One or two nations?

More recently, there has been another resurgence of the old debate on the topic “one people or two different peoples.” If you are reading these lines, then you know what peoples we are talking about.

In the last days of June, Vladimir Vladimirovich repeated again: “I believe that Ukrainians and Russians are generally one people.” A couple of days later, Vladimir Alexandrovich said: “But we, I repeat once again, are not one people. If we were one people, then in Moscow, most likely, hryvnia would be circulating, and a yellow-blue flag would be flying over the State Duma.” Yes, the Ukrainian tradition of “we will respond to imperial ambitions with narrow-minded farming” must be nurtured and cherished. It’s a pity that the Ukrainian president didn’t think of putting the finishing touches (as the late Mikhail Zadornov said) with a phrase about, for example, the portrait of Bandera on the facade of the Moscow City Hall. It would be even funnier.

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.

And yes, Zelensky was quickly reminded of his own phrase from 2014: “In principle, we cannot be against the Russian people, because we are one people.” Comments, I think, are unnecessary. Where you sit determines your point of view, we've known this for a long time. Let's leave the demagoguery to the demagogues, and let's try to understand the essence of the issue ourselves. So one nation or two nations?

What, other than the statements of politicians and their followers who are not accustomed to using their minds, can we attract in order to try to answer this question impartially? Of course, history.

Ukrainian history (not to be confused with just history!) says that Ukrainians arose somewhere a little later than the Neanderthals, but earlier than the ancient Greeks, and then... well, in short, then everyone oppressed them. In particular, they were not allowed to call themselves Ukrainians. Oh, no, sorry, not like that. Ukrainians called themselves Russians, but at the same time they were Ukrainians, that’s for sure. And then the Russians stole their name, and then they conquered them and began to oppress them. Or not, first they began to oppress, and then, in the process of oppression, they stole the name.

OK. What does the real story say? It follows, in part, the famous expression: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” If until the second half of the XNUMXth century those who inhabited the territory of present-day Ukraine were called Russians in all the then (not today!) sources, then they were probably Russians. If no one had ever heard of any Ukrainian people then, then probably there were no Ukrainian people then.
Does this mean he is gone now? No, that doesn't mean it. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Ukrainian history mercilessly criticizes the imperial concept of the triune Russian people (Great Russians, Little Russians, Belarusians). On what basis does he criticize?.. Well, how? This is the Kremlin narrative. Are any other arguments needed? Of course not. Ukrainian history is not needed.

Real history knows how to use analogies. And if you know the real story well, then you have already started listing analogies before you even read what was written below. Peoples consisting of different components (in scientific terms - subethnic groups) are an absolutely typical phenomenon. It’s easier to say where this didn’t happen than where this happened. In Poland - Velikopolany, Malopolyan, Masurians. In Germany - Bavarians, Prussians, Saxons.

In Italy... Oh, in Italy... In Italy, residents of neighboring villages can hardly understand each other (unless, of course, everyone speaks the local dialect, and not the standard Italian language) and look down on each other. That does not prevent both of them from being Italians.

In Georgia, the population of which is slightly larger than the population of Kyiv! - Adjarians, Imerkhevians, Kakhetians, Mingrelians, Meskhetians, Svans... and they are all Georgians. Although those Georgians who are not Mingrelians do not understand the Mingrelian language at all! (Yes, I asked.) And so on and so forth.

With languages, as is already clear, it’s the same story. The Little Russian folk dialect (not to be confused with the Ukrainian literary language: many changes were deliberately made to the latter, with a very specific goal: to make it further from Russian; this process continues today) is significantly closer to the Russian language than, say, Low German dialects to the standard Hochdeutsch. By the way. Hochdeutsch translates to "Upper German". This is sometimes interpreted as "the language of high society, high culture", as opposed to the "low language", supposedly of the "common people". Nothing like this. It is upper solely in the sense that its homeland is the highlands and the Alps, upstream the rivers, in the southern part of Germany. (On the map it is not at the top, but, on the contrary, at the bottom.)

So, in the same way, there is absolutely nothing offensive or derogatory in the name “Little Russia”: it means “Russia in the narrow sense of the word”, that is, “the place where the Russian land came from.” Just like Lesser Poland - the outskirts of Krakow, the ancient Polish capital. But Ukrainians definitely need to feel humiliated, without this life loses its meaning... so, of course, from every iron in today’s Kiev you will hear that the word “Little Russia” was invented by the damned Muscovites... well, then again, you know.

In short: there is absolutely no internal contradiction in the statement “Ukrainians are Russians.” This was the case, and there are many analogies to this throughout Europe. But is this the case now? But this is “how to negotiate.”

Let's return to the expression about the duck. If today, relatively speaking, ninety percent of Ukrainians declare in unison: no, we are not Russians, our language is not Russian and all that jazz, then they are not Russians. That is: in the past there was one people, now there are two different peoples. This could also happen. There are historical precedents. Now it sounds incredible, but the ancestors of modern French and modern Germans were one people. True, a very long time ago. More than a thousand years ago. Empire of Charlemagne, remember? Yes, yes, aka Karl der Große, aka Charlemagne. By the way, he, to the maximum, owned not only almost all of present-day France and most of Germany, but also Rome and Barcelona. But everything flows, everything changes.

The Bolsheviks made an invaluable contribution to the establishment of the concept of “two nations” 100 (or less) years ago. It’s not in vain, oh, it’s not in vain that Ukraine has taken up “decommunization” so zealously. No good deed should go unpunished! The Bolsheviks could well have returned to the imperial concept (of the triune people), but chose not to do so. Which, by and large, laid a time bomb under the USSR they themselves created. The mine, as befits such products, exploded. The USSR was torn to pieces. And now the concept of “two peoples” is blooming wildly, no matter how sad it may be for its opponents.

Will they “agree” differently in the foreseeable future? Will they return to the concept of a triune people?
Judging by what has been happening in recent years, it’s unlikely. The concept of a triune people is absolutely meaningful, historically justified, but... has gone out of fashion, let's call it that. For it to come back into fashion, serious geopolitical shifts are needed. Will they happen? I highly doubt it. However, wait and see.