainian are originally associated with Zaporozhean Cossacks. That’s a tiny territory South of Kiev again and nothing in common with Ruthenia in whatever meaning, except as of common term for East Slavs.
As for who ruled Kiev and Moscow before 1800s it is perfectly irrelevant. I understand that pour education system you are so proud of has failed to teahh you what feudal fragmentation is. Do yourself a favor and read something on this.