The russian motives for invading Ukraine; part two

Draft version

In this second part I describe the russian imperial mindset which served as foundation for the russian invasion of Ukraine. Then, in the third and last part of the same title, I will explain the timing of the invasion.

The diminished concept of nation, the heightened concept of state

As in many other cultures, in the russian empire both words «nation» and «state» refer to different meanings depending on the context. Thus, in order to avoid «losing or misinterpreting any concept in translation», I cite translated the definitions of those words from an average russian dictionary, content in brackets added by me:

state [государство]

  1. The political form of organization of society that governs society and protects its economic and social structure.

    1. A country with a specific political system.
    2. A system of governing bodies.

The definition of «A country with a specific political system» appears tangentially included; and in some dictionaries does not appear at all.

nation [нация]

  1. A historically established stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, as well as on the basis of a national culture specific to a given ethnic group, voluntarily and naturally accepted by all, and the national interest formed on its basis.
  2. State, country.

Now lets check the beginning of the current russian constitution, as it reflects the official imperial point of view; cite, translated, content in brackets added by me::

Article 1

  1. The Russian Federation - Russia is a democratic federal state [государство] governed by the rule of law with a republican form of government.
  2. The names Russian Federation and Russia are equivalent.

. . .

Article 3

  1. The bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.
  2. . . .

In ordinary language, at least in north America, people rarely utilize the word «nation» to refer to a group of people without (independent) sovereignty. Rather, people refer to a «nation» assuming sovereignty, unless otherwise specified, as «the body of inhabitants of a country, united under an independent government of their own.» [1913 Webster] or any similar definition. And only whenever required to distinguish between the purely ethnological meaning, and the usual meaning, people utilize the explicit compound «nation-state» in contrast to a simple ethnological «nation».

Yet, in Russia «nations» without (independent) sovereignty result the norm, not the exception.

And there, in the very definition of what constitutes Russia, the people results of secondary importance, while the state the indispensable part.

The vassals of the state

The article by Vladimir Putin «On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians», from the year 2021, offers current data about the russian imperial mindset. The russian autocrat starts by saying; cite, clarification in brackets added by me:

when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe.

. . .

[makes a lengthy attempt to justify such supposed union on the basis of ethnicity]

In part one of this title, I already showed the falsehood of pretending such automatic «unity by ethnicity». Then, in following paragraphs, the autocrat says:

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

So the «russian state» resulted robbed; considering that a single people —as he defined ukrainians and russians— cannot «rob itself». And, immediately afterwards, the autocrat sets clear his desire to return to the imperial past; cite:

You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.

In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you.

Accordingly, the man pretends to utilize the 17th-century russian empire as the basis for the distribution of land in the 21th century. However, before the collapse of the Romanov dinasty and the subsequent civil war, the formal russian empire owned the land, not the ukrainian vassals. And, in such vision, «the real russians» inherited the rights of that empire.

The trauma of the «Kievan Rus»

In order to fully understand this mentality which attempts to resuscitate the events of several centuries ago, one must look right into the foundation of the empire, and the mythology that served for creating a «glorious past» for it.

According to a recount of legendary events, the proto-state of Kievan Rus —based in Kyiv— got founded around the year 878. This proto-state continued until about 1237, when the mongols invaded it during the expansion of their hordes. During the heyday of Kievan Rus, Muscovy resulted, at most, a very remote peripheral village in a loose constellation of tribes. Then, approximately during the next two centuries the several slavic tribes of the region became vassals of the mongols to diverse degrees.

This factual destruction and termination of Kievan Rus resulted not an impediment for the autocrat of Moscow to adopt the title of «tsar and grand prince of all Rus (or Russia)» about 300 years later (in the 16th century). Thus, at this stage of the construction of the russian empire, the new state adopted the legendary history of the foundation of Kievan Rus as their own legendary history; and the muscovites considered themselves the legitimate successors of that proto-state. Thereafter, the muscovites internalized their own propaganda, which served as cover to legitimize their ambition of imperial dominion over other slavic tribes.

And now, when the russian empire wants to return to the status quo of the 17th century (as expressed textually by the current russian autocrat), the seat of their adopted ancestral and legendary history stands in the hands of the descendants of tribes distinct to that of Moscow. There the historical trauma of the current russian imperialists.

Furthermore, a sizeable part of the population of the russian empire consists of those individuals whose ancestors assimilated into local societies during the centuries of rule of the Golden Horde over slavic tribes, and over all the eurasian steppe. Nonetheless, as «the real russians» result those of «russian ethnicity of slavic descent», the imperial army marches towards Kyiv, rather than marching towards Mongolia. For, if the ruling russians considered the persons of mongol descent as equals, then those ruling russians would feel equally motivated to capture their ancestral mongolian homelands.


The subject of this record will continue in the third and last part of the same title.


--
Anders Baerbock
2025.334





References:
[https://что-означает.рф/государство] «Ефремова Т.Ф. Толковый словарь русского языка.»
[https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/государство] Alternative definitions.
[http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181]
[http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181]