Kiev is the perennial hostage of Moscow’s imperial ambitions.

Moscow, since a long time, constructs its ideological foundation on the connection to historical Rus’, creating a narrative that the capital of Ukraine – Kiev (as the center of Rus, and essentially Rus) is its fundamental component. This imagining supports not only the mythical but also ideological concept of Moscow being the “Third Rome” which determines its status on the world stage.

Without Ukraine, Russia loses not only mythical historical legitimacy but also its symbolic connection with its imperial legacy, which makes the existence of empire impossible in the traditional sense. At the same time, attitude to other colonies once within the Russian Empire and the USSR is completely different.

11 January 1918, the People’s Commissar Soviet, headed by Lenin, recognized the independence of “Turkish Armenia”…

***

I love this borscht composed of outdated ideological concepts and anal phobias of the Russophobes. Let’s analyze them. Ukrainians actually think Russia is illegitimately called Russia, and the classic concept of Russian history from the Kievan period to the Moscow period is somehow wrong. They actually think Ukraine is something ancient, which it isn’t. Strangely enough, contemporary Russia was totally OK about Ukraine being Ukraine. Ukraine however turned out to be an anti-Russia. Ukrainian nation building is basically an exercise in the rejection of Russianness. Ukrainian nationalism glorifies traitors like Mazepa and celebrates anything anti-Russian. Therefore, the Russians stuck to the conception that was common and the Ukrainians try to torpedo it.

The Third Rome has to do with the Rurikids being related to the last ruling dynasty of Byzantium, the Porphyrogenites. The Grand Price adopted the title Tsar, and claimed to be the continuator of Rome after Byzantium. In the Middle Ages, this was nothing uncommon. Nobody outside Russia really cared about Moscow’s claim. And I don’t see anyone bringing it up now. This is Ukrop anus anguish.

Russia is not an Empire without Ukraine is a trope brought to us by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had smelly Polack rectal sensitivities over Ukraine and Russia. Indeed, Putler needs Ukraine because he wants to crown himself emperor of the Third Rome. 😆 You know some people say Russia already is an Empire without Ukraine and needs decolonization.

I also see another ass bleeding in the text above. The other Soviet republics were not colonies of Russia. Without the USSR’s good will, there would probably not be places like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan. Ukraine would probably would not exist as we know it without Soviet Ukrainksation. Ukrs never cut the USSR any slack. Instead, they adopted the post-colonial discourse from Western universities.

“Western Armenia” the issue was dealt with by Yosif Stalin. The territories which we are talking about were occupied by the Russian army during WWI, and were supported by local separatist movements. In this case, these were Ottoman territories, which made their recognition a matter of temporary tactical courtesy than a strategic choice.

The Bolshevik approach to the national question in the beginning of the twentieth century was pragmatic. The recognition of Polish, Finish independence, and the independence of many others was not motivated by a genuine support for the right of nations for determination but rather by political expediency. In the case of Poland, this direction was already marked by the Interim Government and the Bolsheviks did not see a reason to correct it. Finland because of its political maturity and readiness to resist also found itself outside the orbit of the Bolsheviks.

However, Ukraine always had a special meaning for Moscow. Its historical role in the formation of the Russian state, its natural resource potential, make it impossible for Moscow to see it…

***

Finland got independence pretty much with the abolition monarchy in Russia. It existed as a land governed by Nicholas II, not as Russia proper. It had its own laws, its own parliament etc. Poland’s rights have been curtailed after several Polish uprisings in nineteenth century but it existed in the shadows, and the Russians never considered it to be part of Russia.

Vladimir Lenin was completely pro-Ukrainian and he viewed Ukraine as an unfortunate victim of Russian imperialism, and deserving of independence. Lenin even acquiesced to the Brest-Litovsk accords and allowed the occupation of Ukraine by the Central Powers. He betrayed his fellow Communists in Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic. However, the civil war in Ukraine was very much a fight between local Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian People’s Republic under Hrushevsky and Petlyura. Contemporary Russia was also cool with Ukraine until it became anti-Russia in 2014.

Hence, having anal pains over Russian attitude towards Ukraine is kinda misplaced. Not so long ago, Ukraine was Russia, and the Ukrainians were Russians. Hence the Russians are only reacting to the teleological development of the Ukrainian project into anti-Russia. The Russians have very little issue with friendly and brotherly Ukraine, and accept its existence.

…as a region that can be divided from the empire. A complete, organic, national identity of the Ukrainians that is developing separately from the imperial “Russian” completely undermines the foundations of the “Third Rome”. This is why Moscow’s propaganda machine is building narratives about the “triune nation” and “historical commonality”, categorically denying the right of Rus Ukraine to its separate history and independent future.

If we compare this approach with the acknowledgment of the independence of the “Turkish Armenia”, we need to point out that this territory has never been part of the internal core of Moscow, and its strategic importance was only within the frame of a temporary military-political context. The recognition of independence had the character of a diplomatic move and not the reflection of an imperial necessity.

An important factor is also how Moscow uses historical myths. In the case of Ukraine the basis is formed by the mythical “Old Rus”, which is said to be the source of the Russian statehood. At the same time in the case of other territories there aren’t these deep symbolic connections. That means that the destiny of “Turkish Armenia” or even…

***

The author refers to Russian historical concepts as myths but talks about so called “Rus Ukraine”. Rus Ukraine is a concept invented by Ukrainian nationalists to link Old Rus history to Ukrainian reality of today. Ukraine however was referred to as Rus, or Russia Minor not so long ago, and the name Ukraine was adopted for the nationalist project under the influence of the poems of Taras Shevchenko, and with support of the Austrian government, somewhere in late nineteenth century. The name was originally used in the context of Shevchenko’s home region in the Central Dnieper region. The Austrians were actually interested in changing the identity of its own subjects

If it wasn’t for failure of Russia in the Great War, this bullshit conception wouldn’t ever succeed, and poison the minds of people into the twenty first century. Ukrainians need anti-Russian mythology to justify their very existence. If faced with reality instead of their propaganda, they become Russians. The former minister, Dmytro Tabachnyk and the writer Oles Buzyna were Russians although they were more Ukrainian than many Ukrnazis. Russianness is high culture, Ukrainism is militant provincialism.

…such important regions such as Poland or Finland, would be decided depending on the current situation, while Ukraine was always at the centre of imperial ambitions. Today’s discourse of Moscow demonstrates lack of change in this approach. In the conditions of today’s World, where empires do not have the same legitimacy as before, Moscow continues to cling to the past, preserving the illusion of historical right to control over Ukraine. However, the historical paradoxes show that if a country tries harder to hold on to what was lost the faster it loses its future.

***

I personally believe that much like Lenin accepted the occupation of Ukraine by Central Powers, the current Russian Federation did accept the loss of Ukraine in the nineties. But given the similarities between the two countries, and a strong Russian element within Ukraine, the countries were bound to come together. Much like the Ukrainian Bolsheviks came to accept Moscow, the Russian Federation found willing collaborationists in contemporary Ukraine. Particularly in Donbas and Crimea. It is not that Russia will lose Ukraine but that Ukraine and Russia are natural allies, and to this conception is opposed Ukrainian nationalism that not just asserts that Ukraine is not Russia but also that Ukraine belongs to another civilization and is antagonistic to Russia.

I personally think contemporary Russia never had any wish to claim the entire Ukraine. They never committed the resources, or did any actions that would suggest that. It could come to that if the Ukrainian resistance in Eastern Ukraine collapses but in that case, I still cannot see Russia occupying the entirety of Ukraine. In my opinion they should subjugate the entirety of Ukraine.

They literally included this AI picture of an Asian guy with a cross.