Serhii Plokhy: evaluation

Transcript context

…So as we get closer to February of 2022, there’s a few other key moments. Maybe let’s talk about in July 2021, Putin publishing an essay titled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Can you describe the ideas expressed in this essay? The idea is very conveniently presented already in the first paragraph, in the first sentences really of the article, where Putin says that, “For a long time I was saying that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people, and here is the proof.” He develops his historical argumentation apparently with the help of a lot of people around him. And he started to talk about Russians and Ukrainians being one and the same people, one year before the start of the war in 2014. So in 2013, he was together with Patriarch Kirill on visit to Kiev. And there was a conference specifically organized for him in the Kievan Caves Monastery, and that’s where he stated that. The fact that he was with Patriarch Kirill is very important factor for understanding where the idea is coming from. This is the idea that was dominant in the Russian Empire of the 19s and the beginning of the 20th century, that Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians are really, great Russians, little Russians, and white Russians, and that they constitute one people. Yes, there are some dialectical differences. Yes, Ukrainians sing well, yes, they dance funny, but overall that doesn’t matter. And that idea actually was really destroyed, mostly destroyed by the revolution of 1917. Because it wasn’t just social revolution that’s how it’s understood in the US and good part of the world, it was also national revolution, it was an empire, it was a revolution in the Russian Empire. And to bring this pieces of empire back within the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had to make concessions. And one of those concessions was recognition of the existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation, Belorussians as a separate nations, Russians as a separate nations. Endowing them with their own territorial with borders, with institutions and so on and so forth. But there was one institution that was not reformed, that institution was called the Russian Orthodox Church. Because one of the ways that Bolsheviks dealt with it, they couldn’t eradicate religion completely. But they arrested the development of the religion, and thinking, and theology on the level as it existed before the revolution of 1917. So the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917 continued to be the Russian Orthodox Church in 1991 and in 2013. Continuing the same imperial mantra of the existence of one big Russian nation, one unified people. And when you see the formation of the ideas about nations, about foreign policy in the Russian Empire after 1991, they’re going back to the pre-Bolshevik times. big Russian nation, one unified people. And when you see the formation of the ideas about nations, about foreign policy in the Russian Empire after 1991, they’re going back to the pre-Bolshevik times. Ukrainians do that as well. Estonians do that as well. The difference is that when Ukrainians go back, they go back to the pre-1917, they had their intellectual fathers and writings of basically liberal nationalism. Or sometimes they go to the radical nationalism of Bandera, which would be not pre-1917, but pre-1945. When the Russians go to pre-Bolshevik past, looking for the ideas, looking for inspiration, looking for the narratives, what they find there is empire, what they find there are imperial projects. And that’s certainly the story of Putin’s claim, that’s the story of the argument. And to conclude the argument that he lays out there, historical argument, comes also almost directly from the narratives of the late 19s and the beginning of the 20th century. So it’s not only the argument is coming from that era, but also the argumentation is coming from that era as well.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.