Ukraine: An Illustrated History Book

"It remains to be seen whether the events of 2004 marked just another change in government or whether the Orange Revolution has indeed set the groundwork for serious reform and a wide ranging transformation of Ukrainain society."

Without a doubt, this closing statement rings loud and clear and for our modern ears still begging for some sort of definite answer as we near the final months of 2014. There are more than a few moments where we realize that nearly 10 years following the Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian nation continues to fall prey to its repeated (and almost circular) history. I suppose it is appropriate to avoid the heavy propaganda war that has continued to toil underneath the persisting (and very real) violence that plagues the Ukrainian lands as of late. But it is striking to read through the historical and political divide through the lens of this modern version of what some are deeming a second Cold War. For example:

"Central to Hitler's plans for a new Germany was territorial expansion in order to assure that that the German people had sufficient living space... Hitler first turned to his immediate neighbours, annexing Austria and threatening Czechoslovakia. He accused that Slavic state of violating the rights of its three million strong German minority living in (Czechoslovakia)."

If this sounds familiar, it should come as no surprise. Many wonder whether the world had payed more attention to Hitler in these early moments whether the war could have been avoided altogether. Many still wonder about the slow and weak response of the West to Putin's continued push to protect the Russian people living on Ukrainian soil, and the impact it might have on a greater future war. The situation is complicated. But history can also offer a sure commentary. In the case of the Ukraine we be assured that the sheer "exhaustion" of changing rule, government, borders and and economics has taken a toll. Thankfully though, many who see themselves as Ukrainian (and those who genuinely are) feel they are stronger for it. Having now spent some time in this uplifting and optimistic country, it would seem there remains a spirit of determination that will not allow them to give up, even after so many years of conflict and such a complicated history.

Much of the current conflict that exists in the Ukraine can be attributed to three factors:
1. The remaining shadow of the soviet vision
2. The East/West divide
3. The decision to adapt a Unitary model (power centralized in Kiev and the President) as opposed to a federal state model (such as in Austria where individual regions are self governed under the guidance and limits of a wider national law).

The Shadow of the Soviet Vision
All three of the above issues speak to one of the most difficult aspects of defining the "Ukrainian" ethnicity. The problem lies in pushing through the mix of cultures, the constantly changing borders, the infighting and constant gravitation between aligning with surrounding peoples for the sake of stability and progress and claiming a decisive identity in opposition to an opposing national force. I would think though, given the attention on Russia in our modern day, that it is fair to say that where claims of territorial rights is broached, these rights need to be filtered through the whole of history and not just part. For example, while those in Crimea are quick to suggest a return to the "motherland" that owns them, what they neglect to recognize is that the Russians were in fact the "last" group to colonize this area. To arrive at Russia one must first move through the Greeks and Tatars and Italians above all else.

When the Ukrainian lands first moved from nomadic to settled, the southern parts were strongly Greek while the central/north/western parts were essentially Slavic. From here history presents a complicated discussion given that the Slavs are directly connected to some of the major groups that would arise, including the Russians and Belarus. From the Slavs we would arrive at the Kievan-Rus consolidation of territory, a consolidation that reached across much different borders than any of our modern day countries. Out of Kiev would rule the prince, but the ruling lands (which was known as the territory ruled by Volodymyr the Great, otherwise known as the term "Rus") was quite erratic and wide.

During the rule of Volodymyr the Great Christianity was brought in as a means of unifying the lands. The Byzatine missionaries created the Cyrillic alphabet for the Slavs as a means of unifying the land. Therefore, it was not long before to see oneself as "Rus" was to also see oneself as under the eastern rite (orthodox) church. Out of this we also find a created "common myth" of history that the land, united under power and religion, could now call their own.

As time moved forward, the Kievan-Rus land and the Christian identity grew and diversified, eventually self destructing under the inability to contain a unified structure, and also the inability to withstand invasions (such as the Mongol invasion). The book itself moves chapter by chapter through each section of this history and beyond, providing us with a map to navigate the changing structure at each fork in the road. We move then through Polish and Austrian rule, and Lithuanian rule (in the 1340's this eastern european land was divided between the Poles and Luthuania, and eventually combined in to a commonweatlh). Out of this commonwealth we see a divide between the Polish (Western leaning) Rus that adhered to the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eeasern Rus which adhered to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What complicated this moving forward was the idea of battling for a nationalistic identity as a Ukrainian from the divided peasant lands and the more direct ruling forces (nobility). At this time, the political powers and the religious were one in the same. This is what intensified the battle not just for orthodoxy, but also in the peasant lands. Moving forward, this would start a battle of allies being built around orthodoxy and social reform through the north/west and east Ukraine. The group that would defend orthodoxy would be called the Cossacks. We can see history begin to shift all over the place here as we see Russia and Poland begin to take particular control, and then Austria and Russian empires.

What is important to note here is the persistence in the Ukrainian lands throughout this process in determining and maintaining some sense of autonomy and identity under these different ruling forces. This would shift back and forth in terms of alliances and rivals, especially in terms of what allowed them the greatest opportunity thrive. What we see in the developing history at this point is the further divide between east and west, the sharpening tension between religious affiliation from east and west, and the push and shove to develop as a people, language and economy. Even as we move through the first world war and the Soviet Union, we see a certain social divide on the ground level in terms of what it meant to be an independent people. Not everyone agreed on what that looked like, and the slow infiltration (and gradual definition) of Russian peoples in to the Ukrainian culture (particularly in the eastern industrialization) made it even more complex. One can see this historical relationship coming in to full view, even in the uncertain picture of political and national battles between areas such as Romania and Poland and Austria and Germany that continued to change the traditional look of of the Ukrainian borders. While some would try and push the Ukrainian nationalism down, others would begin to stand up and fight, certainly as we move through the history of the famine and the second world war, and eventually the demise of the soviet union. The same story can be told of southern Ukraine, although it continues to travel a slightly different path, given that Crimea continue to remain the one autonomous part of the Ukraine, and the Odessa region continues to see its history outside of the lens of the central and western lens.

It would be fair to say, and I think this illustrated history points this out nicely, that the story of Ukraine is one of constant social reform in the midst of a wider battle for world power going on around them. It is not surprising to see the Ukraine seemingly stuck in the middle of a modern battle between East and West that still rages. And yet the reform still comes from the people, from the ground. It is a reform of freedom and democracy, but one that also flavours the sort of socialist construct that can allow a country characterized by the peasantry (working class, farmers, and diverse communities made up of Greeks, Romanians, Slavs, Germans, Russians, ext.) to flourish and be self dependent and cooperative. It is the same old story of powers pushing the boundary lines of their people, and of distinct ethnicities trying to weave a story of nationalist pride as an excuse to disregard the Ukrainian identity. And yet Ukraine as a country, as a people continues to exist and continues to exist. One would think that the modern landscape of overall democracy, a more united front of non-violent tactics would allow the Ukrainian independence to finally take shape and flourish. But stories of corruption and power persist, even if it has been largely non-violent. This is the unfortunate part of the Ukraine's recent history. The Orange Revolution brought hope, but it also allowed a corrupted power to hurt the socialist tendencies that make Ukraine what it is. The divide between rich and poor still remains today and is just being dealt with. The Ukraine's push to align with the West opens it up to the dangers of this sort of democracy, while the push of the East is to retain a part of the Soviet heritage. And yet, the overwhelming picture on the ground is one of a desire of a common identity as Ukrainian, even as a Russian speaking population. The balance between communist tendencies and western democracy is achieved by a united front between East and West. This is what is necessary to stop the modern dilemma. It is what Russia continues to prey upon, and it is what Russia continues to meddle between so as to keep from happening. On the other hand, the current president also has a tough road to travel so as to not throw this balance off in the other direction as well. History has dealt the Ukraine a tough hand in leaving it directly in the middle of the east/west divide without a solid sense of land and boundaries. But it has developed at the same time a strong people, a people not ready to give up and a people not willing to give in. This is what they built their visible and patriotic culture on in recent history. They have shown that when they are given the chance they rise to the challenge of creating a strong and vibrant culture and a a thriving, socially conscious economy. If the powers that be could finally quit focussing on their own squabbles and let this country be who they desire to be, it would be a wonderful thing to see what they could finally become.