Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest comments on Ukraine reflect not only his own problematic understanding of Russian history and his attempts to rewrite it to serve his purposes but also the ancient roots and fateful nature of a conflict that he and others often treat as a mere product of the disintegration of the USSR, says Vladislav Inozemtsev, director of the Moscow-based Centre for Research on Post-Industrial Societies, a nonprofit think-tank.
But the current war, the Russian commentator points out, is “not between Ukraine and Russia but between Ukraina-Rus and Muscovy” and that the contestants aren’t "Bandera and Stalin but Danilo Galitsky whom Innocent III proclaimed king of the Ruthenians and Aleksandr Nevsky who received his princely title from Khan Mengu.”
The Ukrainian parliamentarians who in July 2017 proposed that Kyiv should refer to its northeastern neighbor not as Russia but as Muscovy were “completely correct.” Indeed, some in Moscow at the time of the USSR’s end dreamed of a Slavic union as a way to stop the historic reversal and make the Moscow-centric state a Slavic union of some kind.“The Russian Empire was destroyed in 1989-1991 in a very specific way. The metropolitan center not only lost the conquests it had made in the 18th and 19th centuries; it itself fell apart and thus ceased to be Russia and retreated to the borders of Muscovy at the end of the Livonian and Swedish wars."
“But the disintegration went further,” Inozemtsev says, “having left Moscow face to face with its earlier colonies from Tatarstan and the ‘Russian’ North from Chukotka and the Primamurye. Over the course of [the last] several decades, the Kremlin has been occupied with getting rid of the elements of the ‘accidentally’ allowed federalism.”He continues: For people in Moscow to accept that they had returned to Muscovy was very hard and their sense of loss was hardly compensated by nuclear arms or imperial rhetoric. And that led the Kremlin to begin to talk about “the Russian world” and “historical Russia” and to pursue the absorption of Ukraine and Belarus. “The world of the 21st century is significantly distinguished from the world of the 17th,” Inozemtsev says. But one must understand that then Muscovy consolidated Rus; it was not Rus that changed Muscovy. As a result, the current conflict of Moscow and Kyiv reflects a conflict within Russian civilization which arose between the Baltic and Byzantium.” On the outcome of that dispute, the economist concludes, “depends the future of all of Europe.”
Further reading:
- The population of Kyivan Rus spoke Old Ukrainian, says historian
- New book tells of sacred relics of Kyivan Rus appropriated by Russia
- The mystery of how Kyivan Rus shaped early Christianity in Norway
- Ukrainian Parliament backs idea of creating museum on Kyivan Rus archeology site
- Historical finds from Kyivan Rus era under threat in centre of Kyiv
- Ukraine and France to film historical drama about French princess from Kyivan Rus
- Ukrainian conflict is between ‘heirs of Kyivan Rus’ and ‘heirs of Golden Horde"
- How Moscow hijacked the history of Kyivan Rus’
- Russia’s cap of the Monomakh came not from Constantinople but from Khan Tashkent, historian says
- Ukrainian suggestion that Russia should be called Muscovy infuriates Russians