Much of the propaganda coming from the current war in Ukraine is deeply rooted in the region's complex and centuries-old history. During an interview with former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin spent a significant portion of time using historical arguments to assert Russian control over Ukraine. His objective was to delegitimize the Ukrainian identity by framing the conflict as a civil war, with Ukraine being portrayed as a mere breakaway region of Russia. Conversely, supporters of the Ukrainian cause have utilized history to gather evidence of a distinct cultural and national identity. They have appropriated various historical figures and events to support the current narrative of defending against Russian imperialism. Understanding the region's unfiltered history is essential to navigate this complex rhetoric.
The beginning of this story dates back to the 9th century when a Varangian (Scandinavian Viking) prince named Rurik arrived to rule the city of Novgorod in what is now Russia. The Varangians quickly diffused into the local Slavic population, creating the "Rus" cultural identity. Shortly thereafter, the Rus expanded into modern-day Ukraine, and their capital was shifted to the city of Kyiv. In 988, a mass religious conversion took place to Eastern Orthodox Christianity after King Vladimir the Great married the sister of the Eastern Roman emperor Basil II. This state, known as the Kievan Rus, was the precursor to the modern Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian identities. However, it is essential to note that no modern nation or identity has a stronger connection to the Kievan Rus than another.
Over time, the Kievan Rus fragmented into smaller princedoms, which were eventually defeated and conquered by the Mongols. The Mongol rule persisted under the Golden Horde for over two centuries before they were defeated by the principality of Moscow in the year 1480 at the battle of Ugra. This is the same Moscow that we know today, and it is the first state that can be reasonably traced to modern Russia. After consolidating much of what is now western Russia, the Muscovite prince Ivan III began to refer to himself as the "Grand Prince of all Rus." Later, in 1547, Ivan IV, "the Terrible," became referred to as the Tsar of the new Russian Empire.
While the component of the Kievan Rus that became Russia would eventually form an empire, the component in modern-day Ukraine fell into the control of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Under these circumstances, Polish, Turkic, and Russian elements combined to create a unique regional identity. The people in this area were known as Cossacks and briefly formed a state known as the Cossack Hetmanate. Today, many consider the Cossacks to be the first Ukrainians. The validity of this theory is not so clear. Many in the region favored Russia, and the Ukrainian identity was not developed enough to compare it to today's Ukraine.
During the 18th century, the Russian Empire crushed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and seized complete control over the Ukrainian steppe. Even at this point, there was no clear national Ukrainian identity, and the notion of Ukraine was primarily tied to language. Furthermore, the territory of modern-day Ukraine was heavily populated by Russian speakers. Hoping to homogenize their empire, Russian officials drafted "Russification" policies. These policies culminated in 1876 when Tsar Alexander II formally banned the use of the Ukrainian language in publications. In spite of these attempts, the Ukrainian identity survived and even evolved while under the Russian Empire.
The first-ever independent Ukrainian state was established after the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917. It would last only a few years before communist forces arrived and integrated the state into the Soviet Union. Being a Soviet Socialist Republic, the modern borders of Ukraine were drawn by the Soviet leadership. Separating states within the same nation, these borders were largely seen as arbitrary by the leadership in Moscow, which hoped to gain the support of Ukrainian nationalists. However, this would all change in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine was recognized as a completely autonomous state for the first time since 1920. On the other hand, the Russian superpower had lost centuries of conquest, deeply disturbing much of its populace and leadership.
The moral of this story is that history is often too murky to be appropriately used as a justification. With a tremendous amount of unknown information, realities can be easily bent into whatever narrative the leadership of a nation requires. In the case of Ukraine, it is easy for Putin's propaganda to hide in the complexities of history, emphasizing the legitimate Russian presence in Ukraine while ignoring aspects of Ukrainian separatism. In many ways, there is no reason why this historical justification should even matter. The current population in Ukraine strongly favors independence. Why should they be denied their right to self-determination? Why does it matter what the population in Ukraine thought about their identity 400 years ago when the answer of people today is clear?
Related Posts
