How Putin's article about Ukraine touched the Austrian historian By ABOUT DW German

 

How Putin's article about Ukraine touched the Austrian historian

By

 

ABOUT DW 

German wave

6 min

View Original

Vladimir Putin's text on Russians and Ukrainians is not just another article by the Russian president on a historical topic , says Andreas Kappeler , a Swiss and Austrian historian, former professor at the University of Vienna, one of the leading German-speaking scholars on Ukrainian history, author of Unequal Brothers. "on the relations between Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the present day. In an interview with DW, Kappeler explained that the Russian president was silent and why his article was a threat to Ukraine and not only to her.

DW: Vladimir Putin is increasingly writing texts on historical topics. How do you, as a professional, evaluate the work of the President of the Russian Federation as an amateur historian?

Andreas Kappeler: Of course, he did not write this article himself, he was helped by historians loyal to the regime. I am struck by the fact that the President speaks again and again directly, authoritatively on controversial issues in the history of Russia and Eastern Europe. And it is implied that in the future these statements are replicated and carefully studied.

Andreas Kappeler

This fatally reminds me of Soviet times and of Stalin with his "Short Course in the History of the CPSU (B.)", Which became obligatory for study not only in the USSR but also in the countries of Eastern Europe. I am categorically against comparing Putin to Stalin, but there are some similarities. For me, as a historian, it is unheard of when the head of state imposes on citizens a mandatory view of history.

This is the first article in which Putin writes in detail about Ukraine. Compared to his previous texts, what has changed?

For the first time, what he had said before was collected. But he became more radical. In the article, Putin has repeatedly directly threatened Ukraine with Russian intervention, which he justifies, including from the point of view of history. Significant ethnic elements have now been added to imperial nationalism, which has always been inherent in it.

This is especially dangerous because it involves Russia's claim to the protection of all Russian-speaking minorities in the former Soviet republics. This is the doctrine of the "Russian world" and, to put it somewhat polemically, it reminds me a little of Germany's policy towards the German minority in Central and Eastern Europe between the wars - with fatal consequences.

What do you mean? What are the parallels here?

The parallels are that Germany has used its German-speaking minorities, for example in Czechoslovakia and Poland, for expansionary policies. First during the Weimar Republic, and then even more so during National Socialism.

This is a sensitive issue, so please clarify. Do you not compare Putin's Russia with Nazi Germany, but warn of a new trend?

Ethnic nationalism is dangerous. All ethnically charged nationalisms are especially dangerous and aggressive.

Does this mean that war is possible? Is this read in Putin between the lines?

I would not go so far, but in some of his statements he really threatens on such a large scale that it can be interpreted as a threat of war. For example, he writes that "we will never allow our historical territories and the people close to us who live there to be used against Russia." This is a direct threat not only to Ukraine but also to the West.

There is another important quote in which Putin compares what he calls a "course of forced assimilation" in Ukraine with the use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia. This is a direct large-scale threat and a cause for concern in the context of the radicalization and ethnicization of Putin's thinking.

Read also: Viennese historian: Ukraine is the cause of phantom pain in most Russians

Even after the article was published, the Kremlin published Putin's answers to questions about it. One of his messages - Russia recognizes the "geopolitical realities", ie the independence of the former Soviet republics. At the same time, the President mentions friendly relations with Kazakhstan. This can be interpreted so that, say, if the relationship is not friendly, then the borders can be questioned. A few years ago, in an interview with Bild, Putin said that "it is not the territory or borders that are important to him, but the destinies of the people." Is this a waiver of international law?

Yes, this is due to the fact that he is talking about ethnic boundaries. That is, ethnic Russians or Russian-speakers in Ukraine, the Baltic States and Kazakhstan also belong to the zone of influence of Russia. This is clearly a lever for possible border crossings or aggressive actions against these countries to protect Russians in these countries.

Speaking of the historical part of Putin's article, critics point out that it mixes facts and half-truths. What do you think?

Skillfully written propaganda texts always mix facts with half-truths or even untruths. One term always catches my eye. The term "Russian" in relation to medieval Kievan Rus is used by Putin and others to mean "Russian", "Great Russian". This is how he speaks of Kyiv as the "mother of Russian cities." At the same time, medieval Russia is misinterpreted as Russia, although it covered the population of the entire principality.

In the context of that time, we cannot talk about Russians and Ukrainians at all. The ambivalence of concepts becomes clear in foreign sources of the XVI-XVIII centuries, in which "Russia, Russia" was called Belarus and Ukraine, and today's Russia was called "Muscovy". It is very important. There were no Russians, Ukrainians or Belarusians in the Middle Ages today, they were other communities with other cultural peculiarities. It is historically incorrect to compare them.

Putin is silent about the fact that Ukrainians already had a national self-consciousness in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, that their language was not almost the same as Russian, as he writes. I read the sources of the 18th century, according to which diplomats in Moscow turned to translators for help because they did not understand this East Slavic language, which was then spoken on the territory of modern Ukraine.

Read also: Austrian historian: It's time to stop considering Ukraine the younger sister of Russia

Putin writes that there was no "historical basis" for the "idea of ​​a separate Ukrainian people from the Russian people," and all this was invented by the "Polish elite and parts of the Little Russian intelligentsia." This is part of his main thesis about the supposedly still united people of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Is he right?

For the historian, this is a difficult question - what to consider one nation? We cannot prove this objectively. It's not just language. Germans and Austrians speak the same language, but do not consider themselves one people. One nation is when the majority of the country considers and perceives itself as a nation. In the case of Ukraine today, it is clear that the vast majority perceives themselves as a separate people and nation. This does not exclude that Ukrainians and Russians have much in common, languages ​​are related, but the statement about one people is a provocation.

What do you think is missing from Putin's article, but what is needed to understand the topic?

The most important thing that is not there is the direct reason for the current attitude to Russia in Ukraine - Russia's military intervention in 2014, the annexation of Crimea in violation of international law, direct military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. All this radically strengthened anti-Russian sentiment. This is not a civil war, but a Russian-Ukrainian war. From the point of view of propaganda, many Ukrainians in the east see the situation in one way or another as Putin describes it. There are parties that support these ideas, albeit not as radically as Putin. And this is also the meaning of this article, they say, Putin understands us, in contrast to the Ukrainian leadership.

In his article, Putin also addresses the West as the center that he believes governs Ukraine. What new did he say?

It is important how sharply Putin addresses the West. He accuses him of setting up a Maidan to snatch Ukraine from Russia's orbit. This is not true, because about a million Ukrainians protested on the Maidan in Kyiv, no one can fix it. Behind this is Putin's binary worldview.

This is, on the one hand, the legacy of the USSR and the Cold War, which, they say, the West and the United States pursue anti-Russian policies, and the battlefield - Ukraine. On the other hand, conspiracy theories are always very popular. This is very important for Putin's worldview. He had previously said that he felt surrounded by enemies. It seems that this is not just propaganda, he believes in it. This makes it dangerous - someone who feels in danger can strike back.

Просмотры: