Ukraine and Russia as one? Historian disagrees with Vladimir Putin

Anyone who rummages through recent history quickly finds confirmation of Vladimir Putin’s view that Russia and Ukraine form a “historical entity.” The Russian President wrote about this in July last year, which is now widely read by political observers as justifying the deployment of Russian troops on the borders of the neighboring country. The state governed from Kiev was part of the Soviet Union for almost 70 years – until the USSR broke up at the end of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s. So is Putin right when he swears by the unity of the two states and therefore also takes Ukraine’s possible accession to NATO as legitimacy for a confrontation?

calls the idea that Ukraine has always been part of Russia “Putin’s madness”. Although many Russians shared their president’s view, “the truth is much more complicated,” writes the professor of Slavic studies at the University of Victoria in Canada in a lengthy . So complicated that even Putin cannot simply refer to the Soviet episode to invoke the unity of both states. Because: “The Soviets recognized the Ukrainians as an independent ethnic nation with their own language and the (theoretical) right to self-determination,” writes Yekelchyk. In practice, this meant granting a Ukrainian republic within the Soviet Union. Therefore, Putin has to go back to tsarist times for his argument, because “unlike the Soviets, the Russian tsars considered the Ukrainians as part of the Russian nation (…) and their language as a mere regional dialect,” says Yekelchyk.

Vladimir Putin agrees with the views of the tsars

According to the historian, there is another point where the tsars can serve as a model for Putin. The historical Russian rulers believed “that throughout the centuries the West has repeatedly attempted to undermine Russo-Ukrainian unity.” This gives the current Russian President reason to see NATO and the European Union as carrying on the traditional aspirations of Western forces – with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy as a compliant accomplice.

But if you want to understand the origins of Ukrainian-Russian relations, according to Yekelchyk, you have to go back far before the time of the tsars – to the 9th century. At that time, a group of Vikings who called themselves “Rus” or “Roos” gained control over the ethnic group of Slavs, who at the time inhabited central Ukraine and north-western Russia. The Rus made Kiev their capital. At that time, there was no Moscow at all. Today’s Russian metropolis of millions only came into being around 200 years later, as a forest village on the distant borders of the medieval Rus Empire. An empire with which the Slavs living there identified themselves over time and eventually called themselves Rusnys, according to the historian. In the southwest of Ukraine, this designation survived into the 20th century. This also serves interested parties as evidence of an alleged unit.

Common historical heritage

So, if you will, Ukrainian history began well before Russia’s. But it is also true, according to Yekelchyk: “Today, the three East Slavic nations of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia claim Kiev-Rus as their heritage, even though the ancient heartland of Rus and its capital Kiev belong to modern Ukraine.” The historian also sees this as a critical point for the current situation: “It is disturbing for a former empire like Russia to realize that what it considers to be its medieval capital and the seat of its first dynasty is now ‘abroad’ “. Nevertheless: “Just as the medieval Franks at the time of Charlemagne were neither French nor German, it would be misleading to give the Rusyns a modern ethnic designation,” Yekelchyk draws a parallel to Central European history in his observation.

According to the Slavic Studies professor, Russia only gained real access after centuries of checkered history, when the Ukrainian Cossacks asked the Russian tsar for “protection” against Poland. Even if historians argue about the nature of the protection agreement of 1654: the Cossacks understood the pact as a mutual alliance, but the Russians more as submission. However, it was Empress Catherine the Great, more than another century later, that finally completed submission, documented by a 1793 medal whose inscription (“What was snatched away I have restored”) recorded the narrative of Ukraine’s belonging to Russia.

1919: Short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic

But that didn’t last either. As Yekelchyk goes on to describe, the ideas of the American and French revolutions, as well as German Romantic philosophers, had a major influence on Ukraine – to the displeasure of Russia, which had struggled with modern ideas. A Ukrainian nationalism developed which, after the First World War, finally led to a very short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1919. “No matter how brief,” the historian continued, this republic showed that any “gathering” of historical Rus lands “could only take place from the position of recognizing the existence of a modern Ukrainian nation.” And “in fact, the Bolsheviks felt [die mit der Oktoberrevolution 1917 die Macht in Russland erlangt hatten, Anm. d. Red.] pledged to create a puppet Ukrainian Soviet Republic, which was one of the founders of the Soviet Union in 1922.”

The Soviets could possibly have erased the Ukrainian national identity forever, but according to the historian, they “failed” to do so and, on the contrary – as already described – granted Ukraine an independent ethnic identity. As a result, at the end of the Soviet Union, the “borderland”, as it is literally called, very quickly followed the Baltic states into independence. Political developments in the 1990s gave her hope that Russia and Ukraine could “dream together of a democratic and prosperous future as neighbors.” That went well for a long time, but now this hope could be dashed.

Common roots, independent development

If you follow Yekelchyk’s look at history, it becomes clear that despite common roots, Ukraine was autonomous for long periods or at least enjoyed a special position for historical reasons. The Russians and Ukrainians formed a “historical entity” primarily during the times when Russia had assumed control of its neighbors. And this is how the situation is now, according to the Ukrainian-Canadian scholar: “Putin’s historic article from last summer is essentially a statement of unrequited love and clarifies Russia’s core problem with Ukraine: it doesn’t see itself as a nation, but as an empire “Yekelchyk said. Ukraine’s separate ethnic identity challenges Russia’s self-image as an empire, the historian argues, and Ukraine’s political identity contradicts Putin’s authoritarian political model.

After 30 years of independence and two people’s revolutions against “the political model that best represents Putin’s Russia”, fewer and fewer Ukrainians could imagine living in authoritarian Russia. The annexation of Crimea – even though it was only assigned to the country during the Soviet era – has significantly reduced the number of Putin supporters in Ukraine. Rather, Putin’s attempts to attract Ukraine to himself only resulted in the country distancing itself even more from Russia.

Russia: No empire without Ukraine

An independent and successful Ukraine is what Putin fears today. Serhy Yekelchyk: “If the West helps build a democratic and prosperous Ukraine, its mere existence may one day produce a democratic Russia.”

A far-reaching assessment, but with which Yekelchyk is not alone. “Ukraine is Putin’s greatest horror and passion,” wrote Ukrainian opposition politician Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze (European Solidarity party) and Oleksandr Merezhko, MP for the ruling Servant of the People party. “A horror because a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is the foremost threat to his regime. A passion because – to quote the great Cold War analyst Zbigniew Brzeziński – ‘without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, with a submissive or even subjugated Ukraine, however, Russia automatically becomes an empire'”.

Swell: ; ; ;