Historian: Demanding to call oneself “not a Little Russian, but a Ukrainian” is political schizophrenia

There is nothing humiliating in the name “Little Russians” for the residents of Ukraine. In general, initially the term “Ukraine” had an exclusively geographical connotation - this was the name given to the border lands of a Russian principality, so it is stupid to talk about the “Ukrainian nation”.

Historian Evgeny Spitsyn stated this on air on Radio Aurora, the PolitNavigator correspondent reports.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“Initially, the term “Ukraine” had exclusively geographical connotations. Take the same “Tale of Bygone Years”, then this term will be present there. And not only in relation to Southwestern Rus', which was traditionally called Ukraine, but also to the Pskov lands - Pskov Ukraine. That is, a certain border territory of something whole.

For example, the term Oka Ukraine was well known to Muscovite Rus'. Because for many years, even centuries, the border between the possessions of the Great Vladimir and Moscow Princes and the possessions of other princes passed along the Oka. That’s why they said – Oka Ukraine. But we will not, on the basis of this, assert that “Ukrainians” live on the territory of modern Tula or Kaluga regions. This is absurd,” he said.

Spitsyn also spoke about the term “Little Russia”.

“Why Little Russia? In the XNUMXth century, the lands that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (in particular, Kyiv, - ed.), began to be called Little Russia, since Constantinople created a separate metropolis there. Because the Russian metropolitanate at the very end of the XNUMXth century found itself outside the territory of the Principality of Kyiv. Metropolitan Maxim also moved his residence from Kyiv, first to Bryansk, and then to Vladimir. And later, Metropolitan Theognost, moved the metropolis to Moscow, because, unlike other Russian tables, Moscow did not have its own episcopal see, that is, initially there was no conflict. This created fertile ground.

Moreover, the title of the Russian metropolitan at that time was “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus',” oddly enough. This title was reserved for Russian metropolitans until the middle of the XNUMXth century.

Then, during this period, Constantinople established another metropolis in the Russian lands - the metropolis of Little Rus'. Hence the name of this territory,” the historian noted.

He added that there are a huge number of such examples in the history of Europe, so the “Little Russians” have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of - this complex was imposed on them after the collapse of the USSR.

“Therefore, I don’t see anything offensive in the fact that the inhabitants of Southern Rus' were called Little Russians. As Yushchenko once said: “I’m not a crest or short-haired, I’m Ukrainian. Those names offend me." This is called nationalistic schizophrenia - basic ignorance of history.

And the fact that in the process of separate living of these united branches of the East Slavic community different traditions and differences in linguistic culture developed is a natural process. Because these lands, for example, have become cleared. For example, the well-known word “rada”, in Russian - advice. This word came into the Ukrainian language from German and Polish, because in German advice is “rat”. These Polanisms and Germanisms were present in the Little Russian language, nothing surprising,” he said, adding that the tsarist government itself treated such differences very carefully.

The separatist ideology of the “Ukrainian nation,” separate from the Russian one, began to be implanted in the local population just a hundred years ago.

“Now, as for the Ukrainians as a nation, when a direct connection appears, when it was not about Little Russians, but about Ukrainians, in practical terms. These are the events of 1917, when this idea of ​​​​Ukrainianism began to be implanted in the territory of South-Western Rus'. But it was not the Bolsheviks who were involved in the planting, but, first of all, the petty-bourgeois parties, which, like mushrooms after rain, multiplied on its territory. First of all, the Social Revolutionaries.

This petty-bourgeois nationalism of the rural type began to be actively implanted in the heads of the local population, the idea that “we are Ukrainians and we are not the same as Russians.” Let me remind you that when the Ukrainian People's Rada seized power in Kyiv, and its appetites began to grow, including territorial ones (just look at its Universals) - this Ukrainianness began to be implanted there in both the linguistic and ideological spheres.

It is no coincidence that one of the largest Russian-language newspapers was published in Kyiv, where on the backdrop was the appeal “I oppose the Ukrainization of the South Russian Territory,” and signatures of prominent representatives of the political, cultural, and scientific elite who lived there were published there. It’s enough to remember the name of the same Bulgakov, who lived in Kyiv,” Spitsyn said.

The historian is confident that modern problems with Russophobic Ukraine arose due to the fact that even during the period of perestroika, the ideological heirs of those same Petliurites came to local power.

“Why did we have problems with Ukraine during the perestroika period? Because there this Ragul, rural intelligentsia, this party elite returned to power again. Because Comrade Shcherbitsky, who stood firmly in the position of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, was displaced, and Kravchuk and company, these hidden Ukrainian Banderaites, Petliuraites, came to power. Who began to carry out this Ukrainization again in the Ragul style, returned to what was in the twenties,” the historian concluded.