Again, its a lot of theories around it and none of them have 100% proofs. Btw, can you tell me when Vikings got their own State?

Do you agree with Prince Charles when he compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler over his actions in Ukraine?

I think his words was taken out of context as usual in these cases. 
But Prince Charles should know it better, cause his predecessor knew Hitler personally and it seems they was in good relations.

For starters, nation is relatively new form of ethnosocial myth that exists 2-3 centuries at most, so in that particular context that would be an anachronism. If you mean participated in ethnogenesis then no, various Slavic and Finno-Urgic tribes you mentioned have indeed participated in ethnogenesis on early stages of what would become Russians and gazillion of other cultures eventually, but not Vikings as "viking" is denotation of a profession, not an ethnicity. "Establishing Russia as a powerhouse" is no again as it is yet another anachronsim, no Russia back then. Clearing the river routes of "barbarians" (I'd prefer term nomads or Turkic nomads) is partially yes as the mission of taking full control of river routes that ran through North to South never was accomplished until very late into XV centuries, but of course first conflict with nomadic tribes have started on early stages of Rus' statehood, and first victories as well such as demise of Khazar Khaganate in X century.

So to word in most best form possible what you're trying to say (you're obviously referrring to Norman theory) -- Rus' represented the major armed force on the North-to-South river routes in the region and therefore  often acted as army for hire for local tribes and cities, eventually some of them institunalized themselves in a form of early statehood (or rather statehoods, as there were many of them) -- basically the biggest gang on the block, if you got the idea, not smth unseen in the world history.

//And just a thought to share -- a good-forumlated question is half of your answer.

I don't believe he was taken out of context, they where chatting about when Hitler annexed the Baltic coastal Free City of Gdansk, it's no different from what Putin did in Ukraine, so in that sense, he is 100% correct. He is not the only one that thinks this In March, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly said Mr Putin's claim to be be defending ethnic Russians in Crimea was "what Hitler did back in the '30s".

In this context I think that prince Charles, Mrs Clinton and you speaking total bullshit here. 
West trained and financed nazis in Ukraine. They made a bloody mess in Odessa. Right now Ukraine Nazis killing Ukraine military who don't want to shoot peaceful people in Donetsk and Lugansk. 
And to hide it your authiorities start saying that Putin is like Hitler. In any case this is not a questions about Russia, maybe you'd better speak about Putin in the thread about Ukraine.

I don't think Charles have any clue what happening in real word, while sitting in his palace. He probably saw that on facebook or something like that, and thought it would be smart to say it. Crimea have russian naval base, like 80% of population are Russian people, yeah, same thing as Hitler)))

You could be right, but the same could be said for Putin. Any way I didn't mean to put anyones back up I was intrested in how Putin was viewed by the Russian people, I guess I got my answer :)

Putin actualy do something, Charles is a figure head, he don't need to do anything since UK have prime minister for that. So I don't think you can say same thing for Putin ;)

Yes, you got it. ) Recent polls shows his popularity around 80% and this feels correct.