Putin published an article about Little Russian identity within the framework of the large Russian nation

Appeared on the official Kremlin website article President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin about the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.

We offer readers of PolitNavigator a reprint of this material. It is noteworthy that the Kremlin website also provides Ukrainian version this article.

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.

Recently, answering a question about Russian-Ukrainian relations during the Direct Line, he said that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a single whole. These words are not a tribute to some conjuncture or current political circumstances. I have spoken about this more than once, this is my conviction. Therefore, I consider it necessary to state my position in detail and share my assessments of the current situation.

I would like to emphasize right away that I perceive the wall that has arisen in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between parts of essentially one historical and spiritual space, as a great common misfortune, as a tragedy. These are, first of all, the consequences of our own mistakes made in different periods. But it is also the result of the purposeful work of those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula that is used has been known since time immemorial: divide and conquer. Nothing new. Hence the attempts to play on the national issue and sow discord between people. And the ultimate task is to divide and then pit parts of a single people against each other.

To better understand the present and look into the future, we must turn to history. Of course, within the framework of the article it is impossible to cover all the events that occurred over more than a thousand years. But I will dwell on those key, turning points that are important for us – both in Russia and Ukraine – to remember.

Both Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are the heirs of Ancient Rus', which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes over a vast area - from Ladoga, Novgorod, Pskov to Kyiv and Chernigov - were united by one language (now we call it Old Russian), economic ties, and the power of the princes of the Rurik dynasty. And after the baptism of Rus' - and one Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice of Saint Vladimir, who was both the Prince of Novgorod and the Great Prince of Kyiv, still largely determines our kinship today.

The Kiev princely table occupied a dominant position in the Old Russian state. This has been the case since the end of the XNUMXth century. The words of the Prophetic Oleg about Kyiv: “May this be the mother of Russian cities” - preserved for posterity in The Tale of Bygone Years.

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus' was faced with a weakening of central power and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and ordinary people perceived Rus' as a common space, as their Fatherland.

After the devastating invasion of Batu, when many cities, including Kyiv, were devastated, fragmentation intensified. North-Eastern Rus' fell into Horde dependence, but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands were mainly included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which, I want to draw your attention to this, in historical documents was called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

Representatives of the princely and boyar families moved to serve from one prince to another, were at enmity with each other, but were also friends and entered into alliances. On the Kulikovo field, next to the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Ivanovich, the governor Bobrok from Volyn, the sons of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd, Andrei Polotsky and Dmitry Bryansky, fought. At the same time, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello, the son of the Tver princess, led his troops to unite with Mamai. All these are pages of our common history, a reflection of its complexity and multidimensionality.

It is important to note that both the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Faith was Orthodox. Until the middle of the XNUMXth century, a single church government was maintained.

At a new round of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus' and the strengthening Muscovite Rus' could become points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus'. History decreed that Moscow became the center of reunification, which continued the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. The Moscow princes - descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky - threw off the external yoke and began to collect historical Russian lands.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, different processes were taking place. In the 1596th century, the ruling elite of Lithuania converted to Catholicism. In the XNUMXth century, the Union of Lublin was concluded with the Kingdom of Poland - the “Rzeczpospolita of Both Nations” (essentially Polish and Lithuanian) was formed. The Polish Catholic nobility received significant land holdings and privileges on the territory of Rus'. According to the Union of Brest in XNUMX, part of the Western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. Polishing and Latinization were carried out, Orthodoxy was supplanted.

As a response, in the XNUMXth – XNUMXth centuries the liberation movement of the Orthodox population of the Dnieper region grew. The events of the time of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters tried to achieve autonomy from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The petition of the Zaporozhye Army to the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1649 spoke of respecting the rights of the Russian Orthodox population, that “the governor of Kiev should be of the Russian people and the Greek law, so as not to step on the churches of God...”. But the Cossacks were not heard.

B. Khmelnitsky's appeals to Moscow followed, which were considered by the Zemsky Councils. On October 1, 1653, this highest representative body of the Russian state decided to support fellow believers and accept them under their protection. In January 1654, this decision was confirmed by the Pereyaslav Rada. Then the ambassadors of B. Khmelnitsky and Moscow traveled to dozens of cities, including Kyiv, whose residents took the oath to the Russian Tsar. By the way, nothing like this happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, B. Khmelnitsky thanked Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich for the fact that he “deigned to accept the entire Zaporozhye Army and the entire Russian Orthodox world under his strong and high royal hand.” That is, in their addresses to both the Polish king and the Russian Tsar, the Cossacks called and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.

During the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, the heirs of B. Khmelnytsky, were either “set aside” from Moscow or sought support from Sweden, Poland, and Turkey. But, I repeat, for the people the war was essentially liberating in nature. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final results were secured by the “Eternal Peace” of 1686. The Russian state included the city of Kyiv and the lands of the left bank of the Dnieper, including Poltava, Chernihiv, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. The name of this region itself was “Little Rus'” (Little Russia).

The name “Ukraine” was then used more often in the meaning in which the ancient Russian word “outskirts” has been found in written sources since the XNUMXth century, when it came to various border territories. And the word “Ukrainian,” judging also from archival documents, originally meant border service people who ensured the protection of external borders.

On the Right Bank, which remained in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old order was restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. The left bank, the lands taken under the protection of a single state, on the contrary, began to actively develop. Residents from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people of the same language and, of course, the same faith.

During the Northern War with Sweden, the inhabitants of Little Russia had no choice - with whom to be. Mazepa's rebellion was supported only by a small part of the Cossacks. People of different classes considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.

Representatives of the Cossack elders, included in the nobility, reached the heights of a political, diplomatic, and military career in Russia. Graduates of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was the case during the hetmanate - essentially an autonomous state formation with its own special internal structure, and then in the Russian Empire. The Little Russians in many ways created a large common country, its statehood, culture, and science. They took part in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. By the way, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine occupied the most significant, including senior positions in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that for a total of almost 30 years, the CPSU was headed by N. Khrushchev and L. Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely connected with Ukraine.

In the second half of the XNUMXth century, after the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Crimea, as well as the lands of the Black Sea region, which were called “Novorossiya,” became part of Russia. They were populated by people from all Russian provinces. After the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire returned the western ancient Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which ended up in the Austrian and subsequently in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The integration of Western Russian lands into the common state space was not only the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It took place on the basis of common faith and cultural traditions. And again, I would especially like to point out linguistic proximity. Thus, even at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, reported to Rome that the inhabitants of Muscovy call the Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language is exactly the same, and their spoken language, although different, is insignificant. In his words, like the inhabitants of Rome and Bergamo. This, as we know, is the center and north of modern Italy.

Of course, over many centuries of fragmentation and life in different states, regional linguistic features and dialects arose. The literary language was enriched at the expense of the folk language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. The poems of Taras Shevchenko are created in Ukrainian, and the prose is mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolai Gogol, a patriot of Russia, a native of the Poltava region, are written in Russian and are full of Little Russian folk expressions and folklore motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do this?

The southwestern lands of the Russian Empire, Little Russia and New Russia, Crimea developed as diverse in their ethnic and religious composition. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Crimeans, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans and other peoples lived here. They all maintained their faith, traditions, and customs.

I'm not going to idealize anything. Both the Valuevsky Circular of 1863 and the Emsky Act of 1872 are known, which limited the publication and import from abroad of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But the historical context is important here. These decisions were made against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to use the “Ukrainian issue” in their own interests. I will add that works of art, collections of Ukrainian poems and folk songs continued to be published. Objective facts indicate that in the Russian Empire there was an active process of development of Little Russian cultural identity within the framework of the large Russian nation, uniting Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians.

At the same time, among the Polish elite and some of the Little Russian intelligentsia, ideas about a Ukrainian people separate from the Russians arose and strengthened. There was and could not be a historical basis here, so conclusions were based on a variety of fictions. To the point that Ukrainians are supposedly not Slavs at all, or, conversely, that Ukrainians are real Slavs, but Russians, “Muscovites,” are not. Such “hypotheses” began to be increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.

From the end of the XNUMXth century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities picked up this theme - in opposition to both the Polish national movement and Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During the First World War, Vienna contributed to the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathizing with Orthodoxy and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the Talerhof and Terezin concentration camps.

Further developments of events are associated with the collapse of European empires, with a fierce Civil War that unfolded across the vast expanse of the former Russian Empire, with foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was created in Kyiv, which claimed to be the supreme authority. In November 1917, in her third universal, she announced the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) within Russia.

In December 1917, representatives of the UPR arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where negotiations between Soviet Russia and Germany and its allies were taking place. At a meeting on January 10, 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read a note on the independence of Ukraine. Then the Central Rada, in its fourth universal resolution, declared Ukraine independent.

The declared sovereignty turned out to be short-lived. Literally a few weeks later, the Rada delegation signed a separate agreement with the countries of the German bloc. Germany and Austria-Hungary, who were in a difficult situation, needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. To ensure large-scale supplies, they achieved agreement to send their troops and technical personnel to the UPR. In fact, they used this as a pretext for the occupation.

Those who today placed Ukraine under complete external control would do well to remember that back then, in 1918, such a decision turned out to be fatal for the ruling regime in Kyiv. With the direct participation of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown, and Hetman P. Skoropadsky was brought to power, who proclaimed a Ukrainian state instead of the UPR, which was, in fact, under a German protectorate.

In November 1918, after the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary, P. Skoropadsky, having lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course and declared that “Ukraine will be the first to act in the formation of the All-Russian Federation.” However, the regime soon changed again. The time has come for the so-called Directory.

In the fall of 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the Western Ukrainian People's Republic (WUNR), and in January 1919 announced its unification with the Ukrainian People's Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian units were defeated by Polish troops, and the territory of the former ZUNR came under Polish rule.

In April 1920, S. Petlyura (one of the “heroes” who are being imposed on modern Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directory, according to which - in exchange for military support - he gave Poland the lands of Galicia and Western Volyn. In May 1920, the Petliurists entered Kyiv in a convoy of Polish units. But not for long. Already in November 1920, after the truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s troops surrendered to the same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows how unstable various kinds of quasi-state formations that arose in the space of the former Russian Empire were during the Civil War and Troubles. Nationalists sought to create their own separate states; the leaders of the White movement advocated for an indivisible Russia. Many republics founded by supporters of the Bolsheviks could not imagine themselves outside of Russia. At the same time, for various reasons, the leaders of the Bolshevik Party sometimes literally pushed them out of Soviet Russia.

Thus, at the beginning of 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed, which turned to Moscow with the question of joining Soviet Russia. There was a refusal. V. Lenin met with the leaders of this republic and convinced them to act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On March 15, 1918, the Central Committee of the RCP(b) directly decided to send delegates to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk basin, and to create at the congress “one government for all of Ukraine.” The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic subsequently mainly comprised the regions of the South-East of Ukraine.

According to the Treaty of Riga of 1921 between the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were transferred to Poland. During the interwar period, the Polish government launched an active resettlement policy, trying to change the ethnic composition in the “eastern lands” - as the territories of what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and part of Lithuania were called in Poland. Strict Polonization was carried out, local culture and traditions were suppressed. Later, already during the Second World War, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a reason for terror not only against the Polish, but also the Jewish and Russian population.

In 1922, during the creation of the USSR, one of the founders of which was the Ukrainian SSR, after a rather heated discussion among the Bolshevik leaders, Lenin’s plan for the formation of a union state as a federation of equal republics was implemented. The text of the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR, and then the 1924 Constitution of the USSR, included the right of free secession of republics from the Union. Thus, the most dangerous “time bomb” was laid into the foundation of our statehood. It exploded as soon as the safety mechanism disappeared in the form of the leadership role of the CPSU, which eventually itself collapsed from within. The “parade of sovereignties” has begun. On December 8, 1991, the so-called Belovezhskaya Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, which declared that “the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist.” By the way, Ukraine did not sign or ratify the CIS Charter, adopted back in 1993.

In the 20s and 30s of the last century, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the policy of “indigenization,” which in the Ukrainian SSR was carried out as Ukrainization. It is symbolic that within the framework of this policy, with the consent of the Soviet authorities, M. Grushevsky, the former chairman of the Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at one time enjoyed the support of Austria-Hungary, returned to the USSR and was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences.

“Indigenization” certainly played a big role in the development and strengthening of Ukrainian culture, language, and identity. At the same time, under the guise of fighting the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not consider themselves Ukrainians. It was the Soviet national policy - instead of a large Russian nation, a triune people consisting of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians - that consolidated at the state level the position of three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

In 1939, lands previously seized by Poland were returned to the USSR. A significant part of them was annexed to Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR included part of Bessarabia, occupied by Romania in 1918, and Northern Bukovina. In 1948 - the Black Sea island of Zmeiny. In 1954, the Crimean region of the RSFSR was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR - in gross violation of the legal norms in force at that time.

Separately, I will say about the fate of Subcarpathian Rus', which after the collapse of Austria-Hungary ended up in Czechoslovakia. A significant part of the local residents were Rusyns. Little is remembered about this now, but after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops, the congress of the Orthodox population of the region spoke in favor of the inclusion of Subcarpathian Rus in the RSFSR or directly in the USSR - as a separate Carpatho-Russian republic. But this opinion of people was ignored. And in the summer of 1945, it was announced - as the Pravda newspaper wrote - about the historical act of reunification of Transcarpathian Ukraine “with its ancient homeland - Ukraine.”

Thus, modern Ukraine is entirely a creation of the Soviet era. We know and remember that to a large extent it was created at the expense of historical Russia. It is enough to compare which lands reunited with the Russian state in the XNUMXth century and which territories the Ukrainian SSR left the Soviet Union with.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for social experiments. They dreamed of a world revolution, which, in their opinion, would abolish nation states altogether. Therefore, they arbitrarily cut borders and distributed generous territorial “gifts.” Ultimately, what exactly motivated the Bolshevik leaders when they were cutting up the country no longer matters. You can argue about the details, the background and logic of certain decisions. One thing is clear: Russia was actually robbed.

While working on this article, I relied not on some secret archives, but on open documents that contain well-known facts. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external patrons prefer not to remember these facts. But for a variety of reasons, appropriately and inappropriately, including abroad, today it is customary to condemn the “crimes of the Soviet regime,” including among them even those events to which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, nor, especially, modern Russia have any no relation. At the same time, the actions of the Bolsheviks to tear away its historical territories from Russia are not considered a criminal act. It's clear why. Since this has led to the weakening of Russia, then our ill-wishers are happy with it.

In the USSR, the borders between the republics, of course, were not perceived as state ones; they were conditional within the framework of a single country, which, despite all the attributes of a federation, was essentially highly centralized - due, I repeat, to the leading role of the CPSU. But in 1991, all these territories, and most importantly, the people who lived there, suddenly found themselves abroad. And they were already truly cut off from their historical homeland.

What can I say? Everything changes. Including countries and societies. And of course, part of one nation in the course of its development - due to a number of reasons and historical circumstances - may at a certain moment feel and recognize itself as a separate nation. How should we feel about this? There can be only one answer: with respect!

Do you want to create your own state? Please! But under what conditions? Let me remind you here of the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of the new Russia, the first mayor of St. Petersburg A. Sobchak. As a highly professional lawyer, he believed that any decision must be legitimate, and therefore in 1992 he expressed the following opinion: the founding republics of the Union, after they themselves had annulled the 1922 Treaty, should return to the borders in which they joined Union. All other territorial acquisitions are a subject for discussion and negotiations, because the basis has been annulled.

In other words, leave with what you came with. It's hard to argue with such logic. I will only add that the Bolsheviks, as I already noted, began arbitrary redrawing of borders even before the creation of the Union, and all manipulations with territories were carried out voluntaristically, ignoring the opinion of the people.

The Russian Federation recognized new geopolitical realities. And she didn’t just recognize, but did a lot to make Ukraine established as an independent country. In the difficult 90s and in the new millennium, we provided Ukraine with significant support. Kiev uses its own “political arithmetic,” but in 1991–2013, due to low gas prices alone, Ukraine saved more than $82 billion for its budget, and today it is literally “clinging” to $1,5 billion in Russian payments for the transit of our gas to Europe. Whereas, if economic ties between our countries were maintained, the positive effect for Ukraine would amount to tens of billions of dollars.

Ukraine and Russia have been developing for decades and centuries as a single economic system. The depth of cooperation that we had 30 years ago would be the envy of the EU countries today. We are natural economic partners that complement each other. Such a close relationship can enhance competitive advantages and increase the potential of both countries.

And in Ukraine it was significant, including a powerful infrastructure, a gas transportation system, advanced branches of shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, rocket science, instrument making, world-class scientific, design, and engineering schools. Having received such a legacy, the leaders of Ukraine, declaring independence, promised that the Ukrainian economy would become one of the leading ones, and the standard of living of people would be one of the highest in Europe.

Today, industrial high-tech giants, of which Ukraine and the entire country were once proud, are lying on their sides. Over the past 10 years, mechanical engineering output has fallen by 42 percent. The scale of deindustrialization and economic degradation in general is visible in such indicators as electricity generation, which has almost halved in Ukraine over 30 years. And finally, according to the IMF, in 2019, even before the coronavirus epidemic, Ukraine’s per capita GDP was less than 4 thousand dollars. This is below the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova and the unrecognized Kosovo. Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe.

Who is to blame for this? Are the people of Ukraine? Of course not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who squandered and threw away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. He knows how to persistently and persistently achieve success and outstanding results. And these qualities, like openness, natural optimism, hospitality, have not gone away. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well, but with great love, just like we do towards Ukraine, also remain the same.

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects worked to develop our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthen security, and solve common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we considered the main thing. And therefore, we interacted fruitfully with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.

Even after the well-known events in Kyiv in 2014, he instructed the Russian Government to consider options for contacts through relevant ministries and departments in terms of preserving and supporting our economic ties. However, there was no reciprocal desire, and there still isn’t. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians come to us to work and are greeted with hospitality and support. This is what an “aggressor country” looks like.

When the USSR collapsed, many in both Russia and Ukraine still sincerely believed and proceeded from the fact that our close cultural, spiritual, and economic ties would certainly survive, as would the community of the people, who at their core always felt united. However, events - first gradually, and then more and more quickly - began to develop in a different direction.

In essence, the Ukrainian elites decided to justify the independence of their country through the denial of its past, however, with the exception of the issue of borders. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, erase from it everything that unites us, and talk about the period of Ukraine’s stay as part of the Russian Empire and the USSR as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 30s is presented as genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Radicals and neo-Nazis declared their ambitions openly and more and more boldly. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who, having robbed the people of Ukraine, keep the stolen goods in Western banks and are ready to sell their own mother in order to save capital. To this should be added the chronic weakness of state institutions, the position of a voluntary hostage of someone else's geopolitical will.

Let me remind you that quite a long time ago, long before 2014, the United States and the EU countries systematically and persistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as Ukraine’s largest trade and economic partner, proposed to discuss emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it, they say, the issue concerns only the EU and Ukraine. De facto, Western countries have rejected repeated Russian offers of dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was drawn into a dangerous geopolitical game, the goal of which was to turn Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, into a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, the time came when the concept of “Ukraine is not Russia” no longer suited us. It took “anti-Russia,” which we will never come to terms with.

The customers of this project took as a basis the old developments of the Polish-Austrian ideologists of the creation of “anti-Moscow Rus'”. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, the historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, who were served by collaborators who came from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but living space and slaves for the Aryan masters.

They didn’t even think about the interests of the Ukrainian people in February 2014. The just dissatisfaction of people, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the then authorities, was simply cynically used. Western countries directly intervened in the internal affairs of Ukraine and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups acted as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and outright aggressive Russophobia largely began to determine public policy in Ukraine.

Everything that united us and still brings us closer came under attack. First of all, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new “Maidan” authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on “cleansing power”, the law on education, which practically erased the Russian language from the educational process.

And finally, already in May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on “indigenous peoples” to the Rada. They recognize only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state education outside of Ukraine. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is in a country – as I already noted – that is very complex in terms of territorial, national, linguistic composition, and the history of its formation.

An argument may sound: since you are talking about a single big nation, a triune people, then what difference does it make whether people consider themselves Russians, Ukrainians or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Moreover, the determination of nationality, especially in mixed families, is the right of every person who is free in his choice.

But the fact is that in Ukraine today the situation is completely different, since we are talking about a forced change of identity. And the most disgusting thing is that Russians in Ukraine are forced not only to renounce their roots, from the generations of their ancestors, but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the course towards forced assimilation and the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a crude, artificial break between Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people collectively may decrease by hundreds of thousands, or even millions.

Our spiritual unity was also hit. As in the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new church division was started. Without hiding the fact that they were pursuing political goals, the secular authorities rudely intervened in church life and brought matters to a schism, to the seizure of churches, and the beating of priests and monks. Even the broad autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate categorically does not suit them. They must destroy this visible, centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.

I think it is also natural that representatives of Ukraine time after time vote against the resolution of the UN General Assembly condemning the glorification of Nazism. Under the protection of official authorities, marches and torchlight processions take place in honor of the undead war criminals from the SS units. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone in a circle, Petlyura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are considered national heroes. They are doing everything to erase from the memory of younger generations the names of true patriots and winners, whom Ukraine has always been proud of.

For the Ukrainians who fought in the ranks of the Red Army, in partisan detachments, the Great Patriotic War was precisely the Patriotic War, because they defended their home, their large common Motherland. More than two thousand became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are the legendary pilot Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub, the fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko, and the brave partisan commander Sidor Artemyevich Kovpak. This unbending generation fought, gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget about their feat means to betray your grandfathers, mothers and fathers.

The “anti-Russia” project was rejected by millions of Ukrainians. Crimeans and Sevastopol residents made their historic choice. And people in the Southeast peacefully tried to defend their position. But all of them, including children, were labeled separatists and terrorists. They began to threaten ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language, their lives. Were they left with any other choice - after the pogroms that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of May 2, 2014 in Odessa, where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive and staged a new Khatyn? The followers of Bandera were ready to commit the same massacre in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. They still do not abandon such plans. They are waiting in the wings. But they won't wait.

The coup d'etat and the subsequent actions of the Kyiv authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the total number of victims related to the conflict in Donbass has exceeded 13 thousand people. Among them are old people and children. Terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia did everything to stop the fratricide. The Minsk agreements were concluded, which are aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Donbass. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one withdrew their signatures either from the Minsk “Package of Measures” or from the corresponding statements by the leaders of the “Normandy format” countries. No one initiated a review of the UN Security Council Resolution of February 17, 2015.

During official negotiations, especially after “pushing back” from Western partners, Ukrainian representatives periodically declare “full commitment” to the Minsk agreements, but in reality they are guided by the position of their “unacceptability.” We do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbass or guarantees for the people living here. They prefer to exploit the image of a “victim of external aggression” and trade in Russophobia. They are organizing bloody provocations in Donbass. In a word, by any means they attract the attention of external patrons and owners.

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kyiv simply does not need Donbass. Why? Because, firstly, the residents of these regions will never accept the order that they tried and are trying to impose on them by force, blockade, and threats. And secondly, the results of both Minsk-1 and Minsk-2, which provide a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by directly agreeing with the DPR and LPR through the mediation of Russia, Germany and France, contradict the entire logic of the “anti-Russia” project. And he can only survive by constantly cultivating the image of an internal and external enemy. And I will add - under protectorate, control by the Western powers.

This is what happens in practice. First of all, this is the creation of an atmosphere of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, pandering to neo-Nazis, and the militarization of the country. Along with this, there is not just complete dependence, but direct external control, including the supervision of foreign advisers over the Ukrainian authorities, intelligence services and armed forces, the military “development” of the territory of Ukraine, and the deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned scandalous law on “indigenous peoples” was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.

The absorption of the remnants of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources are taking place under the same cover. A sale of agricultural land is just around the corner, and it is obvious who will buy it. Yes, from time to time Ukraine is allocated financial resources and loans, but under its own conditions and interests, under preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay off these debts? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians, but by their children, grandchildren, and, probably, great-grandchildren.

The Western authors of the “anti-Russia” project are setting up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, deputies, and ministers change, but the attitude towards separation with Russia and enmity with it remains unchanged. The main election slogan of the current president was to achieve peace. This is how he came to power. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing changed. And in some ways, the situation in Ukraine and around Donbass has also deteriorated.

In the “anti-Russia” project there is no place for a sovereign Ukraine, as well as for political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labeled as “pro-Russian” agents.

I repeat, for many in Ukraine the “anti-Russia” project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They were practically deprived of the legal opportunity to defend their point of view. They are intimidated and driven underground. For beliefs, for speaking a word, for openly expressing one’s position, people are not only persecuted, but also killed. Murderers usually go unpunished.

The only “correct” patriot of Ukraine is now declared to be the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be built solely on this idea in the future. Hatred and bitterness - and world history has proven this more than once - are a very shaky basis for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

We understand all the tricks associated with the “anti-Russia” project. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who make such an attempt, I want to say that in this way they will destroy their country.

The current authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience and consider it as a role model. So look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact with the same language, they remain sovereign states, with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not interfere with their closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent boundaries. And citizens, crossing them, feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. By the way, just like millions of natives of Ukraine who now live in Russia. For us they are our own, family.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and is ready to discuss the most difficult issues. But it is important for us to understand that the partner defends his national interests, and does not serve others, and is not a tool in someone’s hands to fight us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. To the desire of Ukrainians to see their state free, safe, prosperous.

I am convinced that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible precisely in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human, civilizational ties have been formed over centuries, go back to the same origins, and have been tempered by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship is passed on from generation to generation. It is in the hearts, in the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. After all, we are one people.

Now these words are perceived with hostility by some. Can be interpreted in any way. But many people will hear me. And I will say one thing: Russia has never been and will never be “anti-Ukraine.” And what Ukraine should be like is up to its citizens to decide.