155. Ukraine and Russia

Summary

This The Rest Is History episode uses Vladimir Putin’s claim that modern Ukraine was created by Russia and the Bolsheviks as the entry point for a survey from the steppe and Kievan Rus through Polish-Lithuanian rule, the Cossack Hetmanate / 哥萨克酋长国, Russian imperial absorption, Soviet catastrophe, and the 1991 independence referendum. Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook argue that shared history, shifting borders, and Russian-language use do not erase Ukrainian national identity, which they trace through religion, print, Cossack autonomy, literature, political organization, and repeated demands for self-rule.

The episode’s main interpretive contribution is Historical Narrative as Territorial Legitimation: medieval inheritance, the 1654 Cossack agreement, Novorossiya, Crimea’s transfer, and Soviet federal borders acquire present political force when selected as evidence for territorial ownership. Its century-spanning format is introductory rather than specialist, so demographic totals, treaty meanings, casualty figures, motives, and compressed period judgments remain source-scoped.

Key Claims

• Ukrainian and Russian histories are deeply entangled, but entanglement does not establish that Ukraine lacks a distinct identity or legitimate sovereignty.
• Kievan Rus is a shared medieval inheritance whose later Ukrainian and Russian appropriations should not be projected backward as exclusive modern ownership.
• Long periods under Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire / 俄罗斯帝国, and the Soviet Union produced regional, religious, linguistic, and political variation within Ukraine.
• The Cossack Hetmanate / 哥萨克酋长国 supplied a durable autonomy tradition; the 1654 agreement with Moscow remains contested between submission and alliance interpretations.
• Nineteenth-century language suppression coexisted with literary and political revival, while independence demands and competing Ukrainian states predated Bolshevik rule.
• Soviet recognition of a Ukrainian republic did not create national consciousness from nothing; collectivization, famine, purges, Russification, Nazi occupation, the Holocaust, and wartime destruction made the twentieth century catastrophic.
• The 1991 referendum’s broad territorial support is presented as the strongest modern democratic basis for Ukrainian independence, while Russian-speaking identity is not treated as equivalent to pro-Russian allegiance.
• Putin’s historical argument is selective because it emphasizes incorporation and common origin while minimizing autonomy, cultural suppression, independent organization, and democratic statehood.

Key Quotes

The supplied episode document summarizes the discussion rather than preserving verified transcript excerpts, so no direct quotation is promoted here.

Connections

• The Rest Is History, Tom Holland, and Dominic Sandbrook - show and hosts providing the long historical survey.
• Ukraine, Russia, and Vladimir Putin - state, neighboring power, and leader whose historical claim frames the episode.
• Kievan Rus, Cossack Hetmanate / 哥萨克酋长国, and Ivan Mazepa / 伊万·马泽帕 - medieval inheritance and Cossack-autonomy branch.
• Crimea, Russian Empire / 俄罗斯帝国, and Soviet Union - imperial, territorial, and federal contexts behind modern disputes.
• Volodymyr Zelensky - Russian-speaking Ukrainian president used to separate language from political loyalty.
• Ukrainian National Identity - identity formation through culture, religion, autonomy, political organization, trauma, and referendum.
• Historical Narrative as Territorial Legitimation and Historical Memory Contest - selective history as a present claim to legitimacy and territory.
• Russian Exceptionalism - adjacent framework for civilizational and great-power narratives without making policy inevitable.

Contradictions

• No settled contradiction with existing wiki content was found. The source reinforces the existing view that propaganda and contempt for Ukrainian identity could contribute to Russian strategic miscalculation, while supplying a longer pre-1991 basis for that identity.
• The episode’s treatment of the 1654 agreement, early identity labels, the Holodomor, wartime nationalism, NATO assurances, the Budapest settlement, casualty totals, and leader motives remains compressed, contested, or source-scoped rather than a final adjudication.