“The history of Ukraine according to Putin contradicts all established facts”

Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler or the writings of Giovanni Gentile (the great philosopher of Italian fascism) are essential sources for understanding the European history of the 20th century. Similarly, Vladimir Putin’s article, On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, published last July, plays an essential role in understanding the beginning of the 21st century. The crimes perpetrated by the Russian army in Ukraine are directly linked to the historical falsification promoted by the master of the Kremlin. It is essential to dismantle these misleading theses, put forward to justify the current invasion.

The myth of paradise lost

According to Putin, “Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians (…) were united by a language (…), the power of the princes of the Rurikid dynasty (…) and an Orthodox faith.” It’s wrong.

Russians and Ukrainians have never been united by Orthodoxy. Byzantine ecclesiastical sources attest that after the Orthodox baptism of Grand Prince Vladimir I in 988, Christianity still had difficulty in establishing itself. In the vast territory of the Rous of kyiv, there were then barely half a dozen bishops – in comparison, before the conversion of the Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century, Roman Egypt alone had around a hundred bishops. . Subsequently, over the centuries, the Ukrainian territory proved to be a land of competition between Greek and Latin Christianity (represented today by the “Uniate” community, of the Orthodox rite, but attached to the Vatican).

Before the start of the Mongol conquest in the 13th century, the Rurikids and warlords, who are rather quickly referred to as “princes”, ruled over most of what is now Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. But they kept on waging war. After the arrival of the Mongols, for almost three centuries, fratricidal struggles also opposed the “collaborationists” and the “resisters” to the khanate. [royaume mongol]. Thus, Alexander Nevsky, Putin’s favorite historical figure, had allied himself with Mongolian troops to defeat his “independenceist” brother Andrei, who rejected their yoke. We are far from the unification idealized by Putin.

As for the idea of ​​a unifying language, this is, again, a product of the Putinian imagination. Even the language of the liturgy was not unique: if Greek was in use at the court of princes, Slavonic was used during celebrations for the people. Then from the 16th century, the Orthodox clergy in Ukraine adopted the Polish language. This decision was not the result of a conspiracy against Russia by foreign agents, as Putin implies, but a practical choice in a battle for souls which then pitted the Orthodox Church against the Catholic Church. The Ukrainian peasant, before the end of serfdom in the middle of the 19th century, was thus never Russified. To the west of the Dnieper, the latter continued to speak Ukrainian, in the part long under Polish influence, although conquered by the Russian Empire.

Anti-Russia, a weapon against Ukraine

After his preposterous ethnological study, Putin develops a conspiracy theory: “Step by step, Ukraine was drawn into a dangerous geopolitical game, the aim of which was to make Ukraine a barrier between Europe and Russia, a fulcrum against Russia. Inevitably, the time has come when the concept ‘Ukraine is not Russia’ no longer fits. It took a project of ‘anti-Russia’which we will never accept.” For the former KGB agent, this is a “Western” plot, which has managed to make “presidents, deputies and ministers [ukrainiens] change, but the orientation towards separation from Russia, towards enmity with it, remains unchanged”, which jeopardizes the “true independence” of Ukraine.

All of this is as false as it is delusional. This concept of “anti-Russia” first appeared in 2010 on the site of the Historical Perspective Foundation, led by a former parliamentarian who relays conspiracy theories, with an imperialist worldview. Before that of Ukraine, it was the Georgian government which was then accused of implementing this project “anti-Russia“. According to the authors, “the essence of this project is to create a political center in the post-Soviet space that is an alternative to the traditional center represented by Moscow” to “extinguish all Russian integration and influence”.

Regarding the “separation” deplored by Putin himself between Russia and Ukraine, the paradox is that he is primarily responsible for it. It was under his leadership that relations between the two countries continued to deteriorate. First following the “orange revolution” of 2004 and the victory of Viktor Yushchenko, victim of poisoning, over the favorite of Moscow, Viktor Yanukovych. Then, ten years later, during the Maidan revolution triggered to get out of the Russian tutelage embodied by the same Yanukovych, who became president, before the annexation of Crimea and the organization of secessionist rebellions in different regions. Finally, only one project: that, “anti-Ukraine”, led by the Kremlin.

Ukraine, a so-called fiction

The Kremlin boss then distorts the toponymy, saying that Ukraine would be the “Little Russia” (Malorossia): “In 1686, the Russian state incorporated the city of kyiv and the lands located on the left bank of the Dnieper, including the Poltava region, the Chernigov region and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants are united with the bulk of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories are called Little Russia.”

It’s wrong. This expression of “Little Russia“was precisely introduced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to mark a difference: in 1458, at the request of the Lithuanian princes, it created for Christian subjects of the Greek rite an autonomous ecclesiastical province, mikra rosia (Little Russia), as opposed to that which was grouped around Moscow, and baptized Megale Rosia (Greater Russia).

Putin goes on to argue that “modern Ukraine is entirely the creature of the Soviet era”. Here he is, then, almost repeating the passage from the speech of 31 October 1939 by Stalin’s Foreign Minister, Molotov, describing Poland as “a monstrous creature of the Treaty of Versailles which lived only on the oppression of non-Polish nationalities”. Exactly, then, as today “Nazi” Ukraine, according to Putin, “lives at the expense of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.” We see the logic: if Ukraine, like Poland eighty years ago, is an artificial creation, its invasion is justified.

The history of Ukraine according to Putin contradicts all established facts. Wanting to erase them leads to attacking the populations who are the very products of this history, up to murder and war. Because it is for the master of the Kremlin to get rid of the Ukrainian nation. And to move towards a lost, fantasized paradise, which has everything of a hell.

*Lasha Otkhmezuri, historian, is visiting professor at Louisiana State University Shreveport. He wrote, with Jean Lopez, Greatness and misery of the Red Army (Seuil, 2011) a biography of Marshal Joukov (Perrin, 2013) and a book on Operation Barbarossa (Passés Composites, 2021).