A bicentennial war, the home historian A. J. Pilyushkin wrote, characterizing the image of the infamous Livonian War that developed in the Russian historical tradition of the beginning of the modern era: "In contemporary sources of this period there is no Livonian War. There are separate journeys, journeys, battles - but they do not merge in the minds of our contemporaries into one 25-year struggle for the Baltic states." To the logical question - why this happened, the historian gives the answer: "In Moscow they believed: the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland has continued continuously since 1487, and years of hostilities are combined only with short pauses." Naturally, the researcher continued, "the chronicler did not single out the new round of conflict with Lithuania and Poland over Livonia as a separate war; for him, it was part of a journey that had been going on for almost a century." And now, if we continue the historian's thought further, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that since the Russo-Lithuanian conflict did not end in the 16th century, but moved into the new century, the conflict that began in 1486 between the two Eastern European powers did not stop, but continued. And it was completed only in 1686, when, after long and difficult negotiations, the end of the "Eternal Peace" was signed. He put an end to the decades-long conflict, which can rightly be called the "Two Years' War" (and more justifiably than, for example, the famous Anglo-French Hundred Years' War, which is not a hundred years at all). In the forgotten Bicentennial War (yes, that's right, forgotten - alas, but unfortunately, in Russian historiography there is still no general work on this conflict - there are only individual studies on individual wars, campaigns and battles) exactly according to the plan outlined by A. J.

A bicentennial war, the home historian A. J. Pilyushkin wrote, characterizing the image of the infamous Livonian War that developed in the Russian historical tradition of the beginning of the modern era: "In contemporary sources of this period there is no Livonian War. There are separate journeys, journeys, battles - but they do not merge in the minds of our contemporaries into one 25-year struggle for the Baltic states." To the logical question - why this happened, the historian gives the answer: "In Moscow they believed: the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland has continued continuously since 1487, and years of hostilities are combined only with short pauses." Naturally, the researcher continued, "the chronicler did not single out the new round of conflict with Lithuania and Poland over Livonia as a separate war; for him, it was part of a journey that had been going on for almost a century." And now, if we continue the historian's thought further, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that since the Russo-Lithuanian conflict did not end in the 16th century, but moved into the new century, the conflict that began in 1486 between the two Eastern European powers did not stop, but continued. And it was completed only in 1686, when, after long and difficult negotiations, the end of the "Eternal Peace" was signed. He put an end to the decades-long conflict, which can rightly be called the "Two Years' War" (and more justifiably than, for example, the famous Anglo-French Hundred Years' War, which is not a hundred years at all). In the forgotten Bicentennial War (yes, that's right, forgotten - alas, but unfortunately, in Russian historiography there is still no general work on this conflict - there are only individual studies on individual wars, campaigns and battles) exactly according to the plan outlined by A. J.