This is the first part in a series on Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. This
topic will be approached in part from the perspective of the old
Russian immigration - most of which came from what is now Ukraine and Belarus.
The topic of Ukraine and Belarus, particularly their history, is generally not known by westerners, and most of the information available on the topic is heavily influenced by political forces. The topic of "Russian History" presented to us, tends to be the history of the regions that compose the Russian Federation today. It focuses heavily on the Grand Duchy/Tsardom of Muscovy, and only the major events, cities, personalities, and dynamics of the Russian Empire. This history is more well-known, but still generally biased. This
history almost always neglects the western regions of the broad civilization of which
Moscow is a part: Ukraine and Belarus. This history is told in such a way as to create a division of what is called "Rus" or what simply used to be called "Russia" by way of compartmentalization. In other words, what is termed "Russian History" is really just the study of one portion of a civilization, with the implication that Belarus and Ukraine have always been separate nations, or are perhaps simply unimportant or unconnected places. This is the story of the Old Country, as it continues to
unfold.
We shall start by framing the understanding in western media and education of the relationship of Belarus and Ukraine with Russia, as well as the general perception of Russian nationhood and nationalism.
When discussing Russia, western media primarily upholds narratives associated with geopolitical movements. It is not as concerned with supporting the positions of the groups listed in the following paragraphs (Ukrainianist, Polish, British), it only uses them and allows them to exist in the media ecosystem insofar as they are useful. This media is owned and controlled by the "elites" as it is everywhere. The elites of the west have as their geopolitical goal the weakening - and in some cases the destruction - of the Russian nation, conceptions of Russian nationality, Russophillia, etc. This is because Russia is viewed as an adversary. Most of the media on the topic of Russia is engineered to:
A. Dismiss Russia's national idea.
B. Portray Russia as a unique oppressor throughout history (much like some critics of America do, such as the 1619 Project).
C. Assert that Russia is a usurper of the heritage of Kievan Rus, that the Tsars of Moscow/St.Petersburg unrightfully ruled what is now Ukraine and Belarus, and that there has always been a deep distinction between Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
Ukrainian nationalists are arguably the most activistic Slavic group in America, and manage to get their narratives in everywhere. They are highly organized, and their institutions regularly issue press releases. They make a lot of noise, both in news media and academia. Ukrainian nationalists assert that they and their ancestral lands are not a part of Russia, and were always a separate nation. These nationalists assert that the Muscovite Tsars' rule of their lands was a foreign occupation instead of a reunion under their own national ruler. Their narratives mesh with western critiques of empire, royalty, as well as the western obsession with underdogs. They are a passionate lobby and are perpetually putting forth arguments in the public space. They also have stories of suffering such as the Holodomor, or Stalin's purges, which while based on true stories, are not told honestly. For example, they will never admit that the Holodomor also impacted other regions of the USSR, including the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, and did not constitute a genocide as such, nor that it was the local Ukrainian SSR authorities that enforced that man-made famine. At the end of World War 2 many diehard nationalists came to America fleeing from the Red Army (and not all for the same reason). Belarusian nationalists are similar and have similar narratives, but are a much smaller group. They have a different historical process of development, have never been as well organized, and have never had the same "bandwidth" as Ukrainian nationalists.
Now what follows is not an attack on Polish people or nationality. I am simply summarizing the historiography held by many Poles and how it has impacted others. Historically, Poles have been connected to America since its founding. Many Classically Liberal Americans were sympathetic after the Partitions of Poland, especially because of the existence of the Polish Constitution (partitions which reunited the Russian lands previously controlled by Poland). There was always a large Polish diaspora in the US, beginning as early as the 1860s, and from the beginning they were very vocal. Because of these connections, Polish narratives on Russia have been popularized in America. Many Polish immigrants were in fact Polonized gentry from Belarus who fled to escape prosecution for a large revolt that they had conducted. Many of their narratives villainize Russia for things that their own ancestors did to Russia (or "Rus," if you like) earlier in history: political manipulations/subversion, invasion, colonialism, etc. A key part of the historiography held by many Poles is negating the Russianness of Ukraine and Belarus. This is a means of concealing the fact that Poland took over those particular foreign lands and imposed their culture and institutions on them, ultimately causing them to develop distinctions from Muscovy aka "Great Russia" in the first place. This negation of Russianness is also held to join supporters in Ukraine and Belarus to their anti-Russian/anti-Muscovite cause. This was true during Polish Revolts in the 19th century when the Polish minority sought local support (in what's now Ukraine and Belarus), as well as today in modern media that comes out of Poland. It was an historical objective of some Poles to break up the "Russian World" and keep it disunited. And today it is the strategic objective of some Polish political forces to do so, since they want to weaken Russia and establish buffer states in Ukraine and Belarus.
Furthermore, as part of the Anglosphere, the US has always been influenced by Britain. You're probably fully aware of the power competition between the British Empire and Russian Empire. The British often characterized Russia as brutish, backward, and despotic. A generally negative depiction. "...The Russians will not have Constantinople..."
Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian nationalist historical narratives demonize Russia and Russophilia. One could say that Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalist historiography is to Russian history and identity, what Howard Zinn is to American history and identity. As time goes on, these perspectives will continue to influence the development of places like Ukraine and Belarus. So in addition to Realpolitik and contemporary realities, history, I think, is vital to discussions about the here and now. How we tell the story, and how we view it, affects our decisions in our own time.
