Every nation-state in Europe has such a national historical narrative. Everyone has been taught about the people and events that built their nation. Perhaps most importantly, these narratives determine what lands and people belong within the state. For younger nations, this process resonates strongly in people’s minds. Most other European nations, however, established their own narratives long ago.

A frenzy is taking place among students, academics and intellectuals looking to rewrite the course of Ukrainian history in a way that empowers an independent, European Ukraine and, above all, denies Russia’s claims over its territory. This situation is highly understandable. After all, to justify his invasion Vladimir Putin concocted his own historical narrative about Ukraine. His long-winded article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” written in mid-2021, depicted Ukraine (and Belarus) as culturally inseparable from Russia. For Putin, his piece serves to delegitimize Ukrainian nationhood and justifies Russia’s right to intervene. For Ukraine, refuting Putin’s narrative is paramount. However, the history of Ukrainian territory as a junction for cultural and political exchanges makes this an intricate task.

Caught between empires

As the American historian Timothy Snyder impressively illustrated over a 23-part lecture series in 2022 (all available on Youtube), throughout the last 2000 years up until the mid-20th century, different parts of Ukraine came under the control of different countries at different times. Despite this, three important periods stand out in Ukrainian history, which the country could draw upon to be cornerstones of its national story. Chronologically, these periods are Kievan Rus’ (c. 880–1240), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) and Austrian Galicia (1772–1918). This complexity means that drawing one narrative from one part of Ukraine may negate another narrative from another part. For example, stating that Crimea and Donbas belong to the modern Ukrainian nation, while also claiming a common history with Poland leads to difficulty. Identifying one single narrative of Ukrainian nationhood that encompasses all of contemporary Ukraine’s recognized borders is impossible.

Starting in the Middle Ages, the story of Kievan Rus’ marks the first major European state ruled from Kyiv. It was huge, stretching from the Black Sea to Finland, and was founded by Norsemen. This period saw the East Slavic peoples adopt Orthodox Christianity. However, as a pan-East Slavic state, its legacy is too closely shared with modern Russia to function as Ukraine’s main national origin story. At that time, the East Slavic peoples were much closer than they are today; they all spoke similar dialects and had similar customs. Crucially, Putin himself is currently using this story to justify his own narrative on Russian and Ukrainian unity.

Another period in question is Austrian Galicia, where a part of western Ukraine came under Habsburg control as part of the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian empire. For the time, the region had considerable autonomy, and much Ukrainian nation-building, such as newly distinct Ukrainian literature, took place during this time and space. However, since most of modern-day Ukraine lay in the Russian empire during that time, Austrian Galicia was too small to be used as the main historical cornerstone for the whole Ukrainian nation. 

This leaves the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Another vast state stretching from the Baltic Sea almost to the Black Sea, the Commonwealth encompassed much of modern-day western and central Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland. Nominally a union between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, towards the end of the period the state was also an early example of a constitutional, elected monarchy, characterized by great internal diversity. Indeed, most may not know that the state adopted Europe’s first written constitution — the May 3, 1791 Constitution — soon after the American and French Revolutions. Equally important is how the state met its end; between 1772 and 1795 the Commonwealth was carved up and partitioned by the absolutist monarchs of Prussia, Austria and Russia. Ukrainian lands were divided between the latter two. Poland and Lithuania would not exist as independent states again for another 124 years.

Lessons from the Commonwealth period

But where does Ukraine lie in all this? As an integral part of the Commonwealth, Ukrainians, referred to as “Ruthenians,” enjoyed certain religious freedoms, and Ruthenian lands and nobility were recognized as distinct and equal in rights to their Polish and Lithuanian counterparts. They were incorporated into a (proto) democratic European state, enabling them to draw on a legacy of Europeanness and democracy, but also victimhood at the hands of imperial Russia, by whom they were annexed. Whereas until 2014 Ukraine had been firmly tethered to Russia from a historical perspective, from this view Ukrainian history can be anchored externally in another neighboring country— Poland. As a modern, prosperous democracy in the EU, Poland’s success is what Ukraine also aspires for.

By granting Ukraine a degree of ownership of the legacy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Poland will also benefit. Instead of another pro-Russian autocracy, like Belarus, Poland will have a friendly, democratic neighbor between it and Russia. Poland’s own history of Ukrainian oppression during the interwar period, perhaps its most painful source of historical guilt, will be overlooked in favor of common history and values. An example of this that comes to mind is when Poland and Ukraine co-hosted the UEFA Euro 2012 football championship, whose literal motto was “Creating History Together.” More recently, Poland’s overwhelming support for Ukraine has seen it take in millions of Ukrainian refugees and supply Ukraine with significant military and financial resources.

Maximum extent of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, c. 1619. Via Samotny Wędrowiec on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Shifting narratives westward

What does this rethought historical narrative mean for Ukraine’s future? First and foremost, by cutting threads with Russia, Soviet and imperial Russian history will be viewed through the lens of occupation and oppression, but also Ukraine’s overall triumph. Meanwhile, the linkage with Poland (and Lithuania) has worked to convince Ukrainians and other Europeans of Ukraine’s rightful place in European institutions (mainly the EU), bestow it with some valuable democratic credentials, and hopefully secure it from future Russian aggression by building solidarity with the rest of Europe. Outside of this Commonwealth legacy, importantly, are Crimea and southeastern Ukraine — areas currently under Russian occupation — as these lands never came under Polish rule.

Historical narratives are used in every country in the world to achieve societal harmony as well as political goals. Ukraine is no different. To pursue a European path it is necessary to convince people of Ukraine’s “Europeanness.” By emphasizing cultural and historical ties to Poland and EU values of democracy and tolerance, Ukraine is succeeding in pegging its tent in the European camp.

[Stephen Chilimidos edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The (Re)Writing of Ukrainian History: Narratives and Legacies appeared first on Fair Observer.

The diplomatic failures of the Russian and American negotiators and the steady escalation in rhetoric indicate an unwillingness to compromise on both sides. Russia wants guarantees that neither Ukraine nor Georgia will accede to NATO, which NATO categorically refuses to do. But Russia’s excessive list of demands shows that it doesn’t expect the West to agree. It would, conversely, mean that Russia would have to remove its own missiles from the Kaliningrad Oblast that borders Poland and Lithuania. 

Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border

READ MORE

The failure of the Russian Federation to respect the sovereign will of its neighboring states demonstrates well its 19^th-century view of geopolitics that if it doesn’t belong to us now, it will soon belong to our enemies. By raising the stakes, Russia has shown that there are now only three options for Ukraine — siding with Russia, aligning with the West, or permanent neutrality — and it is testing to see just how much the West really wants Ukraine. But time is running out. Maintaining a large standing army on such a long border requires significant resources. They’ll have to be moved eventually. The question is, in which direction?

Geopolitical Chess

Like pieces on a chessboard, Ukraine acceding to NATO would, from the alliance’s perspective, be like the West gaining a pawn. From the view of the Kremlin, however, Russia would be losing its queen. The movement of NATO’s eastern flank into Ukraine would increase the length of the NATO-Russian land border nearly fourfold, from 703 kilometers to 2,677 kilometers — an unpleasant prospect for security-obsessed Moscow.

As such, we believe that there are several scenarios regarding how the situation could develop, with a multitude of compounding factors. Three of them have been described here, which we still believe could prove most likely.

While it is impossible to know what will actually happen, one thing seems to be perfectly clear: There is no peaceful solution for Ukraine. Regardless of what outcome the negotiations have, Crimea is still occupied and the war in Donbas is ongoing. The Kremlin wants security guarantees, but so does Ukraine. Kyiv sees its best option in NATO membership, which is mutually exclusive to Moscow’s objective.

It’s at this point that the debate about Ukrainian neutrality gains momentum. Such a declaration of neutrality could also be welcome in Western capitals. Although this currently disregards the stated sovereign will of those Ukrainians who support a Western path, one could nonetheless imagine a tripartite (NATO/US–Ukraine–Russian Federation) treaty on Ukrainian neutrality would ease security fears, while also not excluding the prospect of future EU membership for the country, like neutral Austria, Sweden and Finland. Indeed, the stability provided by a neutrality treaty would afford Ukraine the necessary conditions for significant economic growth and democratization.

Nevertheless, the Kremlin’s security concerns regarding NATO are, to our understanding, not the dominant factor in this situation. Apart from the fact that there is also a sort of collective security provision in Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union, the main concern for the Russian regime is a democratic and prosperous Ukraine. Because if a “brotherly” nation, as Putin has referred to it on numerous occasions, could thrive in a climate of social freedom, the Russian population could demand this as well, which would ultimately lead to the collapse of the current administration.

Neutrality, moreover, doesn’t also necessarily prevent a Russian military presence. In Moldova — a neutral country — around 2,000 Russian soldiers are present, 500 of them as “peacekeepers,” following the war in Transnistria in 1992. Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, asked (during a conference both authors attended) whether these and other Russian troops stationed in the former Soviet republics should not rather be referred to as “piece keepers” — pun intended.

Umland is also the initiator of an open letter to the German government signed by 73 German experts on Eastern Europe and international security, among them one of the authors of this article. The aim here is to call for a German reaction to the threat the Russian Federation poses to the European security order.

Europe’s Energy Leverage

The new German government hasn’t changed its predecessor’s position regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would provide leverage in the negotiations but is constantly depoliticized by officials. Moreover, drastic sanctions, like excluding Russia from the SWIFT global payment system or even delivering defensive weapons to Ukraine, have been ruled out. The latter is based on what Berlin perceives as its historic responsibility toward Russia for Germany’s role in the Second World War, ironically ignoring that this should also include Ukraine as both were part of the Soviet Union.

But a time is coming when Berlin must weigh up whether it is willing to stand in solidarity with its allies, Ukraine and the principles of international law and self-determination, or if its responsibilities for the past mean it would rather stay in the Kremlin’s good books. In any case, this German factor has long provided the Kremlin with the opportunity to pursue its divide-and-conquer strategy in the European Union.

Perhaps the greatest leverage the EU would have over Russia (and currently vice versa) is the control over the supply of natural gas. Moscow has for far too long fostered Europe’s reliance on Russian natural resources. Dependence works both ways, and if the EU, and especially Germany, were to take control and shut off Russian pipelines into Europe, the consequences would be far worse for Russia.

Painful though it may be at first, it is entirely possible, and such a preemptive tactic — showing Russia that the EU is no longer dependent on its supplies — would have a powerful taming effect on Moscow. It would also spur on the increased diversification of European energy supplies, costing Europe less in the long run. This energy card is currently in German hands.

Negotiations aside, one of the most striking things about this current escalation has been the sidelining of Ukraine’s position. If we’ve learned anything from history, it is that smaller countries should not be overlooked as their voices are silenced. We’ve seen this situation before: excessive demands, promises of being satisfied if conditions are met, protecting citizens, peaceful intentions but ready for war. All this sounds too familiar. Yet again, the wishes of the main country involved — in this case, Ukraine — are not being respected.

We should not repeat the same mistakes from 100, 80 or even just eight years ago. Ukraine has made its move, and so has Russia. It is now up to the West to come together and show Russia that aggression no longer pays.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

There is so much more at stake here than just peace in Europe. We need to understand that this is a direct attack on Europe’s collective achievements over the past decades. Ukrainians contributed to these achievements with the Maidan Revolution in 2014. The EU failed them then, so we must not fail Ukraine again. Otherwise, the hopes for democratic development in the east of the European continent will just be a piece of history, never to return.

*[Fair Observer is a media partner of Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post In Ukraine, More Than European Peace Is at Stake appeared first on Fair Observer.