On this blog, I have been talking a lot about the soviet policy of Korenizatsiya, which essentially created the Ukrainians out of West Russians, however, little was I aware how messed up the same policy was in Central Asia, where also unprecedented nations were created out of other nations. For instance, the country in focus currently, Kazakhstan, was created out of the Kyrgyz people. The populations of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are linguistically and culturally barely distinguishable from each other, and it bears a question why these two nations were divided?
I have recently noted that Kazakhstan is assuming the political culture of neighbouring Kyrgyzstan. But I did not realise how geographically close Almaty (the Soviet capital of Kazakhstan, formerly “Verny” – a town built by Russians) is from the capital of Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek. Cross border cultural exchange is apparent here, after all, the border is arbitrary, and should not really be there. Much like the border between Russia and Ukraine.
In his recent press conference, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin repeated a central thesis of my old blog Austere Insomniac, and that is Ukraine was created by the Bolsheviks. He said that Ukraine was territorially created out of Russian lands by comrade Lenin. Svidomites in Ukraine went into hysteria, and have displayed their historical illiteracy, and inability to listen. I get it, the modern age is too fast and neurotic. Some, like Sternenko, of Right Sector fame, said Kievan Rus existed before Moscow was even founded. That is true, but first of all, it was Rus, and also St. Vladimir came to Kiev from Novgorod, now in the Russian Federation. Rus Began around Lake Ladoga, also in the Russian Federation. Moscow was founded by the Kievan Prince Yuri Dolgoruki. If anything, Kievan Rus only reinforces Putin’s arguments.
A more smarter answer came from Mikhalchishyn, of VO Svoboda and Azov battalion fame, he said that the founders of Ukraine were Hrushevsky, Vynichenko, Petlyura and Mikhnovsky. Very different personages to be honest, however. Let’s analyze the names. Mikhailo Hrushevsky was the president of UNR (Ukrainian People’s Republic). It should be noted here that Putin did not speak about UNR, UNR was a state in Central and Western Ukraine. Petlyura’s Directoria was also active only in Central Ukraine. The Bolsheviks in Moscow territorially formed Ukraine independent of UNR, or whatever other abortive attempts at Ukrainian statehood.
The Bolsheviks added the Black Sea Coast, Crimea, Donbas, and Halychyna, Transcarpathia, and Volhynia in the West. So it is no understatement that the Bolsheviks created Ukraine territorially. Also, the Ukrainian identity was created through the policy of Korenizatsiya. It was a nation building policy imposed by Stalin on a population that didn’t really need it in my opinion. In Austrian Halychyna, during WWI, people defining as Russians were put in concentration in camps in Thalerhof and Theresin in Bohemia and Austria. Ukraine was created through a lot of suffering and unfreedom for people that do not subscribe to the Ukrainian script. I should add that the aforementioned Hrushevsky first served the Austrian government in implementing a state policy of conversion of West Russians to Ukrainians, and the latter moved back to Ukraine, and later served Stalin. Ukraine was created through the state policy of the Bolsheviks and the Habsburgs, and in both cases this was a crime against the Russian people.
Unless Ukrainians acknowledge their own origins, they will suffer neurosis indefinitely, and will be forever trolled by the Russians. It will be an endless show of Ukrainians trying to trip over themselves in an attempt to explain their existence. This khokhlosrach will never end! Although if Ukraines was ever to calm down, the Russians are perfectly willing to accept their Ukrainian identity because at the end of the day, it is of no consequence.
Update: I should add Stalin made Ukraine a founding member of the UN, this is how much the Bolsheviks created and legitimized Ukraine. How much has any other regime done for Ukraine in comparison?
The season is over, and I have free time to dedicate to this blog again. And I would like to introduce a new thesis to this blog. “UKRAINE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FRIENDLY NEIGHBOURS”. However, Ukraine has a perfect geographical location that it absolutely does not exploit. I think we have a case of Peremoha & Zrada, they are the two sides of the karbovanets coin. While Ukraine was gifted this perfect location by fate, or Bolsheviks, the regime there chose radical nationalism and cannot make any use of the advantages Ukraine has in any way. Similarly, the system favours a narrow orientation towards the West, which makes things even more complicated. It is like having a perfect graphics card but running old drivers for it. Outdated, caveman nationalism is hampering Ukrainian relations on all fronts.
The other day, the Polish foreign ministry complained about the treatment of Poles in Ukraine. The Polish deputy of the Polish foreign minister, Szymon Szynkowski said that the Poles in Ukraine are discriminated on the basis of religion, access to education, and freedom of speech. He also mentioned that in Ukraine, people responsible for genocide of the West Ukrainian Polish population are being glorified in Ukraine. The latter has long been a major complaint of Poles towards Ukraine. However, complaints about the treatment of coethnics in Ukraine has so far been the preserve of Hungary.
You see, Ukraine lacks friendly relations with any of its neighbours, despite having a perfect geographical location that it could exploit to the fullest.
From the olden days, the Holy See in Rome sought to conquer the Holy Rus’. Alexander Nevsky had to repel an invasion of the Teutonic Knights but there was a much more fearsome foe than the knights, the Rzeczpospolita, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Both constitutive realms of this empire began expanding their domains into Rus’ already in the fourteenth century with the seizure of Halychyna by the Kingdom of Poland. Coincidently, a gene test my brother did shows we are descended from the Lithuanians that conquered Rus’ and there is family legend about a “Polish” ancestry on my Russian side.
There was a difference in faith, while the Westerners answered to the Pope, Rus’ answered to the Eastern Churches and eventually, Moscow became free of Constantinople following the Ottoman conquest, and the only rightful spiritual authority in Rus’. Fearing this Muscovite influence, the Polish masters of Ukraine decided to bring the Orthodox Churches under Roman Catholic control. In 1595 at the Union of Brest, the bishops of Little and White Russia under Rzeczpospolita accepted Roman domination. Several decades have passed and a rebellion erupted in Little Russia, which saw the Cossacks swear fealty to the Russian Tsar. This has plunged Ukraine into a destructive period known as the Ruin, which resolved itself really only in the eighteenth century with the Russian Empire coming to dominate the entirety of Little Russia, and the neutralisation of the Rzeczpospolita.
But unfortunately, the Russian Empire failed to take Halychyna in the division of Poland. Halychyna, or Galicia as it is also known, is a part of Rus. West of Lvov, there lies a town called Rava Rus’ka, that’s where Rus’ begins and it goes all the way to Vladivostok. Halychyna fell under the Austrian rule, and the Uniate Church survived there. This later served as the nucleus out of which will rise Ukrainian nationalism. Starting in the second half of the nineteenth century, the Austria-Hungary, as the Habsburg realms came to be known, entered into alliance with the German Empire, the Russian Empire joined France in an Entente. The Habsburgs became enemies of Russia.
Austria was faced with a problem of Russians on its territory. The Austrians viewed so called Russophillism of many of the inhabitants of Halychyna with suspicion. Thousands of people from Halychyna made annual pilgrimage to the Pochayevskaya Lavra, an Orthodox monastery right across the border from Austrian Halychyna in the Russian Empire. The Austrian authorities began repressing the local Russophiles. Maxim Sandovych, an Orthodox covert from the Uniate Church was tortured to death by the Austrian authorities prior to the First World War. After the Russian defeat by the Central Powers in 1915, the Austrians have interned the Russian population in concentration camps in Terezín in Bohemia, and in Thalerhof in Styria. Wikipedia has this to say about Thalerhof:
Terezín became the site of a genocide again during WWII, when the Jews were interned there.
Simultaneously with the repression, the Austrians have supported a development of a Ukrainian identity that would be different from Russian. Remember dear readers, national identities are always imposed from above and people can always be reprogrammed. Polish nobility long toyed with the Ukrainian idea. According to Mikhail Onufrienko, a blogger from Kharkov that now lives in Crimea in exile, the idea to rename the South Western part of Rus’ into Ukraine originated already in the sixteenth century with the Jesuit envoy, Antonio Possevino. Part of the reason the Polish rebellions against Russian rule of the nineteenth century failed was because the Russian peasants didn’t go along with their Polish masters. Many of these Poles and early adepts of the Ukrainian national idea fled to Austrian Halychyna, where they continued their work with Austrian support.
A good example of the Austrian support for Ukrainian nationalism is Mikhailo Hrushevsky, who was given a cushy job of a professor in Lvov and a hefty grant to write Ukrainian history, a historical conception that removes Ukraine from the common Russian history. If you were to write the true history of Ukraine, you would have to start with Nikolay Kostomarov, Ivan Franko, the afore mentioned Hrushevsky, and not somewhere deep in the past, like in the Cossack period. The Cossacks referred to themselves as Russians. I would not even speak much about Shevchenko, who also identified as Russian. But Hrushevsky did just that, relabelled them all as Ukrainians. I call the conception that Ukraine emerged out of Ukrainian nationalism, which was heavily supported by the enemies of Russia, “a short history of Ukraine.”
By the First World War, there was a sizeable community of newly created Ukrainians in Halychyna. The first time the nationality “Ukrainian” appeared officially was in 1916, when the future Emperor Charles I inspected the troops in Halychyna, and declared everyone in the camp to be Ukrainian. After the revolution in Russia, the Communists, who were opposed to Russian nationalism made the decision to break down the Russian nation by employing the Austrian project, and began a programme of mass creating the Ukrainians. For this purpose, they brought many teachers from Halychyna, including the aforementioned Mikhailo Hrushevsky. Russia’s Ukrainian headache is a bolshevik legacy.
Early Ukrainian nationalism was very much centred around the Uniate Church, the Austrians viewed the papists as loyal citizens. Ukrainism was therefore an extension of the previous Union, the Union of Brest. In more recent times an idea of a united Europe appeared, and since the 1990s, the European Union is bringing these ideas into reality. But parallel with the European Union that we all know from the European Parliament, and the European Commission, there is also a spiritual union and the ideological founder of European integration, the Pan-European Union.
The importance of union with Rome has slightly diminished in recent times with the decline of Catholicism and religiosity in the West, and the centre of control gravitated eventually to Brussels. However, there is a lot of “Habsburg” influence on the symbolic basis of the EU. You see, the Pan-European Union has given the European Union all of its symbols. The circle of twelve stars:
The twelve stars symbolise the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and the number 12 stands for completion and perfection. Note the Cross, as if indicating an inheritance from the Roman Catholic project. The secular EU, and the European Council of course do not have the cross in their flag. Furthermore, the anthem of the European Union, the Ode to Joy, was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the 1970s on the suggestion made in 1955 by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, a son of a Bohemian Nobleman and an upperclass Japanese gaijin chaser, the founder and the first head of the Pan-European Union. Now check out the Ode to Joy on the Euromaidan, they even created new updated lyrics for it in Ukrainian. After Coudenhove-Kalergi, the head of the Pan-European Union was Otto von Habsburg.
It seems like the Austrian nobility found itself a new tool of domination. They have switched Catholicism for European integration. Ukraine suffers a new period of strife currently, Ruin 2.0, caused by a desire for another Union, as expressed in the Cargo Cult festival, the Euromaidan. Ukrainians seem again victims of some Austrian voodoo. And the EU is not even able to make Ukraine a candidate for membership.
Don’t be a cuck, don’t fall under the spell of an Austrian voodoo. Although, I have to say many adepts of Ukrainism are also adepts of another Austrian voodoo, created by the arch-opponent of Coudenhove-Kalergi.
So I ventured to the Atlantic Council and found an article discussing a recent forum held in Donetsk called Russian Donbas, where the head of RT, Margarita Simonyan called for Donbas to be reintegrated with Russia…
There some Lithuanian Russophobe discusses the doctrine of the Russian Donbas, which is the intellectual blueprint for the aims of the Donbas republics, which is the reintegration with the motherland. There he writes:
The Russian Donbas doctrine is the latest example of the Kremlin’s enthusiasm for rewriting history in order to suit its contemporary political requirements. This tendency to distort the past has been central to the information war that has accompanied Russian aggression against Ukraine.
When Russian forces first seized Crimea in spring 2014, Moscow propagandists were quick to declare that the Ukrainian peninsula had “always been Russian.” In reality, Crimea is an ancient land with a recorded history stretching back almost three thousand years that includes extended periods as part of the Byzantine Empire, Golden Horde, and Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile, Russia’s involvement in Crimea began comparatively recently in the late eighteenth century. Clearly, it is nonsensical to claim that this highly cosmopolitan geopolitical crossroads has “always been Russian.”
Please show me any academic Russian historian that made the claim that Crimea was always Russian. If anything, Crimea was a territory transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks, who have created Ukraine as we know it. I understand that in the Atlantic Council they prefer narratives that would derusify the Russian history of Crimea.
Regardless of whether the authors were Ukrainian, Russian, or Western, most traditional academic histories of the Donbas have tended to focus on three key aspects of the region’s early development. These accounts typically begin with details of how the Donbas was first colonized by Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants, who moved into the borderland regions previously known as the “Wild Fields” following the gradual retreat of the Crimean Khanate.
Next came waves of colonization from different parts of Europe and beyond. This was followed by an extended period of intensive international involvement that fueled the industrialization of the region throughout the second half of the nineteenth century.
Western investors and industrialists were instrumental in the development of the Donbas, bringing vital capital and technologies to the region. The most famous of these was Welsh businessman John Hughes, who founded Donetsk in 1869. The city was called “Hughezovka” in his honor until 1929, when it was renamed “Stalino” by the Soviet authorities.
The Russian Donbas doctrine outlined in Donetsk on January 28 made barely any mention of these crucial factors in the history of eastern Ukraine. Instead, the discussion focused almost exclusively on Russians who played prominent roles in the region’s growth.
The Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants did not have any notion of being Ukrainian. They thought themselves as Orthodox Russians. The region was always international and Russian was the lingua franca that served the people as means of interethnic communication, and the Russian people are an amalgam of ethnicities united by loyalty to the Russian state and the Russian language. Ukrainians on the other hand are an ethnographic subgroup of Russians that aims to build a separate nation and state.
There was no mention of the systematic Russification policies adopted during both the Czarist and Soviet eras, and no room for an honest exploration of the Holodomor, the artificial famine engineered by the Soviet authorities in the early 1930s that killed millions of Ukrainians and ravaged the region. Other Soviet atrocities were similarly ignored.
However, forum delegates did find time to condemn the Ukrainian authorities for recent efforts to return historical names to towns and cities throughout the Ukrainian-controlled areas of the Donbas. This was portrayed as evidence of the Ukrainian government’s anti-Russian policies.
Kremlin efforts to criticize the Ukrainian authorities for the “Ukrainianization” of Ukraine speak volumes about Russia’s deeply entrenched imperial thinking. This kind of ideology has roots stretching all the way back to the Czarist past, an era when Ukrainians were branded “Little Russians” and their language was suppressed as a mere dialect.
The only systematic nationality policy in Ukraine was Ukrainization under the Soviet union, which was presented in waves because Ukrainization always finds resistance from the people. The Russification of the late Tsarist era also came in waves because it encountered resistance in Central and Western Ukraine but it was much less systemic. Obviously, there is no way a Russian patriot would be interested in some Ukrainian nationalist bleating about how bad Russians Russified Ukraine.
Now, the author does show an absence of knowledge of Ukraine. the region itself was only joined to Ukraine by Lenin. It had nothing to do with any Ukrainian state prior to that and the names of cities all appeared during the Late Tsarist and Soviet eras. They either bear the names of the early settlers, communist revolutionaries, or something unrelated to Ukraine. For instance one village was called Novgorodske, and was given back its old name New York, which was probably a remnant of the early British colonization of the region but was renamed in 1951, right at the start of the Cold War. I don’t know where you see Ukrainization in the decision to give this town its old name, not even Ukrainization in inverted commas.
I am glad that the people of East Donbas are free from Holodomor propaganda because Holodomor is hateful hype of anti-Soviet forces. You see, the famine of the 1930s is a real event but Holodomor is something else, it is a spin on that event. In that interpretation, the famine was engineered by the Soviets to kill Ukrainians, and in the modern interpretation Russians are blamed for it. It first appeared in the press of Nazi Germany, which had a strong community of Ukrainian exiles from the Skoropadsky regime and was coaching Ukrainian nationalists to fights against Poland and the Soviet Union.
The story about the artificial famine was widespread in Western Ukrainian circles before WWII and that is why today, we see more people in Western Ukraine believing in Holodomor than in Eastern Ukraine where it actually happened. When I asked my relatives if my great grandmother, who was a Ukrainian peasant, ever spoke about Holodomor, knowing she was no fan of the Soviet government, I was told that she never did. She only complained about being made to work in a collectivized farm. She was not subjected to Holodomor propaganda. Famine was something that she experienced thrice, during the Civil War, during 1930s, and in the 1940s during WWII. My grandfather had to leave Ukraine and fend for himself after the War, he joined the military and moved across Russia.
My personal research into Ukrainian historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth century has shown that the Russo-Ukrainian bilingualism in Ukraine is not a product of forcible Russification of any sort but rather stems from the realization by the ancestors of contemporary Ukrainians that they are in fact Russian, and therefore the literary language of the Muscovites is their own, and not foreign. Meanwhile, Ukrainian language as we know today did not even exist. It existed only in its primordial form of a peasant patois of which there isn’t practically any literary evidence until Kotlyarevsky and Shevchenko.
Whenever, an eavesdropping scandal erupts in Ukraine, an axiom is revealed. The Ukrainian elite uses Russian when in private, and hence the employment of Ukrainian in public is hypocritical and goes against nature.
Efforts to promote Ukrainian at the expense of Russian are really aimed at harassing the lower class idiots. The children of Ukrainian elite speak Russian and get their education in West European languages.
And therefore I think that any attempts to elevate the Ukrainian language are futile, and they will lead to further fragmentation and destabilisation of the Ukrainian society.