The True Sovereignty
of Ukraine Is
Only Possible in Partnership With Russia
Only Possible in Partnership With Russia
Vladimir V. Putin
Mr. Putin (photo)
writes: “To have a better understanding of
the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history”.
the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history”.
Editorial Note:
Ukraine has a special significance for students of Helena P. Blavatsky, for the Russian thinker and main founder of the modern esoteric movement was born in Ukrainian territory. Her biographer Sylvia Cranston wrote:
“Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was born close to midnight in the early morning of August 12, 1831, in the Ukrainian town of Ekaterinoslav (Glory of Catherine), which was built for Catherine the Great. The Russians renamed it Dnepropetrovsk in honor of Peter the Great and the river that flows through it, the Dneiper.”
“The Dneiper has special significance in Russian history. It was along this river, the second largest in Russia, that the Rurik dynasty grew. By the eleventh century the Rus state centered at Kiev stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The river became a major route to Constantinople (now Istanbul).”
“The river has important religious associations as well. It was at Kiev that a descendant of Rurik, the reigning Prince Vladimir, newly converted to Christianity, ordered his people to be herded into the Dneiper while priests administered mass baptism. Vladimir was canonized for converting pagan Russia to the Christian faith.” [1]
(CCA)
000
of Russians and Ukrainians
Vladimir Putin
During the recent
Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that
Russians and Ukrainians were one people - a single whole. These words were not
driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political
context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly
believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and
share my assessments of today’s situation.
First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall
that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts
of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is
our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the
consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these
are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always
sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time
immemorial - divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to
play on the “national question” and sow discord among people, the overarching
goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one
another.
To have a better understanding of the present and look
into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to
cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than
a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are
important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all
descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and
other tribes across the vast territory - from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to
Kiev and Chernigov - were bound together by one language (which we now refer to
as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty,
and - after the baptism of Rus - the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made
by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev,
still largely determines our affinity today.
The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient
Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone
Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, “Let it
be the mother of all Russian cities”.
Later, like other European states of that time,
Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same
time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common
territory, as their homeland.
The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s
devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The
northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but
retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely
became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which - most significantly - was
referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.
Members of the princely and “boyar” clans would change
service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making
friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke
of Lithuania Algirdas - Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk - fought next
to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same
time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila - son of the Princess of Tver - led his
troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history,
reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.
Most importantly, people both in the western and
eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to
the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in
place.
At a new stage of historical development, both
Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and
consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow
became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian
statehood. Moscow princes - the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky - cast
off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.
In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were
unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to
Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the
Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish
Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the
territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the
western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The
process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.
As a consequence, in the 16-17th centuries, the
liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the
Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became
a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth.
In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian
Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of
Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But
the Cossacks were not heard.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which
were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme
representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in
faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council
confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky
and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore
allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at
the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.
In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky
thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking “the whole Zaporizhian Host and
the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar”.
It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar,
the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.
Over the course of the protracted war between the
Russian state and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans,
successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would “detach themselves” from Moscow or seek
support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a
war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final
outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state
incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper
River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their
inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people.
These territories were referred to as “Malorossia” (Little Russia).
The name “Ukraine” was used more often in the meaning
of the Old Russian word “okraina” (periphery), which is found in written
sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the
word “Ukrainian”, judging by archival documents, originally referred to
frontier guards who protected the external borders.
On the right bank, which remained under the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression
intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the
protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other
bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people
who spoke the same language and had the same faith.
During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people
in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small
portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and
degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.
Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility
would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in
Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life.
This was also the case during the Hetmanate - an essentially autonomous state
formation with a special internal structure - and later in the Russian Empire.
Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country - its statehood,
culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of
the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the
Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in
the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev
and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with
Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30
years.
In the second half of the 18th century, following the
wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the
Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by
people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old
Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became
part of the Austrian - and later Austro-Hungarian - Empire.
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into
the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic
decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions,
and - I would like to emphasize it once again - language similarity. Thus, as
early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate
Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called
Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their
written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular
were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo.
These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.
Many centuries of fragmentation and living within
different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities,
resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary
language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a
huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage.
Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in
Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of
Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings
and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And
why do it?
The south-western lands of the Russian Empire,
Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and
religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews,
Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived
here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.
I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there
were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted
the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in
the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical
context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in
Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit
the “Ukrainian issue” to their own advantage. I should add that works of
fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published.
There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active
process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater
Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the
Belorussians.
At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a
nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the
Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no
historical basis - and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated
by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians
are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such “hypotheses”
became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between
European states.
Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian
authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to
the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During
World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of
Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox
Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the
concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.
Further developments had to do with the collapse of
European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory
of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.
After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the
Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme
power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of
the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.
In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in
Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies.
At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out
a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada
proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.
The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few
weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc
countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and
needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale
supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to
the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.
For those who have today given up the full control of
Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in
1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the
direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and
Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR
the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.
In November 1918 - following the revolutionary events
in Germany and Austria-Hungary - Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support
of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that “Ukraine is to take
the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation”. However, the regime
was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.
In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the
West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its
unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian
forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came
under the Polish rule.
In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the
“heroes” in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR
Directorate, giving up - in exchange for military support - Galicia and Western
Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of
Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a
truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces
surrendered to those same Poles.
The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of
quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the
time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists
sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White
movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the
Bolsheviks’ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either.
Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of
Soviet Russia for various reasons.
Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet
Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia.
This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders,
Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March
1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets,
including from the Donetsk Basin, and that “one government for all of Ukraine”
be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet
Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.
Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the
Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former
Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish
government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic
composition of the Eastern Borderlands - the Polish name for what is now
Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were
subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed.
Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this
as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and
Russian populations.
In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate
among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to
form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the
republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the
Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and,
subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted
in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded
the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was
gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A “parade of sovereignties”
followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation
of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that “the USSR as
a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed”. By
the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.
In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted
the “localization policy”, which took the form of Ukrainization in the
Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the
Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one
of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time
had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected
member of the Academy of Sciences.
The localization policy undoubtedly played a major
role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language
and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called
Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who
did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at
the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian,
Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people
comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.
In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by
Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940,
the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by
Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island
(Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean
Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal
norms that were in force at the time.
I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian
Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of
Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While
this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by
Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for
the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian
republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer
1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine “with its
ancient motherland, Ukraine” - as The Pravda newspaper put it - was announced.
Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of
the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped - for a
significant part - on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it
is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian
state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left
the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as
inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world
revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so
generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer
important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the
country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and
logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed,
indeed.
When working on this article, I relied on open-source
documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The
leaders of modern Ukraine and their external “patrons” prefer to overlook these
facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad,
to condemn “the crimes of the Soviet regime”, listing among them events with
which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to
do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks’ efforts to detach from Russia its
historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they
brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.
Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics
were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country,
which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly
centralized - this, again, was secured by the CPSU’s leading role. But in 1991,
all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves
abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.
What can be said to this? Things change: countries and
communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process
of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical
circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain
moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are
welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of
the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint
Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision
must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics
that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must
return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All
other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given
that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought
with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had
embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating
with territories to their liking, in disregard of people’s views.
The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical
realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to
establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990’s and
in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine.
Whatever “political arithmetic” of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991-2013,
Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it
holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to
Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would
enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.
Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic
system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago
is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural
complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen
competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.
Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included
powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding,
aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class
scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and
declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy
would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the
best in Europe.
Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the
pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has
dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and
overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production,
which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF
reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per
capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of
Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is
Europe’s poorest country.
Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine’s
fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and
frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking
and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and
outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities,
as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The
feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great
affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.
Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects
were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties,
strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems.
They brought tangible benefits to people - both in Russia and Ukraine. This is
what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful
interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.
Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the
Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our
economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and
is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s
top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming
to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the “aggressor
state” is.
When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and
Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and
economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who
had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events - at first
gradually, and then more rapidly - started to move in a different direction.
In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to
justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however,
except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit
out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of
the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of
collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of
the Ukrainian people.
Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more
insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official
authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept
their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the
sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent
weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone
else’s geopolitical will.
I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and
EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and
limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic
partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the
Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing
to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto
Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous
geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and
Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the
concept of “Ukraine is not Russia” was no longer an option. There was a need
for the “anti-Russia” concept which we will never accept.
The owners of this project took as a basis the old
groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an “anti-Moscow Russia”.
And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests
of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed
Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical
Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis,
abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living
space and slaves for Aryan overlords.
Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought
of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute
socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities
of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly
interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical
nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and
blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements
of state policy in Ukraine.
All the things that united us and bring us together so
far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind
you that the new “Maidan” authorities first tried to repeal the law on state
language policy. Then there was the law on the “purification of power”, the law
on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational
process.
Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current
president introduced a bill on “indigenous peoples” to the Rada. Only those who
constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside
Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of
discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already
noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and
linguistic composition, and its history of formation.
There may be an argument: if you are talking about a
single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who
people consider themselves to be - Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I
completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality,
particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make
his or her own choice.
But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is
completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the
most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only
to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that
Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of
forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state,
aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of
weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and
artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may
decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.
Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the
days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated.
The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have
blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the
seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the
Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent
and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.
I think it is also natural that the representatives of
Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution
condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in
honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the
protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone,
Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who
collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being
done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine
patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.
For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in
partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they
were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand
soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan
Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila
Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable
generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To
forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.
The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions
of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their
historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their
stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and
terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military
force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their
home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the
riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of
2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new
Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the
followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they
do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not
come.
The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev
authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the
conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and
children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.
Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The
Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have
been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any
case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures
or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format
countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council
resolution of 17 February 2015.
During official negotiations, especially after being
reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare
their “full adherence” to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a
position of “unacceptability”. They do not intend to seriously discuss either
the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They
prefer to exploit the image of the “victim of external aggression” and peddle
Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract
the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.
Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced
of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the
inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried
and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the
outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully
restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly
with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts
the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by
the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I
would add - under the protection and control of the Western powers.
This is what is actually happening. First of all, we
are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive
rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we
are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control,
including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and
armed forces by foreign advisers, military “development” of the territory of
Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the
aforementioned flagrant law on “indigenous peoples” was adopted under the cover
of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.
This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest
of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The
sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up.
From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but
under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences
and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back?
Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s
generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably
great-grandchildren.
The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up
the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of
parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and
enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of
the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to
be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and
around Donbas has even degenerated.
In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either
for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend
its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian
society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are
labelled as “pro-Russian” agents.
Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia
project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they
are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to
defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated,
driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the
spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also
killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.
Today, the “right” patriot of Ukraine is only the one
who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand
it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger,
as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for
sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.
All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia
project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and
people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who
will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will
destroy their own country.
The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to
Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how
Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in
ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain
sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But
this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations.
They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the
citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business.
Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia.
We see them as our own close people.
Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to
discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that
our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s,
and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.
We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We
respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is
possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and
civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same
sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories.
Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the
hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the
blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been
and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
Today, these words may be perceived by some people
with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people
will hear me. And I will say one thing - Russia has never been and will never
be “anti-Ukraine”. And what Ukraine will be - it is up to its citizens to
decide.
NOTE:
[1] From the book “HPB - The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena
Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement”, by Sylvia
Cranston, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York,
copyright 1993, 648 pp., see p. 08. (CCA)
000
The above article
by Mr. Vladimir Putin was published by the associated websites on 7 December
2021. It is here reproduced from the English language website of the Kremlin, where it is available since 12 June 2021.
000
Read more:
000
Helena Blavatsky
(photo) wrote these words: “Deserve,
then desire”.
000
