That's quite a one-sided viewpoint. Kievan Rus was founded by Rurikids who were Scandinavians originally based in Novgorod (now Russia). According to the Nestor's chronicle, Kiev basically became the capital after Oleg of Novgorod (a Rurikid) killed local princes Askold and Dir. Age of Kiev has nothing to do with it. 1000 years ago there was no "civilized Ukrainians vs non-civilized Russians" argument, it was just a bunch of equally civilized East Slavic tribes conquered by Norsemen. Novgorod's birch bark documents and other artifacts show that Novgorod was influenced by Scandinavia more than it was by Kiev. There are several times more references to Novgorod in Scandinavian sagas than there are to Kiev. Novgorod also participated in the Hanseatic league. It was more complex and multi-faceted than what you describe.
Novgorod was conquered by Moscow a couple hundred of years before Kiev. Yes it's now considered to be an integral part of Russia but I historically it's not really more of a predecessor of the modern Russian state than Kievan Rus is, it's just another East Slavic/Rus subjugated (quite brutally) by the Muscovite empire.
Perhaps, but I was replying to the comment above... Modern Russia is clearly a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow so I don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod than to that of Kiev/other ancient city states in the current territory of Ukraine.
> don't really see how can it have a bigger claim to the history of Novgorod
Maybe not bigger, but the people of Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians. What's with that state-centric view? Ukrainians are Ukrainians despite multiple occupations, but if Novgorodian people believe they are Russians it's illegitimate and they lose all the claims, and are now relegated to have their claims go through Kiev->Moscow. Only "pure" identities with existing independent states can have claims?
This "Ukraine is the true Rus, and Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins" nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent. It's pretty obvious that both sides have about the same level of claim.
> Novgorod now live in Russia and believe they are Russians
Obviously. However their relation to the Novgorodian republic is about as strong as that of modern Italians to the Roman Republic. Also I think any such claims are absurd and absolutely irrelevant (imho this applies to Kiev/Novgorod and to Moscow).
> This "Ukraine is the true Rus.. nationalist narrative is just tiresome and incoherent
Sure, you're right. However this narrative seems to be mostly a response to Russian claims that Ukraine is not a nation and that it should not exist.
> Russians are some splinter northern Finno-Ugric goblins
Nah... Politically and somewhat culturally they are probably closer to the Mongols (I'm actually half serious, the authoritarian and imperialist tendencies ingrained in Russian culture were probably inherited from the Golden Horde rather than Kiev/Novgorod.)
All the duchies into which Kievan Rus disintegrated were ruled by houses tracing their descent from Rurik. Thus, any one of them could try to "reclaim the ancestral lands" by the standards of that time. Of course, there was a little hitch there since the lands would need "gathering" first...
Moscow ending up the one who actually pulled it off is kinda ironic, though, given that it was very much an upstart that wasn't even there when Kievan Rus was still a polity united under a single ruler. Goes to show just how effective collaborationism (in this case, with the Mongols) can be to build a power base.
