For those interested, I have dealt with Putin’s essay titled “/On the
Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians/” and the policy of the
Bolsheviks and Stalinists in chapter 5 and 6 in my pamphlet “/Putin’s
Poodles (Apologies to All Dogs)/”,
https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/nato-russia-conflict-stalinism-as-putin-s-poodles/
Am 25.02.2025 um 08:24 schrieb modulus via groups.io:
On 25/02/2025 4:08, Mark Baugher wrote:
I didn't know it was from Putin and need the context. Was Putin
referring to the Russian annexation of the eastern Ukrainian
provinces. I cannot tell. But Putin has been disputing Lenin for some
time now.
Right, I should have been clearer, sorry about that.
Ironically the quotation is from one of your sources, which in my view
has been thoroughly (and wilfully) misread by the western press, which
is why I think it's worth quoting directly from it--secondary sources
on what it says are unreliable, and it's very hard to convince myself
to believe them instead of what's plainly written in the text.
I'm referring to the article on the historical unity of Russians and
Ukrainians (note the word, historical).
In this article, Putin goes over an admittedly partial and
historiographically dubious review of Russia and Ukraine as parts of a
whole, starting by referring to the throne of Kiev as dominant.
The article does contain the infamous phrase that Lenin planted a
"time bomb" in the form of the right of secession. Nonetheless, in its
fashion, it also recognises the right to self-determination. I quote a
bit more context here:
When working on this article, I relied on open-source documents that
contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records.
The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external ”patrons“ prefer
to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both
inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet
regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor
the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same
time, the Bolsheviks' efforts to detach from Russia its historical
territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they
brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with
that.
Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen
as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which,
while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly
centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU's leading role.
But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important,
people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time
indeed, from their historical motherland.
What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities
are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process
of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical
circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation
at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one
answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what
are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most
prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint
Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every
decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following
opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having
denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they
had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial
acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that
the ground has been revoked. In other words, when you leave, take
what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just
say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even
before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their
liking, in disregard of people's views. The Russian Federation
recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized,
but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself
as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990's
and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support
to Ukraine.
and so on.
Yes, the article is very iffy in many ways; but it's hard not to read
it as recognising self-determination in general, and Ukrainian
self-determination in particular.
--Mod
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#35439): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35439
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111367768/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
