Authors

Discussion

Russian colonialism was largely dependent on national identity and expansionist policy towards neighboring countries. Russian nationalism, on the other hand, was and still is aimed at exporting its own national identity in the conquered territories. Russian literature - especially historiography - took and continues to take an active part in this process. It actively promotes the narrative of Russian presence in the conquered territories, while at the same time displacing their own history and appropriating historiography. For centuries, Russian historical science has worked closely with the central government to prevent the peripheries from speaking in their own language and from learning about their own historical experience. Historical narrative can therefore be treated as an extremely interesting resource used by Moscow to expand its imperial influence.

Unfortunately, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of independent countries such as Ukraine did not bring any change in this aspect. Russia, instrumentally using history, is still trying to maintain or expand and strengthen its imperial influence. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict that began in 2014 only reinforced this tendency. Russian historiography still treats Ukraine as a periphery and the Ukrainian nation as a colonized nation. The contemporary Russian historical narrative trivializes Ukrainian national identity, classifying it as inferior. In fact, it deprives Ukrainians of the right to have a national and historical identity separate from Russian, and considers them a nation incapable of creating a statehood separate from Russian. 

In my presentation, I would like to present the most important elements of the contemporary Russian historical narrative devoted to Ukraine. I will limit myself to the most important myths that are particularly heavily exploited today, including:

- the myth of Russia as the ethnogenesis of "three brother nations" and the old Russian identity

- the symbol of Perejeslav

- narrative about the "eternal" Russianness of the south-eastern lands of Ukraine.

In my speech, I will try to demonstrate that the contemporary Russian historical narrative promotes "mental" colonialism. I will try to demonstrate that the contemporary Russian historical narrative promotes "mental" colonialism, trying to expand the Russian way of interpreting history. Adopting a Russian way of looking at the common past deprives nations like Ukraine of their own historical experience and thus makes them more loyal to Moscow. Ukrainian history is systematically appropriated, drained and deprived of its fundamental identity-creating components.