Ukraine, from an historical-anthropological point of view


Johan Leman, 7 March 2022

Sometimes it is interesting to take a historical-anthropological approach to conflicts. Of course, this can only be done very schematically and incompletely in a short blog. What we can do, however, is to briefly sketch the enormous complexity of the history of the origin of a region. Historical anthropology analyses a region in terms of the long periods of time during which a dominant political regime applied (the “longue durée”) and the most traumatic conflicts. We will go through this briefly.

Ukraine or parts of it have known many invasions in their history: Mongols, Russians, Poles, Swedes, French (Napoleon), Germans (Hitler),… That, as a general observation. A point of pride in the relationship with Russia is that Kiev was founded as early as the 4th century, while Moscow was founded only in the 12th and St Petersburg in the early 17th century. This plays into Putin’s attitude today towards Kiev, which he wants to see historically as the first major Russian city. That there has been a western and an eastern region in Ukraine is historically-anthropologically a fact, with the Dniepr River as the natural dividing line. The west is predominantly Greek-Catholic. The east is Russian Orthodox, but spread over two patriarchates, one allied to Kiev and another one to Moscow.

What is important is what happened in the 17th century, when the eastern part has been partly russified. In the 16th century the western part had become Polish, to be incorporated in the Habsburg Empire (centre: Austria) in the 18th century. At the end of the 18th century, the eastern part, including Kiev, was taken by Russia.

In 1922 Ukraine, recognised as a nation (by Lenin and later confirmed as a nation by Stalin) became part of the USSR. This is something Putin calls a historical mistake by Lenin. However, Stalin treated Ukraine as a vassal state and exploited Ukraine cruelly to the maximum, leading in 1929-1931 to the Holodomor , a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. Perhaps under the influence of this prolonged oppression, many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans and Nazism as liberators in 1941, which again led to severe punishments by the soviets after the war. It is also true that during WWII there was heavy persecution of Jews in Ukraine, as also in some other Eastern European countries. In 1953 Stalin died. The USSR compensated for the suffering by giving Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

In 1991, Ukraine became independent, and at some point Putin and an “inner circle” around him apparently decided to first take back Crimea… and now it is to be seen what he himself would like to get back still in addition… I can imagine that he has several plans, which raises the question of how many he would like to see realised: taking back the most Russianised provinces? Take back the east including Kiev? The whole Ukraine? More?

Two lessons: 1. Some traumas in the past easily lead to new traumas… and the question is how such a vicious circle can be ended; 2. although Christianity is predominantly present in Ukraine (and also in Russia), the institutions that structure it are not in a position to give the doctrine of Christian brotherhood and practice so much weight, and certainly not for the Kremlin, so that a bloody mutual brotherhood and sisterhood struggle has no chance. A sad story.

Back