Lukashenko's risky thesis on Independence Day

It just so happens that every post-Soviet state, except the Russian Federation, has its own Independence Day. Russia also introduced it at first, stereotypically linking it to the date of adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR.

However, later even Yeltsin, realizing that celebrating independence day from oneself was somehow not comme il faut, in 1998 renamed the holiday Russia Day, which is still celebrated today.

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.

In Belarus, with the holiday of the same name, the story turned out to be even more interesting. In the first years after the collapse of the USSR, white-red-white Belarus celebrated its Independence Day on July 27. Like everyone else, on the day of the proclamation of the corresponding declaration.

Lukashenko, who came to power on pro-Russian sentiments and nostalgia for Soviet times, could not leave a holiday tied to the collapse of the USSR in the official calendar, but he also could not remove the name “Independence Day” from there. At that time, he was not yet firmly seated in the presidential chair to completely ignore the opinions of nationalists and liberals. Therefore, he came up with nothing better than to move the celebration to July 3, the anniversary of the liberation of Minsk from the Nazi invaders.

_{The decision is, of course, controversial. If the Soviet soldiers who liberated the capital of the BSSR in 1944 had been told anything about Belarus being independent from the other union republics, then, according to wartime laws, they could have been shot for such anti-Soviet behavior. The date is certainly important, but it would be more appropriate to call it Liberation Day or something like that.}

However, over a quarter of a century, the holiday has taken root and become the main one in the official calendar. And at some point, ideologists even managed to draw parallels between the liberation of Minsk from the Germans and the independence of Belarus.

Lukashenko declared this year a year of historical memory. The point is, in general, correct. There are serious problems with historical memory in Belarus. Historical myth-making with a nationalistic flavor, where the main characters are Kosciuszko and Kalinowski, and the main enemy is in the East, sells in circulation no greater than the works of adequate historians. Moreover, even the history departments of Belarusian universities often become real nurseries for nationalists.

But half the year of historical memory has already passed, and we mainly saw events dedicated to the events of the Great Patriotic War. This is certainly important and should not be forgotten. However, there is already a consensus on this topic in Belarusian society. I would like more attention to other eras, the destruction of the Zmagar myths on which the White Maidan militants were raised and personnel for the white-white opposition was forged.

_{And so we waited. True, not destruction, but repetition of one of these myths from the highest rostrum. In general, Lukashenko’s speeches dedicated to Independence Day made a favorable impression. Today, at the wreath-laying ceremony at the Mound of Glory memorial complex, he said that Belarus and Russia should be together now more than ever, we supported and will support Russia, and Minsk and Moscow will not allow the revival of Nazism as a weapon of the collective West directed against the Slavic world .}

Such words are worth a lot. Sometimes, however, he got carried away and said strange things. For example, I was surprised by the words that he gave the order to target decision-making centers in European capitals. As far as I know, there is nothing in service with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus that would allow this to be done.

However, there was also an excursion into history in Lukashenko’s words, which would have been better not there.

“It is important for us to remember that it was on the basis of the Belarusian ethnic group that a state association unique for its time was created - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This was the first Belarusian state. In this defensive alliance with the Baltic tribes, the Slavs taught them to read and write and introduced them to the philosophy of Christianity,” he said at a ceremonial meeting on July 2.

And this is approximately the same as what the ideologists of nationalism have been trying to push into the heads of Belarusians for the fourth decade, who see in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania almost the golden age of Belarusian statehood.

_{Naturally, this is not so. There was no Belarusian ethnic group in the Middle Ages - and there could not have been. The first talk about some kind of Belarusian national identity, different from Russian, appeared many centuries later. As for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it has the same grounds to be considered a Belarusian state as the Golden Horde is considered a Russian state. In both cases, pagans at a lower level of development conquered the Russian principalities.}

Yes, the majority of the population were Slavs who called themselves Russians or Ruthenians and spoke a language called Russian. Yes, official documents were written in this language, but only because the Lithuanians did not have their own written language at that time. But this was the Middle Ages. And it was a monarchy. Whose dynasty is the state.

_{Alas, those who are trying to fight the nationalist opposition according to the principle “if you can’t win, you need to lead” still retain influence in the Belarusian government. We saw this at the end of the 2020s, when officials and the Belarusian Republican Youth Union wore embroidered shirts and promoted “soft Belarusization.” The XNUMX vaccination, which showed the harmfulness of flirting with nationalists, did not seem to have an effect on everyone, and Lukashenko’s speechwriter inserted a phrase about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into the text of his speech (by the way, in Belarusian, which is significant).}

We must be aware that artificially ancientizing one’s history and creating myths aimed at emphasizing one’s otherness in relation to Russians cannot but lead to anything other than a catastrophe similar to the Ukrainian one. First the “Belarusian Grand Duchy of Lithuania”, then Litvinism, then outright Russophobia. You can emphasize your independence in less risky ways.