See. There is such a thing - the national historical myth. This is something like a bead - some kind of a rope of time, on which as beads are planted the largest events in the history of one particular nation. A rope stretches from the time of the formation of the nation and rushes into the future. Beads strung on it are wars, battles, births and deaths of historical figures, the opening of schools and the construction of cities. What makes a nation a nation. Its history, writes Yuri Gudymenko for TSN, So, the national myths of Ukraine and Russia intersect much more often than we would like. First of all - in Kievan Rus, which in Russia is now called the Old Russian state, so that the name of the Ukrainian capital does not appear in the title. Without Russia the historical myth of Russia has no foundation. Without Russia, the whole history of Russia will hang in the air, funny jerking legs. Moreover, without Russia, the ideology of the "trinity of nations". The idea that has been propagated in Russia for centuries, the idea of ??a brotherhood of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians (in which the latter, of course, play the role of an older brother). Therefore, Russia tries to bind Russia tightly.
And this is the statement of Putin about Anna Yaroslavna (Putin during the meeting with Macron called the queen of France Anna Yaroslavna "Russian") - it is from that opera. Like, for example, the installation in Moscow of a monument to Prince Vladimir in the past year.
This is an attempt to link the history of Rus and the history of Russia into one inextricable chain. But Russia's problem is that Ukraine is creating this chain much more convincingly.
First, Kiev, whatever one may say, is still our capital. Secondly, the monetary unit we have - the hryvnia, and the very same Vladimir trident - the coat of arms. It's by the symbols.
On history, too, everything is clear: most of the territory of Russia coincides with the territory of Ukraine. Russia has only the answer in its answer ("Russia" is "Rus" in Greek). Would it be, for example, Muscovy, the task would be simply impracticable.
It is possible, of course, for a long time to discuss with the Russians about Anna Yaroslavna, Yaroslav himself and other figures of Kievan Rus and not only her. But this in principle is meaningless, because Russia, in terms of its interests, is doing everything right. It creates its own historical myth that allows solving its pressing external and internal political problems, and first of all the problem of Ukraine, which, of course, should be part of Russia, because Russia, the common history and grandfathers, of course, fought.
Ukraine with its global historical myth solves directly the opposite tasks. And decides successfully. We have no special foreign policy problems, we do not pretend to foreign territories, and we need the myth mainly for our citizens to understand their roots: here is Rus, it is Kiev, then there were Cossacks and Getmanshchina, then the UNR and ZUNR, then the occupation, but now - independent Ukraine. Russia - on the side. It is separate, we are seperate.
To create an historical myth, I repeat, you can discuss, refer to sources, weigh historical finds - or you can just take and create a myth. So, as we need. So, how the trident became our emblem, and the hryvnia - the name of the monetary unit. If we need in the myth of Anna Yaroslavna - we can and should put her monuments in France (and Ukraine, surprise, and does).
It is necessary, for example, Gogol, for nothing that he was a stubborn Russian monarchist and a supporter of slavery - one must hold festivals in his name, celebrate Gogol's days, hold creative evenings at embassies and so on. In decades - and not before - Gogol will be perceived in the world as part of Ukrainian culture. We do not need Gogol, he does not play a role for our global myth, for the existence of the nation - one can not do this, no problem. It would be time and desire.
Yes, there are moral issues. For example, Bulgakov - is he a part of Ukrainian culture or not? On the one hand, the indigenous Kyivan - on the other hand, a man who despised that same Ukrainian culture. How to be?.
The correct answer: the way we need it. In terms of stupid, stubborn pragmatism. We need Bulgakov - will be Ukrainian. No? No, and there is no court. Will not be. Take away, Russians. We Anna Yaroslavna is more important, without it the concept of Ukraine-Rus-Europe ties is not being formed. And we need it now.
History is an instrument.
It's rude, it's wrong, but it's a fact. Tool for nation formation. The tool should be able to use. And we, oddly enough, are not bad at all. That is why on the monument to Anna Yaroslavna in the French Sanlis written: Anne de Kiev Reine de France. "Anna of Kiev, Queen of France".
Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.
Join the group "Browser Blogs" on Facebook, stay tuned!.