In a recent interview with the far-right American TV host and propagandist Tucker Carlson, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, among other things, made yet another attempt to present his own perverted view of history. Whether it is appropriate to interview a person accused of overseeing war crimes and genocide, as well as why the Moscow dictator agreed to talk in the first place – is another question. Below, Ihor Stambol, a Ukrainian historian, writer, and associate professor at Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, carefully examines a number of historical facts distorted by Putin. This largely echoes already familiar Moscow narratives and propagandist pseudoscience. What sets Putin apart is his labelling the facts he dislikes as “unclear reasons”.
Putin, in addition to embodying all the psychological traits that define him as a typical thug, also, as we see, harbours a great fondness for history (just kidding). When politics fail to justify one’s actions, one resorts to history, bending it to fit his narrative. This tactic is nothing new; Mussolini appealed to the history of the Roman Empire, and Hitler distorted accounts of the Crusades and the concept of Aryans. War crimes and aggression are easily rationalised under the guise of a fake historical justice, while only a few bother to verify its accuracy. The dictator’s authority alone commands obedient belief; after all, can someone whom millions have trusted really lie? Yet, he shamelessly lies.
Overall, the history of what is termed “Russia,” or more precisely, Muscovy, referring to the territory around the Kremlin until the 18th century, relates to Kyivan Rus’ in the same way as Romania relates to the Roman Empire. Imagine if modern Romanians were to wage war against Italy to ‘reclaim’ their ‘former metropolis’. But instead, Romanians acknowledge their connection to the Dacians and build their identity upon it. Yet, Putin and his supporters stubbornly disregard the fact that anchoring their identity in the historical myth of Rus’ leads nowhere, as Ukraine, the authentic historical territory of Rus’, does not belong to them. Hence, it would be worthwhile for Russians to explore the roots of their statehood and national identity within the history of the Mongol Golden Horde or the Ugro-Finnic tribes.
Putin’s Lies
So, where does Putin distort history in his articles or speeches? Firstly, he echoes the propagandist thesis, first articulated during the Romanov era, alleging that after the Mongol conquest of Kyiv, the territories of Ukraine supposedly lost their sovereignty. He claims that the centre of Rus’ shifted to the geographical area where Moscow now stands. However, he conveniently ignores the existence of the Galician-Volyn Principality or the Kingdom of Rus’, which thrived for another two centuries and had its own monarchs. In the city of Halych, not far from modern Lviv, there was a king who was crowned by the Pope of Rome and styled himself as the King of Rus’, yet Putin simply doesn’t mention him. Interestingly enough, when Rus’-Ukraine had its own monarchs, the region around Moscow was merely a typical vassal of the Golden Horde.
Secondly, Putin has become deeply entangled in his own spurious interpretations regarding the name “Ukraine”: at times, he claims it stems from the word “okraina” (Russian for “borderland”) of Muscovy, while on other occasions, he seems to claim that Ukraine is allegedly the “borderland” of Poland. In reality, as with many other nations, Ukraine’s name derives from the word “kray”, simply meaning “our territory” or “land”. Naturally, Putin asserts that he has never heard of such a definition.
Another myth perpetuated by Putin is the supposed ‘invention’ of Ukraine by the Austrian General Staff during World War I. Yes, at that time, the Central Powers supported the separation of Ukraine from the Russian Empire. However, it was rooted in the aspirations of Ukrainians themselves, as articulated in numerous political works written by Ukrainian leaders throughout the 19th century. Interestingly, Putin references such leaders but emphasises that they consistently advocated for an independent Ukraine to maintain friendly ties with Muscovy. The reality is that Ukrainian intellectuals did indeed argue for amicable relations with Moscow on equal footing. They also underscored that this could only occur when Moscow embraced democracy and liberalism. Naturally, as a dictator who has held power for over 20 years, Putin conveniently sidesteps these points.
The myth of ‘commonality’ between the Ukrainian language and culture with Muscovy is also patently absurd, a fact that perhaps even Putin himself seems to question. He fabricates figures about the percentage of shared vocabulary in dictionaries, claiming it’s 90 per cent when, in reality, it’s just nearly 60 per cent. Furthermore, from a cultural point of view, a simple comparison of national costumes or Christmas carols – a unique Christmas tradition that Russians do not have – reveals the stark differences. Other supposed commonalities that Putin refers to, such as family and economic ties or shared historical events, are nothing more than the aftermath of the Kremlin’s centuries-long colonial and assimilationist policies. Hence, all these ‘examples’ are nothing more than typical manipulation tactics.
Putin’s preposterous claims to Ukraine’s southern territories, which, he argues, were ‘reclaimed’ by the Russian Empire from Turkey, are absurdly similar to his own phrase that Russia would have won the war against Hitler by itself without the contribution of other peoples of the USSR. The colonisation of the so-called “New Russia” in the 19th century was largely done at the expense of the Ukrainian peasantry and the grain they cultivated, which was the main export product. Additionally, Putin declares Russians the titular nation of Crimea, forgetting about the local indigenous population – the Crimean Tatars.
Putin frequently asserts that the borders of Ukraine were ‘created by Stalin’. To some extent, this is as accurate as the fact that he also incidentally created the borders of the modern-day Russian Federation. Hence, by disavowing this status quo, Putin effectively opens the door to a reconsideration of the current Russian borders. However, his assertion that Ukraine did not exist before Stalin is deceptive and patently false. The Moscow Bolsheviks recognised the existence of Soviet Ukraine only because from 1917 to 1921, the Ukrainian People’s Republic existed, acknowledged by numerous European countries and even by the Bolsheviks themselves in 1918.
Putin’s Manipulations
When a dictator instructs his aide to fetch copies of documents in a folder, it’s a laughable move. It is as laughable as searching for Ukraine on a 17th-century map and excavating amphorae from the Crimean coast in an effort to appear “impressive.” However, these actions merely underscore the propagandists’ insecurities. Moreover, the methods he employed are so old-fashioned that even a first-grader could be more persuasive.
Yet, Putin is not a first-grader; he is a figure responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and many of Russia’s neighbours he continues to terrorise – Ukraine is one of them. That’s precisely why we’re compelled to scrutinise his actions. He manipulates historical facts to justify his crimes as well as those of his bloodthirsty predecessor, Stalin. To paint Stalin as a “righteous” leader, Putin highlights “Poland’s collaboration with Germany” in the so-called “Munich Agreement.” According to his narrative, because the Poles refused to cede Danzig, they “provoked” Hitler into war. And since the USSR aided Germany in executing its plans, Putin likely possesses documents in the archive that tell a different story – perhaps he could present them, akin to how Lukashenko once brandished maps depicting Ukraine’s “upcoming attack”.
Another cynical manipulation skillfully executed by Putin revolves around the “Nazism of Ukrainians”. It seems like Putin hired history teachers, and they help him understand the confusion of his own statements. It turns out that, according to Putin, in Ukraine, it’s not about the existence of a specific ideology or policy, but this is “because they celebrate Bandera and Shukhevych” (in fact, during his interview, Putin accidentally misspelt Shukhevych’s name and called him “Shushkevych” – a Belarusian politician; this is a telling slip, as it has been a recurring theme in the rhetoric of many other Ukrainophobes, which likely indicates their complete lack of knowledge about specific historical figures). Of course, to portray Ukrainian leaders in a negative light, Putin, even without evidence in his archives, baselessly links them to the Holocaust. He goes further to suggest that Ukrainian nationalists incited “massacres” on the Polish, Jewish, and… Russian populations. While numerous Russian attempts to vilify Ukrainians and tie them to the extermination of Jews by the Nazis are not unprecedented in Moscow’s propaganda, attributing “massacres” on the “Russian people” is a newly employed myth. What does this imply? Is Putin insinuating that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army’s resistance against the brutal Russian NKVD (Soviet People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) amounts to a “massacre” of the Russian people, or is he simply speaking without any consideration?
Putin’s “Unclear Reasons”
Everything that doesn’t align with Putin’s propaganda is concealed, and the dictator pretends not to understand it. For example, the fact that at some point, the Soviet Union pursued the policy of “indigenisation”, which included encouraging local cultures and appealing to the local identities of the subjugated peoples in order to appear “familiar” rather than simply occupiers. If Putin truly fails to grasp these cunning hybrid strategies employed by his predecessors, Lenin and Stalin, it speaks volumes about his current mental acuity.
Additionally, Putin, the self-proclaimed “historian,” describes Russia’s decision to recognise the independence of several former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, as “unclear”. Furthermore, he falsely asserts that the initiative originated from Moscow. He was a witness to those events and cannot be unaware that Moscow lacked the power and resources, both in terms of the police force and the army, to contain the “festival of sovereignties” of the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, it’s evident that neither his predecessor Yeltsin nor Putin himself ever seriously considered recognising Ukraine’s independence by the Russian government, and, on every occasion, their goal to keep Ukrainians in their sphere of influence was expressed publicly and in private conversations. Putin conveniently forgets Russia’s endless economic pressure on Ukraine or its bullish energy resource blackmail, as well as its promise made in Budapest to respect and protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Instead, Putin resorts to invoking nonexistent Nazism in Ukraine.
Hence, in short, Putin’s manipulation of history amounts to nothing more than propaganda, while his manic preoccupation with pseudo-historical lectures suggests a dearth of genuine arguments and motives for Russia’s military aggression and its genocidal schemes. What’s truly intriguing is whether Putin and his inner circle genuinely recognise their old-fashioned imperial nature and comprehend the consequences history holds for those responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
