I’ll express my thoughts on this subject very strongly and sharply… the Ukraine isn’t only good for nothing… it has no right to exist as an independent nation-state! In ancient times, the Eastern Slavs inhabited the forest-steppe zone; later on, they moved to the Eastern European part of Russia… Little Russia was the native homeland of the Eastern Slavs. In those days, the Cimmerians dominated the southern steppes. If you fast-forward to the 18th century, the victories of Suvorov and Potemkin joined the Crimean Tatars to the realm of Yekaterina Velikaya. The Historical Ukraine is the so-called Hetmanate. Let me remind you that remote areas with some degree of autonomy in Old Russia were called “Ukraina”. There were several, there was a “Ukraina” in the Trans-Baikal. The reason was simple… this area had only one road around the lake linking it. Cities located near Pskov were called the “German Ukraina”, as Pskov bordered on the lands of the Teutonic Order. The land around Oki, which was only wilderness in those days, was called the “Polish Ukraina”. In St Petersburg, Okhta was called the “Petersburg Ukraina” until the construction of the Okhtinsky Bridge in the early 20th century. Even before the founding of the city of Okhta, Finnish fisherfolk lived in the area.
I mention these historical examples to make it clear that “Ukraina” meant “the borderlands”, so, one can see that the so-called “Ukrainian project” was crank from its very outset. All lands dominated by Catholics underwent gradual Polonisation… the Poles didn’t win over the people in the Ukraine nor Belarus nor Lithuania, but there was a betrayal by the ruling élite… Orthodox boyars changed their faith and national identity. This was the main difference between Malorossiya and Great Russia. Nevertheless, the Great Russian élite (nobility and the KPSS nomenklatura) has always been patriotic, despite some scoundrels. In the Ukraine, historical tradition records the betrayal of the élites. During the Cossack uprising there was a territory called the Hetmanate… a small strip along the left bank of the Dnepr, with some self-government. Ukrainian historians allege that it was a proto-Ukrainian state in a treaty relationship with Moscow. However, bear in mind that an autocracy, by definition, can’t limit itself, to make others coevals. Autocracy is unlike a constitutional monarchy, which recognises agreements on limitation. What existed along the left bank of the Dnepr wasn’t a state; rather, it was an autonomous area devoid of serfdom, which disappeared due to the Khmelnitsky Uprising. The Cossack elders ruled this autonomy, headed by a hetman chosen for life, who, in turn, bowed to the Russian Tsar. This was the so-called primordial Ukraine. Where Kharkov now stands, was the Sloboda (Sloboda Ukraina (“Free”Ukraine”)), which didn’t really have a government, the steppe-land south of the former wild fields only had active settlement in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then, there was the Polish Partitions; in contrast to the left-bank Ukraine, where there was no Polish nobility, on the right bank, they survived until 1917… and in Volynia until 1939… such noble families as the Potocki, Ganski, Luck, Brezhinski (heh,heh,heh) etc.
On the left bank, the only thing one could say of the Ukrainian élite was that it was deceitful. During the reign of Tsar Pyotr Veliki, the Hetmanate became a centralised military régime. Local elders, descendants of Cossack atamans and captains, longed to become nobles. For many years, they pleaded to have the same rights as the rest of the Russian nobility, which automatically would give them the right to own serfs. Finally, upon the request of these local nobles, Yekaterina Velikaya abolished freedom and introduced serfdom. She hadn’t wanted to do this for some time, because it’d harm her reputation as an enlightened sovereign. Yekaterina invited German colonists to come to Russia, hoping that they’d show the benefits of free peasant labour through their example, but she had to deal with the Cossack elders. Thus, the descendants of wild and free Cossacks became commonplace landlords. Think of N V Gogol’s heroes… the landlords Pererepenko and Dovgochkhuna. These names came from the descendants of glorious Cossacks, and Nikolai Vasilyevich was one of this nobility.
In tsarist times, the Poles remained as the nobility on the right bank. At the same time, the tsars conquered Novorossiya, which didn’t have even indirect ties to the Hetmanate. Thus, we can see that the “Ukraine” was a heterogeneous structure, which evolved somewhat separately from Russia. The Ukrainian movement was a construct of the Poles, as a part if their project to dominate the area. There seemed to be an insurmountable challenge in front of them… how do we get the people of the borderland to fight for Poland? The Ukrainian ideology posits a slave happy to be in bondage to his Polish master. The Ukrainian ideal is to split from Russia, to become a favourite slave of the Poles or Germans, or, at worst, a hireling of the EU. Unfortunately, only psychology or psychiatry can explain this phenomenon. One can hope that, eventually, prudent Ukrainians would come to their senses. However, I fear that the process of sobering up will be long. For instance, a recent Ukrainian opinion poll showed that the majority of Ukrainians favour continuing the war, although they recognise that a civil war would have no winners. Aboriginal lands can’t be by definition “Ukraina”, since a “Ukraina” is a “borderland”. It’s pointless to hope that if the Donbass were to leave the Ukraine, if all of Novorossiya were to return to Russia, then, you could easily make friends with the rest of the country. The very essence of the “Ukrainian project” is to harm Russia. To paraphrase a famous saying of the Roman senator Cato, “The Bandershtadt must be destroyed”.
25 February 2015
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences
Russkaya Narodnaya Liniya