XPost: soc.culture.ukrainian, relcom.politics, alt.history
Putin has written an article. <
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181> EN <
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181> RU
Besides the current transient issues, it's useful because it inter alia includes a brief review of the Ukraine's history since ancient time to the modern post-Soviet period. It's not a Putin's "original research", of
course, it's based on the set of notable and basic facts commonly known in Russia and near Russia. It's compact and pretty accurate.
So it's recommended for reading to any interested one.
Ukrainian Kiev-controlled outlets have issued numerous responses (they are
very attentive to what is said in Russia). I have scanned them and haven't found someone who disputed the facts. Those who pusrue anti-Russia agenda, mostly issued claims like "it's all is more propaganda and disinformation", some issued acrimonies, but no one dared to refute specifically (like
"this claim is wrong" or "this is a misinterpretation"), which means they
have nothing but empty obstructionist noise against the facts.
* * *
After the anti-constitutional and anti-democratic coup in 2014, the neo- Ukrainanin nationalists together with their foreign supporters were
desperate to falsify the Ukraine's history, and some drivelous claims were added to the Wikipedia and elsewhere. Popular sources like the Wikipedia
cannot be considered reliable nowadays when it comes to politicaly charged "hot" issies. They said recently that it has become "a big nasty complex
game" <
https://bit.ly/2US6KWI>.
* * *
The below are some considerations from myself.
After the 13th century Mongol invasion, the north-eastern part of Russia
fell into a vassalage to the Golden Horde, and the rest soon shifted under direct Polish rule. Later, while 'Moskovia' increasingly freed itself from
the dependence, the very opposite process took place for the Poland's
Russians. When the Moscow-led state became recognizable and strong, the Poland's Russians were a distinguishable group within the Polish state,
but in no way a state. Since the 15th century, foreigners applied the term 'Russia' mainly to the Moscow state, - because it was commonly seen as the contemporary continuation of Russia.
Besides, there was also a discernment between "big" or "great" Russia (the Moscow-Novgorod state) and "little" or "minor" Russia (the Poland's area). These "big" and "little" terms were invented not by the Muscovites but by
the Byzantine Orthodox church, which at the time patronized the both
"great" and "minor" Russias. The Russian Russia was called 'great' not
just because of its political significance, but also because it was much
larger in size <
https://bit.ly/3euSrOX>. The nothern part of Russia hadn't
been ravaged by the nomadic looters, and the Russian expansion north and
and north-east continued even during the "Mongol Yoke" period.
Oppressive colonial policies toward the Russians in Poland led to a series
of uprisings since the late 16th century, until one of them (which
happened even without any support from Moscow) turned out successful, and
thus, in the 1650s, a large part of the Poland's Russian area had switched
to Russia. The increased pressure against the 'minor' Russians in Poland happened not for no reason, it was correlated with the internal weakening
of Russia, which led it to the Time of Troubles since the late 16th
century. The Time of Troubles, the events within Poland, and then the
Russian recovery from the Time of Troubles and the start of transition of "minor Russia" into Russia from Poland was, overally, one complex trend of
the regional development.
The term "Ukraine" literally meant "borderland", - it was originally used
in this literal sense, but after adding the part of the Poland's Russian
area to Russia, the actual borderland shifted westward, so the term was expanded to the whole new area. I.e. the area between the previous literal borderland and the new literal borderland started to be called Borderland
(the Ukraine) in more figurative sense, and thus it had become a proper
noun. The size of this area in the 17th century was much smaller than the present day Ukraine. Later, most of the rest of the Poland's Russian area
was retaken by Russia, so "the Ukraine" was expanded further westward.
The Poland's Russians considered themselves Russians, ie. the same people
as the Muscovites, which may be seen from many sources (various writings
and poetries left by various authors who were living within 'minor Russia'
in the 15-17th centuries). The Poles called them Russian as well. However, until the 19th century, there was no national sentiment close to the
modern meaning. Knowledge of ancestry, religious affiliation and language
were the basis for an identity. The "minor Russians" started to better
realize some differences from the Muscovites after most part of the "minor Russia" had been included into Russia. Colonization had left its marks.
In the 18th century, Russia shifted its "borderland" southward up to the
Black Sea through conquest of the Crimean Khanate (a formation somewhat analogous to the Barbary Pirates in the west-European context). The new
lands (non-domesticated steppe, originally) were named Novorossiya, and
then, in the Soviet design, they were included into the Soviet Ukraine.
The present day territory of the Ukraine is a Soviet product. The Soviets generously appended to the post-Poland area not only the Novorossiya lands
in the south, but also some non-Ukrainian lands in the east (Donbas and
more), - so, the 'true' Ukraine (the post-Poland lands) is less than half
of the post-Soviet Ukraine. Ukrainization of the whole territory happened within the USSR.
The Soviet generosity at the time is not an exaggeratioon, it was
doctrinally motivated by the [naive] Communist expectations. They believed
that the World Communism may be achieved in quite a close future, and then ethnicities / nations / states will simply become of little significance.
So the Soviet republics formed.
* * *
Among the present day Russians, there's a variety of Russian nationalisms (every nationalism is linked with some common experience in the past, and Russia had many [sharp] turns). There are different kinds of nationalism
among the Ukrainians as well. The kind driving the post-coup development
is not from the grassroots. The Ukrainians did not know much good from
their western colonizers. This post-2014-coup neo-Ukrainian nationalism is linked with a part of their ruling class that believes it would be more prestigious to attach the Ukraine to Europe, and alienate it from Russia.
After the 2014 coup, life of the regular people in the Ukraine turned to
the worse, but their ruling class has become closer to the West, so they continue to indoctrinate the populace that their course is good for them.
The problem with this neo-Ukrainian kind of nationalism is that it
basically cannot be non-hostile to Russia. Every nationalism / patriotism
needs some 'anchors': its national heroes and victories, national cultural achievents. In the case of the Ukraine, most of their decent national
heroes and victories and achievements turn to be inextricably linked with Russia in some or another way. So the neo-patriotic ideologists, who serve
for the post-coup regime, desperately seek to find or invent something
'purely Ukrainian'. In their desperation, they pick up some ugly persons
from the past (eg. those served to the German Nazis) and misrepresent them
as heroes. They pick up some controversial and dubious 'heroes' from more distant past too. They seek to invent fictitious history, not only through distorted interpretation of real historical facts, but even in a frankly blatant mythical way.
Borscht Question may serve as a comic illustration of this desperation.
Borscht is an ancient and common east-Slavic/Baltic dish, it was invented
long before apperance of the Ukraine, but they struggle fiercely to make
the world believe that borscht is solely 'ukrainian'. This is pathetic.
And the English Wikipedia article attributes it strictly to the Ukraine, despite that at the time when borscht was invented there was neither the Ukraine nor an idea of the Ukraine, and it's even impossible to claim it
was invented within the lands of the present day Ukraine. The only special
link between borscht and the Ukraine is that the Ukrainians love borscht
more than other peoples who also eat it. It would be similar as if tea was attributed to Russia because the Russians love it more than other nations.
Given that the Ukrainian history is organically inseparable from Russia,
the neo-Ukrainian nationalism needs concepts that would artificially
alienate populace from Russia. For this, they have invented two narrative
lines (which don't go very well with each other). The first is that Russia
was a persistent oppressor and enemy of the Ukrainians since the very
ancient time (some feuds in the 12th century within the early Russia are misinterpreted in this way). The second is essentially racist-like, which suggests the Ukrainians are True Slavs whereas the Russians are "finno- mongolic genetic rabble" (this idea was picked up from the Polish Catholic ideologists). The both are for ignorant people, but it's enough for a part
of the populace that accepts it. Another part can't accept it, and this is
why the post-coup regime faces not just "dissidents", but the internal insurgency. Russia cannot stay apart from these issues, so it has accepted Crimea and won't abandon its support for the Donbas resistance.
I tend to believe the post-coup Ukraine won't last too long. It's
impossible to build something reliable and durable on the basis of hateful
and dense falsities. The fact the Western policy makers have chosen to
support the neo-Ukrainian nationalism means they've chosen enmity towards Russia. All their righteous "democracy-values" rhetorics are undermined by
the fact they back up a baser and hateful agenda with action. I also tend
to believe that one day these folks will get what they deserve.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)