Posted by Curt on 22 July, 2022 at 8:35 am. 3 comments already!


by stained hanes

You might’ve seen something on the news or on Twitter about Russia invading Ukraine over the past few months. Now that the audacity of hype has run its course, let us consider how it will only end once there is a Russian flag planted and victory is declared.
In August 1948, at the request of Secretary of Defense John Forrestol, the U.S. National Security Council issued a memorandum (NSC 20/1 1948) on U.S. objectives with respect to Russia. A large part of the memorandum was devoted to Ukraine. U.S. analysts argued with certainty that Ukraine was an organic part of Russia, that it was highly unlikely that Ukrainians would be capable of an independent national existence, and most importantly, that an attempt to support Ukrainian separatism would cause a sharply negative reaction from the Russian nation.

“There is no clear dividing line between Russia and Ukraine, and it is difficult to establish one…The economy of Ukraine is inextricably intertwined with the economy of Russia into a single whole. There has never been any economic separation since the territory was reclaimed from the nomadic Tatars and began to be developed by a settled population. An attempt to tear it away from the Russian economy and form something independent would be as artificial and destructive as an attempt to separate the grain belt, including the Great Lakes, from the economy of the United States…
Finally, we cannot remain indifferent to the feelings of the Great Russians themselves. They were the strongest national element in the Russian Empire, now they are in the Soviet Union. They will remain the strongest national element in this space, whatever their status… Ukrainian territory is as much a part of their national heritage as the Midwest is a part of ours, and they are aware of this fact. A decision that would try to separate Ukraine entirely from the rest of Russia involves drawing disapproval and resistance from it and, as analysis shows, can only be sustained by force.”
What was obvious to U.S. analysts and statesmen in the era when the United States became a superpower and had a monopoly on nuclear weapons has been forgotten by America’s modern political establishment and media. The White House and European Union leaders believe that they can use force or the threat of sanctions to make the Russians think of Ukraine as a country other than Russia. And if the West succeeds in “containing” Russia, the reward will be the accumulation of long-term resentment of Russians, for whom the West, the United States, NATO, the EU will be seen in one single lens – as a force that prevents Russians from owning and disposing of much of their land and their heritage and being near, in one country, with their loved ones.
Why do Russians perceive Ukraine as Russia

First of all, personal ties. An enormous number of Russian citizens were born on Ukrainian territory, but they do not consider themselves Ukrainians, especially in the sense that the authorities in Kiev put into this word. Even more Russian citizens have ancestors and relatives in Ukraine. It would be surprising to find a Russian citizen who has none at all.
That is, Russians perceive Ukraine as their ancestral land in the most literal sense of the word, ready to point out the graves of relatives and the plot of land on which their house stood.
When the administrative boundaries of the republics of the USSR were turned into opaque borders in 1991, 8 million people who had been considered Russians in the narrowest, ethnic sense of the word, turned out to be “Ukrainians” in the legal sense. Often the ties were torn apart in a living way. For example, Kharkiv and Belgorod, essentially twin cities founded in the same era, the late 16th to mid-17th centuries, by Russian tsars as outposts before Crimean Tatar incursions, ended up on opposite sides. The country houses of the inhabitants of “Russian” Belgorod turned out to be on the territory of Ukraine, and the country houses of the inhabitants of “Ukrainian” Kharkov – on the contrary

Therefore, Russians from Russia are perplexed as to why the regime in Kiev thinks it has the right to dispose of their land, especially considering that this regime came to power through a coup and subsequent direct intimidation against the backdrop of a civil war. And it is not surprising that many people support the so-called separatists. This term, however, is deceptive: in relation to unified Russia, the authorities in Kiev can rather be considered separatists, while activists in Crimea or the Donbass militia are more likely to fall under the definition of “separatists from separatists,” that is, “unionists. Both the activism in Crimea, the speech in Donbass, and the protests in Odessa, which were suppressed in a massacre in which some 50 people were brutally murdered in one evening on May 2, 2014, were all, in the logic of a large and united Russia, unionist, not separatist.
A huge number of Russians not only lived but also worked in Ukraine, which in the twentieth century was the main industrial area of Russia. Industry grew there not as a product of the Ukrainian national character, but because it was created in the region first by the tsars and then by the Soviets. The industrial density of eastern Ukraine was comparable only to the German Ruhr. A great many people in Russia, at one stage or another of their lives, worked in Ukraine at enterprises that built aircraft carriers, helicopters, space industry components, all the things that were part of the most complex economy of a huge superpower, but were in no way needed by an independent Ukraine.
The political and economic elites of independent Ukraine treated the industrial “dowry” they had inherited not as a complex system in need of maintenance, but as wild walnut trees from which they could harvest while they had it.

The attitude of Ukraine’s leaders toward the powerful gas transportation system created by the Soviet Union is characteristic – they perceive it as an instrument of blackmail. Unable to create or improve such a system, they threatened to stop it or destroy it if they did not receive more money from pumping gas through “their” territory. Hence the hysterical reaction of Ukrainian elites to the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The fact that the U.S. and German authorities have gone along with this reaction has led to the biggest gas crisis in Europe in history.
Of course, Russians living in Russia as well as Russians living in Ukraine cannot understand why their land should be used as a NATO forward base in a possible attack on their country, Russia. Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not interpreted in Russia as a free choice of the country in the interests of its own security. It is interpreted as the West building forward bases for a direct attack on Moscow.

Do Russians have historical grounds to consider this land their own, and the regime in Kiev and NATO as de facto occupiers on this land? Absolutely.
Both Kiev on the territory of modern Ukraine, and Polotsk on the territory of modern Belarus, and Novgorod, Smolensk and Rostov on the territory of modern Russia in ancient times constituted one state – Russia (the notion “Kievan Rus” invented by Soviet historians distorts the historical reality).
Kiev was the capital of this state, “the mother of Russian cities,” but no less important was Novgorod, which is part of Russia today. A striking fact: the Russian bylinas, epic songs about Prince Vladimir who christened Russia and his heroes, much like the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, were recorded by ethnologists in the north of Russia, in the Arkhangelsk region. Apparently, it was the local population that preserved a direct cultural connection with the population of ancient Kiev and Rus. At the same time, no bylinae survived on the territory of modern Ukraine.
The Moscow princes, who became tsars in 1549, always proclaimed their right to these lands and demanded their return from Poland, leading a slow sort of “reconquista. Poland in this struggle lost the support of its subjects Little Russians and Belarus, because in 1596 it proclaimed the religious “Brest Union” and began to persecute the Orthodox religion. In the territories of Little Russia a resistance movement of Orthodox Christians began.

The striking force of the resistance were the Cossacks, a community of free warriors, formed in the steppes, in battles with the Tatars and Turks. A Cossack could be a native of any country who professed Orthodoxy and was willing to fight for it. As Poland persecuted the Orthodox religion, Cossacks increasingly raised the saber against it. One episode of this struggle was described in Taras Bulba by Nikolai Gogol, who was born on the territory of modern Ukraine, in Poltava, but who always wrote in Russian and criticized his acquaintances who tried to create a separate “Ukrainian” language.
In 1648 the leader (hetman) of the Cossacks, Bohdan Khmelnitsky, began a great revolt against Poland in defense of persecuted Orthodoxy. He won a number of victories, triumphantly entered Kiev, welcomed by church hierarchs, and created a state, the Zaporozhian Host, which in many ways resembled the rebellious republics of the Donbass recognized by Putin. In 1654, after the resolutions of the zemsky sobor (a kind of estate parliament) in Moscow and the Rada (a kind of national assembly) in Pereyaslavl near Kiev, Khmelnitsky’s state became part of Russia.
Tsar Alexey Mihajlovich has accepted a title “Tsar of All Great, Small and White Russia” and has begun exhausting 13-year-old war with Poland which has ended with a partial victory: the grounds on the left coast of Dnepr have departed to Russia, and is on the right ancient Russian Kiev has been bought out by Russian kingdom from Poland for 146 thousand silver rubles – 7 tons of silver which the richest Polish surnames have divided among themselves.

The Ukrainians, the Malorussians, came from the territory of modern-day Ukraine and settled widely throughout the vast territory of Russia, making a career both in the church and at the court. The name “Ukraine” itself was not used at all during this period – the word in both Russian and Polish meant “borderland,” “frontier. Its use as the name of the territories around Kiev refers only to the XVIII century, when these lands really became a frontier in the permanent wars between Russia and Turkey.
The integration of Little Russians into Russia was not disrupted even by the venture of hetman Mazepa, who betrayed Peter the Great and defected to his enemy, Swedish King Charles XII, out of self-interest. Mazepa was abandoned by all but his personal guards, and a fierce guerrilla war began against the Swedish armies who entered the territory of modern Ukraine. The first attempt at “Ukrainian separatism” ended in disaster for the power that tried to rely on it.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, the integration of the Little Russians into Russia was extremely strong. The singer and musician Alexei Razumovsky, born near Chernigov, became the secret husband of Peter’s daughter, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna. And the brother of the “nocturnal emperor” Cyril – hetman of the Zaporozhian army and simultaneously president of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. His numerous legitimate and illegitimate descendants formed an influential clan in the aristocracy of the Russian Empire.
The new Empress Catherine II abolished the Zaporozhian Host and relocated the remnants of the Cossacks to the Kuban, the North Caucasus. She also conquered with determination the steppes of southern Russia from the Tatars and Turks, and together with her secret husband, Prince Potemkin, founded there a new part of Russia – Novorossiya. Its population was extremely motley – first of all the peasants from the “Great Russian” parts of the country, and along with them – Greeks, Serbs, many Germans, invited by the Empress, who was born in a small German principality. On the contrary, Novorossia’s ties with the old Malorossia were rather insignificant.

Novorossiya was the Russian equivalent of the New World, only not separated by an ocean. It was a land of opportunities and new life chances. In this New World began to actively develop in the XIX century and industry (as in the city, now called Donetsk), and commerce (as in Odessa, founded by the Spanish nobleman De Ribas in Russian service), and resort area, fancifully mixed with the naval base, in the Crimea and Sevastopol.
Finally, Catherine II, in three partitions of Poland, in which Russia participated along with Prussia and the Austrian Empire, ended Alexei Mikhailovich’s cause. Russia reassembled virtually all the lands that had belonged to Old Russia, along with their peasant populations, who had preserved the Russian language and Orthodox traditions.
The process of the return of the inhabitants of these territories to Russian identity has begun. An example is the fate of the family of the great Russian writer Dostoevsky. The writer’s grandfather was a Uniate priest of the Catholic Church near Vinnitsa, in present-day Ukraine. After that territory was annexed to Russia, he returned to Orthodoxy. The writer’s father went to Moscow and had a brilliant career as a military surgeon. And Dostoevsky himself became the greatest writer, to whom belongs the aphorism: “The master of the Russian land is only Russian (Great Russians, Little Russians, Belarusians – it’s all the same).
Russia in the course of these partitions of Poland nowhere went beyond the borders of Old Russia, and even ceded to Austria the ancient Russian Lvov. However, all the privileged class in these lands considered themselves Poles, and this land – Poland. They waged a persistent struggle against the Russian government, underground and open, and part of this struggle was the propaganda of the idea that the peasant population of Western Russia were not Russians, but “Ukrainians”, a separate people, which is closer to the Poles. Russia was thereby deprived of its national right to these territories.

Some young Russian intellectuals absorbed this idea during the “spring of nations” that shook Europe in the mid-19th century, when original nationalities were discovered or even invented here and there. Ukrainophiles collected Little Russian songs and wrote their own poems in their likeness, like the proclaimed genius of Ukrainian literature, Taras Shevchenko.
Ukrainianophile propaganda was met with hostility both by the Russian imperial government and by Russian society, which had long felt no difference at all between the lands of Little Russia and the rest of Russia-the peculiarities of Little Russia’s life did not seem anything extraordinary against the far more colorful life of the Don, Kuban, and Terek Cossacks. And most importantly, most of its participants were disappointed in this propaganda. When they realized that their propaganda was most profitable for the Poles, they themselves became cold to Ukrainianophilism.

However, the Ukrainian idea survived thanks to Austria, which provided a chair in its own Lviv and a rich subsidy to historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky. The interest of the Austrian Empire, riven by ethnic strife, was twofold. First, to prove that it was not the Russians who lived in Galicia and its capital Lviv, but another nation, the Ukrainians and Russia had no right to lay claim to this country. Secondly, to prove to the Poles who lived in Lvov that they also had no right to this city. Hrushevski began to construct a Ukrainian historical myth, which revolved around Galicia, and to publish a newspaper in Ukrainian, for each issue of which he invented several new “Ukrainian” words.

The moment of truth came during the First World War. Austria carried out in Galicia a true genocide of those who had a political and cultural orientation toward Russia. In the concentration camps of Talergof and Terezin, which were the forerunners of Auschwitz, were thrown more than 30 thousand “Muscovites” of Galicia and representatives of small ethnic groups, who spoke their variant of the Russian language – the Rusins and Lemkos. Thousands were tortured by Austrian warders and died of starvation and disease.
Captured during the war, the Austrians placed the inhabitants of southern Russia in special camps, where Hrushevsky’s followers insinuated that they were Ukrainians. The result, however, was a failure. Vladimir Lenin, who himself had close contacts with the Austrian and German secret services, described this “experiment”, in a letter to his friend Inessa Armand, from the words of the escaped prisoner, in which 27 thousand people took part by force:
“The Ukrainians were sent dexterous lecturers from Galicia. The results? Only de 2,000 were in favor of “self-styled” … after months of agitators’ efforts!!! The rest fell into a rage at the thought of seceding from Russia and going to the Germans or the Austrians. The fact is significant! It is impossible not to believe… The conditions for Galician propaganda are the most favorable. And yet the proximity to the Great Russians took over!”
And yet, having seized power in Russia, Lenin recognized the self-proclaimed Ukrainian People’s Republic led by Grushevsky in Kiev, and then, during the Civil War against the Whites, the defenders of “one and undivided Russia,” demanded that his associates emphasize or at least imitate the existence of an “independent communist Ukraine.

Perfectly aware of the unacceptability of Ukrainian propaganda to the masses, Lenin nevertheless insisted on the creation of Ukraine in order to weaken the “Great Russian derzhimorda,” as he called the leading ethnicity of the Russian Empire. It was by guarding Ukraine from inevitable dissolution into Russia that Lenin rejected Stalin’s plan to turn the suburbs into autonomous regions of Soviet Russia and insisted on creating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was, according to its charter documents, a rather loose confederation with the right to withdraw. It was to this Leninist project that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR) was created that today’s Ukraine goes back.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x