#old ladoga

[mim70]

Volkhov riv., Old Ladoga, Leningradskaja oblast', Russia

[orthodoxydaily]

SAINTS&READING: MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2024

august 13_august 26

St TIKHON (TYCHON) BISHOP OF VORONEZH, WONDERWORKER OF ZADONSK AND ALL RUSSIA (1783)

Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, Bishop of Voronezh (in the world Timothy), was born in the year 1724 in the village of Korotsk in the Novgorod diocese, into the family of the cantor Sabellius Kirillov. (Afterward, a new family name, Sokolov, was given him by the head of the Novgorod Seminary). His father died when Timothy was a young child, leaving the family in such poverty that his mother was barely able to make ends meet. She wanted to give him to be raised by a neighbor, a coachman, since there was no other way to feed the family, but his brother Peter would not permit this. Timothy often worked a whole day with the peasants for a single piece of black bread.

As a thirteen-year-old boy, he was sent to a clergy school near the Archbishop of Novgorod's residence, and earned his keep by working with the vegetable gardeners. In 1740, he was accepted under a state grant set up for the Novgorod Seminary. The youth excelled at his studies. Upon finishing seminary in 1754, he became a teacher there, first in Greek, and later in Rhetoric and Philosophy. In the year 1758, he was tonsured with the name Tikhon. That same year he was appointed as prefect of the Seminary.

In 1759, he was transferred to Tver, and was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite of Zheltikov Monastery. Later, he was appointed Rector of the Tver Seminary and, at the same time, Superior of Otroch Monastery.

His election as bishop was providential. Metropolitan Demetrios, the presiding member of the Holy Synod, had intended to transfer the young Archimandrite to the Trinity-Sergiev Lavra. On the day of Pascha, at Peterburg, Archimandrite Tikhon was one of eight candidates being considered for selection as vicar bishop for Novogorod. Metropolitan Demetrios thought he was too young for that position, but agreed to submit his name. The lot fell on Archimandrite Tikhon three times.

On the same day, during the Cherubic Hymn, Bishop Athanasios of Tver, without realizing it, commemorated him as a bishop while cutting particles from the prosphora at the Table of Oblation. On May 13, 1761 he was consecrated as Bishop of Keksgolma and Ladoga (i.e., vicar bishop of the Novgorod diocese).

In 1763, Saint Tikhon was transferred to the See of Voronezh. For the four and a half years that he administered the diocese of Voronezh, Vladyka provided constant edification, both by his life and by his numerous pastoral counsels and soul-profiting books. He also wrote a whole series of works for pastors:

Concerning the Seven Holy Mysteries

A Supplement to the Priestly Office

Concerning the Mystery of Repentance

An Instruction Concerning Marriage

The Hierarch considered it essential that each priest, deacon and monk have a New Testament, and that he should read it daily. In an Encyclical, he called on pastors to serve the Holy Mysteries with reverence, with the fear of God, and love for one’s neighbor. (An Explanation of Christian Duties was often republished in Moscow and Peterburg during the XVIII century).

At Voronezh the Saint abolished an ancient pagan custom: the celebration in honor of Yarila (a pagan god associated with the fertility of grain and cattle). In the outlying districts where military units of the Don Cossacks were dispersed, he formed a missionary commission to bring sectarians back to the Orthodox Church.

In 1765, Saint Tikhon transformed the Voronezh Slavic-Latin school into a seminary. He invited experienced instructors from Kiev and Kharkhov, and planned the curriculum. He devoted much attention and effort to building up both the churches and the school, and making pastors understand the need for education.

The Saint was unflagging in his efforts to administer his vast diocese, and he often spent nights without sleep. In 1767, poor health compelled him to give up running the diocese and withdraw for rest to the Tolshev Monastery, a distance 40 versts from Voronezh.

In 1769, Bishop Tikhon was transferred to the Monastery of the Theotokos in the city of Zadonsk. After settling into this Monastery, he became a great teacher of the Christian life. With profound wisdom he set forth the ideal of true monasticism in his Rule of Monastic Living and his Guidance to Turn from the Vanity of the World, and he fulfilled this ideal in his own life. He kept strictly to the Church's precepts. He visited the church almost every day, and he often sang and read in the choir. In time, out of humility, he altogether ceased participating and serving, but merely stood in the altar, reverently making the Sign of the Cross upon himself. He loved to read the Lives of the Saints and the works of the Holy Fathers. He knew the Psalter by heart, and he usually read or sang the Psalms on his journeys.

Vladyka endured a great deal of tribulation because he had to leave his flock. When he recovered his health, he thought of returning to the Novgorod diocese, where Metropolitan Gabriel had invited him to head the Ivḗron Vallai Monastery. But when his cell attendant mentioned this to Elder Aaron, he declared: “Are you mad? The Mother of God does not direct him to move away from here.”

The cell attendant conveyed these words to His Grace. “If that is so,” he said, “I shall not move away from here,” and he tore up the invitation. Sometimes he journeyed to the village of Lipovka, where he celebrated Church Services at the Bekhteev house. The Saint also journeyed to Tolshev Monastery, which he loved for its solitude.

The fruition of all his spiritual life were the books that the Saint wrote while in retirement: A Spiritual Treasury, Gathered from the World (1770), and On True Christianity (1776).

Bishop Tikhon lived in very simple circumstances: he slept on straw, covered by a sheepskin coat. His humility was so great that he paid no attention to the workers who laughed at him as he walked about the Monastery, pretending that he did not hear them. He used to say, “It is pleasing to God that even the Monastery workers mock me, and I deserve it because of my sins.” He often said, “Forgiveness is better than revenge.”

Once, a Holy Fool named Kamenev struck the Hierarch on the cheek saying, “Don’t be so haughty.” He accepted this with gratitude, and gave the Fool three kopeks every day for the rest of his life.

All his life the Saint “endured troubles, sorrows, and insults joyfully, mindful that there can be no crown without victory, nor victory without effort, nor effort without struggle, nor struggle without enemies” (Ode 6 of the Canon).

Strict with himself, Vladyka was lenient toward others. On the Friday before Palm Sunday, he entered the cell of his friend Schema-monk Mētrophánēs, and he saw him at table together with Cosmas Ignatievich, of whom he was also fond. There was fish on the table, and his friends were upset (fish is not permitted during Lent, except for Feast days). The Saint said, “Sit down, for I know you. Love is higher than fasting.” He even ate some of their fish soup in order to calm them.

He especially loved the common folk, and comforted them in their grievous lot, interceding with the landowners, and moving them to compassion. He gave away his pension, as well as gifts from his admirers, to the poor.

By his deeds of self-denial and love of soul, the Saint advanced in contemplation of Heaven and foresaw the future. In 1778, he had a vision in his sleep: the Mother of God stood in the clouds, and near her were the Apostles Peter and Paul. On his knees, the Hierarch prayed to the Most Pure Virgin for the peace of the whole world. The Apostle Paul loudly exclaimed: “When they shall say, peace and safety; then sudden destruction will come upon them” (I Thessalonians 5:3). Bishop Tikhon fell asleep with trembling and with tears.

The following year, he saw the Mother of God in the air again and several people near her. The Saint knelt down, and near him four others in white garments also fell to their knees. The Hierarch entreated the Most Pure Virgin for someone, that she would not abandn him (he did not tell his cell attendant who the four people were, nor for whom the request was made). She replied, “Let it be as you ask.”

Saint Tikhon prophesied a great deal about the future, particularly Russia's victory over the French in 1812. More than once they saw him in a state of spiritual rapture, with a transformed and radiant face, but he forbade them to speak about this.

For three years before his repose he prayed each day, “Tell me, O Lord, of my end.” And a quiet voice in the morning dawn said, “It shall be on a Sunday.” In that same year, he saw in a dream a beautiful meadow with wondrous palaces upon it. He wanted to go inside, but they said to him: “In three years, you may enter. For now, continue your labors.” After this the Saint shut himself in his cell and admitted just a few friends.

Both vestments and a grave were prepared for the time of his death. He often came to weep over his coffin, while standing hidden from people in a closet. A year and three months before his death, in a vivid dream, it seemed to him that he was standing in the Monastery church. A priest of his acquaintance was carrying the Divine Infant, covered with a veil, out of the altar through the Royal Doors. Vladyka approached and kissed the Infant on the right cheek, and he felt himself stricken on his left. Awakening, the Saint felt a numbness in his left cheek, his left leg, and a trembling in his left hand. He accepted this affliction with joy.

Shortly before his repose, Saint Tikhon saw a high and twisting ladder in a dream, and he was ordered to climb it. “At first, I was afraid because of my weakness,” he told his friend Cosmas. “But when I started to go climb, the people standing around the ladder lifted me higher and higher, up to the very clouds.”

“The ladder,” said Cosmas, “is the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. Those who helped were those whom you have helped by your advice, and so they remember you.” The Saint said with tears, “I thought so, too. I feel that my end is near.” He partook of the Holy Mysteries frequently during his final illness.

Vladyka reposed, as was revealed to him, on Sunday August 13, 1783, at fifty-nine. The first uncovering of his relics occurred on May 14, 1846. Saint Tikhon was glorified on Sunday August 13, 1861.

Source: Orthodox Church in America_OCA

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up-if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Matthew 5:14-19

14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[noeticprayer]

Saint Herman the Wonderworker of Alaska & First Saint of America

Reading from the Synaxarion:

Saint Herman (his name is a variant of Germanus) was born near Moscow in 1756. In his youth he became a monk, first at the Saint Sergius Hermitage near Saint Petersburg on the Gulf of Finland; while he dwelt there, the most holy Mother of God appeared to him, healing him of a grave malady. Afterwards he entered Valaam Monastery on Valiant Island in Lake Ladoga; he often withdrew into the wilderness to pray for days at a time. In 1794, answering a call for missionaries to preach the Gospel to the Aleuts, he came to the New World with the first Orthodox mission to Alaska. He settled on Spruce Island, which he called New Valaam, and here he persevered, even in the face of many grievous afflictions mostly at the hands of his own countrymen in the loving service of God and of his neighbour. Besides his many toils for the sake of the Aleuts, he subdued his flesh with great asceticism, wearing chains, sleeping little, fasting and praying much. He brought many people to Christ by the exam ple of his life, his teaching, and his kindness and sanctity, and was granted the grace of working miracles and of prophetic insight. Since he was not a priest, Angels descended at Theophany to bless the waters in the bay; Saint Herman used this holy water to heal the sick. Because of his unwearying missionary labours, which were crowned by God with the salvation of countless souls, he is called the Enlightener of the Aleuts, and has likewise been renowned as a wonderworker since his repose in 1837.

Apolytikion of Herman of Alaska in the Fourth Tone

Blessed ascetic of the northern wilds and gracious intercessor for the whole world, teacher of the Orthodox Faith, good instructor of piety, adornment of Alaska and joy of all America, holy Father Herman, pray to Christ God that He save our souls.

Kontakion of Herman of Alaska in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone

Monk of Valaam, who through ascetic labours didst become an emulator of the desert-dwelling Saints of old, O beloved of the Mother of God and Virgin, having taken prayer as sword and shield, thou wast revealed as the scourge of pagan darkness and the demons' hosts. Hence we cry to thee: O Saint Herman, pray that we be saved.

[akinformation]

Page 74

this in the past, and we are experiencing a repeat. There is this cyclicity that is very interesting.

According to my knowledge, feelings, and some known facts, there are a lot of underwater structures that no one touches in the Neva, in the Gulf of Finland, and in Lake Ladoga. On the left side of St. Petersburg, there is the Gulf of Finland; on the right side, there is Lake Ladoga, and St.Petersburg is in the middle. I believe that it was all, at one time, underwater.

When I told Big Alexander, he said that St. Petersburg and all of Europe were once in the ashes after a volcano exploded. And then there was a nuclear explosion. And that St. Petersburg is not Russia. He says that it does not look like Russia in any way. Russia, with its ancient heroes, such as Alexander Nevsky, in helmets and churches with white domes. But St. Petersburg is completely different. It is not Russian, you know? Interesting, strange, incomprehensible, yes. And a huge secret.

Messengers do not always speak in riddles. Sometimes, they talk a lot. Sometimes, they only say two sentences. They come to protect you from something, to stop you from doing something, or to guide you in a particular direction. I decided that I wanted to live in England, and on the eighth or ninth of May, I arrived in London. I was walking past a church, and the old man appeared before me again, and I told him:

– I want to live in London. I feel that those who rule everything are here. There’s a special kind of power here, and it’s so cool.

– You understand, – he tells me, – the Queen of Britain sends her assistants to a Russian town, and they bring pies to her from there because they don’t have such pies back home. England is nothing. She has nothing; she just collects the best from everyone, But she has nothing of her own.

Before, when he was singing the song “Dunya is sitting at the gate,” he emphasized how it related to Temple, stone, templar, do you remember? He said that it is all ecclesiastical, sacred language and that it is not necessary to take it literally.

[xtruss]

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine

"We Will Never Allow Our Historical Territories and People Close To Us Living There To Be Used Against Russia"

— Vladimir Putin, President of Russia | 16 January 22 | Anti-Empire | The Kremlin

Putin: The formation from our lands and people of an anti-Russia “is comparable in its consequences to the use of WMDs against us.”

Editor’s Note: Published in July 2021, and made mandatory reading for the Russian military just days later. If Moscow goes to war in the coming months you can take this text as its “Why We Fight”. Some select quotes:

— “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.”

— “But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy.”

— “The path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.”

— “We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia”

— “Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.”

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.

To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, “Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.”

Kievan Rus

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.

The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which – most significantly – was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas – Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk – fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila – son of the Princess of Tver – led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.

Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.

At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes – the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky – cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. [From Baltic paganism.] In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. [After which its nobility largely Polonised.] The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.

The 1648 Orthodox Cossack-serf Revolt that would seek Russian aid against Poles

As a consequence, in the 16–17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. [Albeit the revolt was largely social. More so than ethno-political.] The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking “the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar.” It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.

Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would ”detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).

The name ”Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.

Truce of Andrusovo 1667, left-bank transferred from Poland to Russia, cossack Zaporozhia under Russian protection

On the right bank, which remained under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.

During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.

Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate – an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure – and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country – its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.

In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.

The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.

Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?

The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.

I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.

At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.

Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.

In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.

In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.

In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks’ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.

Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.

Donetsk-Krivoy Rog

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.

In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ���parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.

In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.

In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.

I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine ”with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ – as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

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-wishers 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. Whatever “political arithmetic” of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.

Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.

Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.

Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has nearly halved in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.

Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who wasted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality are not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.

Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the ”aggressor state“ is.

When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events – at first gradually, and then more rapidly – started to move in a different direction.

In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the “anti-Russia” concept which we will never accept.

The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an “anti-Moscow Russia”. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.

Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.

All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new ”Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the ”purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.

Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on ”indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.

There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.

But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.

I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.

For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.

The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.

This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military ”development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on ”indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.

This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.

The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as ”pro-Russian“ agents.

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.

Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be “anti-Ukraine”. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

— Source: The Kremlin

[torillatavataan]

#my great-grandmother was from a village or small town on the coast of lake ladoga #she and her husband and their eldest child fled to helsinki at first #lived there a few years #then moved to countryside to a farm in western finland #where they barely scraped together a living and enough extra to allow their children to get as good of an education as they wanted to

#in her old age my great-grandmother wrote some poems and a couple of novels based on her life #i've read them since it's as much of a contact or conversation i can ever have with her #and those books? those poems? the longing for the home she had to leave behind as a young woman practically drips off the pages

#they were written 50 years or so after she'd left the village in karelia #i read them recently. 30-ish years after they were published #and that pain and longing is still evident to me

#the place she was from still exists and is marked on google maps #i've never been there. i don't know what it looks like. #let alone what it looked like right after the war. or what it looked like when she lived there before the war #but i know she missed it probably until the day she died

At the start of the winter war, my grandmother was milking the cows and going about her day when a relative of hers came over to her house to inform that the Soviets had invaded Finland and that the village needed to be evacuated. Her family packed everything they needed and made their way to the train station.

After spending a few years as war refugees, they made their way back to their village after it had been recaptured but not much remained. The village is now on Russian territory and probably in the same state as it was all those years ago.

[zuikoplanet]

Old Ladoga. A fresco in the Church of the Holy Great Martyr George. 12th century Via Flickr: Olympus OM-2n Zuiko 28 mm f/2.8 Ilford FP4 Plus 125

[rivermantis]

[wingeddreamduck]

Staraya Ladoga (Old Ladoga) - an ancient fortress in Russia. A very frosty, but sunny day

[mim70]

Volkhov riv., Old Ladoga, Leningradskaja oblast', Russia

[jhlcolorizing]

Finnish vehicles on a muddy road crossing the pre-Winter War border on the Karelian Isthmus, Kirjasalo, September 6, 1941.

The Finnish forces crossed the pre-Winter War border on the Karelian Isthmus, thus straightening the frontline so that it ran along the old border near the shores of Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. •••••••• Suomalaiset ajoneuvot mutaisella tiellä ylittävät vanhan rajan Kirjasalon suunnalla, 6.9.1941.

Suomi valtasi talvisodassa menettämänsä alueet Karjalankannaksella ja ylitti talvisotaa edeltäneen rajan suoristaessaan rintamalinjan Laatokan ja Suomenlahden välillä. •••••••• [ sa-kuva | Ruponen | 44422 ]

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Friday, August, 26, 2022

2august 26_august 13

SAINT TIKHON OF ZADONSK, BISHOP OF VORONEZH (1783)

Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, Bishop of Voronezh (in the world Timothy), was born in the year 1724 in the village of Korotsk in the Novgorod diocese, into the family of the cantor Sabellius Kirillov. (A new family name, Sokolov, was given him afterwards by the head of the Novgorod seminary). His father died when Timothy was a young child, leaving the family in such poverty that his mother was barely able to make ends meet. She wanted to give him to be raised by a neighbor, a coachman, since there was nothing with which to feed the family, but his brother Peter would not permit this. Timothy often worked a whole day with the peasants for a single piece of black bread.

As a thirteen-year-old boy, he was sent to a clergy school near the Novgorod archbishop’s home, and earned his keep by working with the vegetable gardeners. In 1740, he was accepted under a state grant set up for the Novgorod seminary. The youth excelled at his studies. Upon finishing seminary in 1754, he became a teacher there, first in Greek, and later in Rhetoric and Philosophy. In the year 1758, he was tonsured with the name Tikhon. In that same year they appointed him to be prefect of the seminary.

In 1759, they transferred him to Tver, elevating him to be archimandrite of the Zheltikov monastery. Later, they appointed him rector of the Tver seminary and, at the same time, head of the Otroch monastery.

His election as bishop was providential. Metropolitan Demetrius, the presiding member of the Holy Synod, had intended to transfer the young archimandrite to the Trinity-Sergiev Lavra. On the day of Pascha, at Peterburg, Archimandrite Tikhon was one of eight candidates being considered for selection as vicar-bishop for Novogorod. The lot fell on him three times.

On the same day, during the Cherubic Hymn, Bishop Athanasius of Tver, without realizing it, commemorated him as a bishop while cutting out particles from the prosphora at the Table of Oblation. On May 13, 1761 he was consecrated Bishop of Keksgolma and Ladoga (i.e., a vicar bishop of the Novgorod diocese).

In 1763, Saint Tikhon was transferred to the See of Voronezh. During the four and a half years that he administered the Voronezh diocese, Saint Tikhon provided constant edification, both by his life and by his numerous pastoral guidances and soul-saving books. He wrote a whole series of works for pastors:

Concerning the Seven Holy Mysteries

A Supplement to the Priestly Office

Concerning the Mystery of Repentance

An Instruction Concerning Marriage

The saint considered it essential that each priest, deacon and monk have a New Testament, and that he should read it daily. In an Encyclical, he called on pastors to perform the Holy Mysteries with reverence, with the fear of God, and love for one’s neighbor. (An Explanation of Christian Duties was often republished in Moscow and Peterburg during the eighteenth century).

At Voronezh the saint eradicated an ancient pagan custom, the celebration in honor of Yarila (a pagan god associated with the fertility of grain and cattle). In the outlying districts where military units of the Don Cossacks were dispersed, he formed a missionary commission to restore sectarians to the Orthodox Church.

In 1765, Saint Tikhon transformed the Voronezh Slavic-Latin school into a seminary. He invited experienced instructors from Kiev and Kharkhov, and planned the courses for it. He exerted much attention and effort to build up both the churches and the school, and to guide pastors to understand the need for education.

The saint was unflagging in his efforts to administer the vast diocese, and he often spent nights without sleep. In 1767, poor health compelled him to give up running the diocese and withdraw for rest to the Tolshevsk monastery, at a distance 40 versts from Voronezh.

In 1769, the saint transferred to the monastery of the Theotokos in the city of Zadonsk. Having settled into this monastery, Saint Tikhon became a great teacher of the Christian life. With deep wisdom he set forth the ideal of true monasticism in his Rule of Monastic Living and his Guidances to Turn from the Vanity of the World, and in his own life he fulfilled this ideal. He kept strictly to the precepts of the Church. Zealously (almost daily) he visited the temple of God, and he often sang and read in the choir. In time, out of humility, he altogether ceased participating and serving, but merely stood in the altar, reverently making the Sign of the Cross over himself. He loved to read the Lives of the Saints and the works of the Holy Fathers. He knew The Psalter by heart, and he usually read or sang the Psalms on his journeys.

The saint underwent much tribulation because he had to leave his flock. When he recovered his health, he thought about returning to the Novgorod diocese, where Metropolitan Gabriel had invited him to head the Ivḗron Vallaisk monastery. But when his cell-attendant mentioned this to the Elder Aaron, he declared: “Are you mad? The Mother of God does not direct him to move away from here.” The cell-attendant conveyed this to His Grace.

“If that is so,” said the saint “I shall not move away from here,” and he tore up the invitation. Sometimes he journeyed to the village of Lipovka, where he celebrated church services at the Bekhteev house. The saint journeyed also to the Tolshev monastery, which he loved for its solitude.

The fruition of all his spiritual life were the books that the saint wrote while in retirement: A SPIRITUAL TREASURY, GATHERED FROM THE WORLD (1770), and ON TRUE CHRISTIANITY (1776).

The saint lived in very simple circumstances: he slept on straw, covered by a sheepskin coat. His humility was so great that he paid no attention to the workers who laughed at him as he walked about the monastery, pretending that he did not hear it. He used to say, “It is pleasing to God that even the monastery workers mock me, and I deserve it because of my sins.” He often said, “Forgiveness is better than revenge.”

Once, a fool named Kamenev struck the saint on the cheek saying, “Don’t be so haughty.” The saint, accepting this with gratitude, gave the fool three kopeks every day for the rest of his life.

All his life the saint “in troubles, and sorrows, and insults... joyfully endured, mindful that there can be no crown without the victory, nor victory without effort, nor effort without struggle, nor struggle without enemies” (Ode 6 of the Canon).

Strict towards himself, the saint was indulgent towards others. On the Friday before Palm Sunday, he entered the cell of his friend the schemamonk Metrophanes, and he saw him at table together with Cosmas Ignatievich, of whom he was also fond. There was fish on the table, and his friends became upset (fish is not permitted during Lent, except for Feast days). The saint said, “Sit down, for I know you. Love is higher than fasting.” To further calm them, he ate some of their fish soup.

He especially loved the common folk, and comforted them in their grievous lot, interceding with the landowners, and moving them to compassion. He gave away his pension, and gifts from admirers, to the poor.

By his deeds of self-denial and love of soul, the saint advanced in contemplation of Heaven and foresaw the future. In 1778, he had a vision in his sleep: the Mother of God stood in the clouds, and near Her were the Apostles Peter and Paul. On bended knees, the saint prayed to the All-Pure Virgin for the peace of the whole world. The Apostle Paul loudly exclaimed: “When they shall say, peace and safety; then sudden destruction will come upon them” (I Thess. 5:3). The saint fell asleep in trembling and in tears. The following year, he again saw the Mother of God in the air and several people near Her. The saint knelt down, and near him four others in white garments also fell to their knees. The saint entreated the All-Pure Virgin for someone, that She would not leave him (the saint did not tell his cell-attendant who the four people were, nor for whom the request was made). She answered, “Let it be as you ask.”

Saint Tikhon prophesied much about the future, particularly the victory of Russia over the French in 1812. More than once they saw the saint in spiritual rapture, with a transformed and luminous face, but he forbade them to speak about this.

For three years before his repose he prayed each day, “Tell me, O Lord, of my end.” And a quiet voice in the morning dawn said, “It will be on a Sunday.” In that same year, he saw in a dream a beautiful meadow with wondrous palaces upon it. He wanted to go inside, but they said to him: “In three years, you may enter. For now, continue your labors.” After this the saint secluded himself in his cell and admitted only a few friends.

Both clothing and a grave were prepared for the time of his death. He often came to weep over his coffin, while standing hidden from people in a closet. A year and three months before his death, in a vivid dream, it seemed to the saint that he was standing in the monastery church. A priest of his acquaintance was carrying the Divine Infant, covered with a veil, out of the altar through the Royal Doors. The saint approached and kissed the Infant on the right cheek, and he felt himself stricken on the left. Awakening, the saint sensed a numbness in his left cheek, his left leg, and a trembling in his left hand. He accepted this illness with joy.

Shortly before his death, the saint saw in a dream a high and twisting ladder and he heard a command to climb it. “At first, I was afraid because of weakness,” he told his friend Cosmas. “But when I started to go climb, the people standing around the ladder lifted me higher and higher, up to the very clouds.”

“The ladder,” said Cosmas, “is the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. Those who helped were those you have helped by your advice, and they remember you.” The saint said with tears, “I thought so, too. I feel that my end is near.” He frequently received the Holy Mysteries during his illness.

Saint Tikhon died, as was revealed to him, on Sunday August 13, 1783, at the age of fifty-nine. The first uncovering of his relics occurred on May 14, 1846.

Saint Tikhon’s glorification took place on Sunday August 13, 1861.

Source: Orthodox Church in America

  VENERABLE RADEGUNDE OF POITIER, NUN (587)

Venantius Fortunatus: Life of St. Radegund

[Venantius Fortunatus (530-609), the author of this text, served as advisor and secretary to Queen Radegund (b. 520-5; d. 587), who had fled her husband, the Frankish King Clothar I (d. 561), founded an abbey at Poitiers and become a nun. Venantius Fortunatus wrote a number of saints’ lives and religious songs and poems; he became Bishop of Poitiers c. 590.]

1. Our Redeemer is so richly and abundantly generous that He wins mighty victories through the female sex and, despite their frail physique, He confers glory and greatness on women through strength of mind. By faith, Christ makes them strong who were born weak so that, when those who appeared to be imbeciles are crowned with their merits by Him who made them, to garner praise for their Creator who hid heavenly treasure in earthen vessels. For Christ the king dwells with his riches in their bowels. Mortifying themselves in the world, despising earthly consort, purified of worldly contamination, trusting not in the transitory, dwelling not in error but seeking to live with God, they are united with the Redeemer’s glory in Paradise. One of that company is she whose earthly life we are attempting to present to the public, though in homely style, so that the glorious memory that she, who lives with Christ, has left us will be celebrated in this world. So ends the Prologue.

Here begins the life.

2. The most blessed Radegund was of the highest earthly rank, born from the seed of the kings of the barbarian nation of Thuringia. Her grandfather was King Bassin, her paternal uncle, Hermanfred and her father, King Bertechar.(1) But she surpassed her lofty origin by even loftier deeds. She had lived with her noble family only a little while when the victorious Franks devastated the region with barbaric turmoil and, like the Israelites, she departed and migrated from her homeland.(2) The royal girl became part of the plunder of these conquerors and they began to quarrel over their captive. If the contest had not ended with an agreement for her disposition, the kings would have taken up arms against one another. Falling to the lot of the illustrious King Clothar(3), she was taken to Athies in Vermandois, a royal villa, and her upbringing was entrusted to guardians.(4) The maiden was taught letters and other things suitable to her sex and she would often converse with other children there about her desire to be a martyr if the chance came in her time.(5) Thus even as an adolescent, she displayed the merits of a mature person. She obtained part of what she sought, for, though the church was flourishing in peace, she endured persecution from her own household. While but a small child, she herself brought the scraps left at table to the gathered children, washing the head of each one, seating them on little chairs and offering water for their hands, and she mingled with the infants herself.(6) She would also carry out what she had planned beforehand with Samuel, a little cleric.(7) Following his lead, carrying a wooden cross they had made, singing psalms, the children would troop into the oratory as somber as adults. Radegund herself would polish the pavement with her dress and, collecting the drifting dust around the altar in a napkin, reverently placed it outside the door rather than sweep it away. When the aforementioned king, having provided the expenses, wished to bring her to Vitry she escaped by night from Athies through Beralcha with a few companions.(8) When he settled with her that she should be made his queen at Soissons, she avoided the trappings of royalty, so she would not grow great in the world but in Him to Whom she was devoted and she remained unchanged by earthly glory.(9)

3. Therefore, though married to a terrestrial prince, she was not separated from the celestial one and, the more secular power was bestowed upon her, the more humbly she bent her will-more than befitted her royal status. Always subject to God following priestly admonitions, she was more Christ’s partner than her husband’s companion. We will only attempt to publicize a few of the many things she did during this period of her life. Fearing she would lose status with God as she advanced in worldly rank at the side of a prince, she gave herself energetically to almsgiving. Whenever she received part of the tribute, she gave away a tithe of all that came to her before accepting any for herself. She dispensed what was left to monasteries, sending the gifts to those she could not reach on foot. There was no hermit who could hide from her munificence.(10) So she paid out what she received lest the burden weigh her down. The voice of the needy was not raised in vain for she never turned a deaf ear. Often she gave clothes, believing that the limbs of Christ concealed themselves under the garments of the poor and that whatever she did not give to paupers was truly lost...continue reading University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Department of History

MATTHEW 24:27-33, 42-51

27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near-at the doors! 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. 45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.2 

Commentaries from the church Fathers

John Chrysostom AD 407 For this intent He tells them not, in order that they may watch, that they may be always ready; therefore He says, When ye look not for it, then He will come, desiring that they should be anxiously waiting, and continually in virtuous action. But His meaning is like this: if the common sort of men knew when they were to die, they would surely strive earnestly at that hour.

Hilary of Poitiers AD 368 To teach us that our ignorance of the date of his return (which his silence has kept hidden from everyone) is not without its usefulness, Christ warns us to keep all his commandments. We should also be occupied with constant prayer in order to guard against the coming of the thief. For the thief is the devil who seeks to invade our bodily homes with the darts of his thoughts and allurements in order to ruin us while we are sleepy and careless. It is good therefore that we be prepared. Our ignorance of the day of Christ’s return should provoke us to be careful as we eagerly await his coming.

2 CORINTHIANS  4:13-18

13And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed and therefore I spoke," we als believe and therefore speak,14 knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.15 For all things are for your sakes, that grace, having spread through the many, may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God.16Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.17For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Commentaries of the Church Fathers

Caesarius of ArlesAD 542: If you seek temporal things, you pray publicly and with your door open. If you ask for eternal things, your prayer is secret because you long to receive not the things which are seen but those which are not seen.

Clement Of Alexandria AD 215: But us the Word enjoins "to look not on the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen; for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.". With such persecution, if you have worldly wealth, if you have brothers allied by blood and other pledges, abandon the whole wealth of these which leads to evil; procure peace for yourself, free yourself from protracted persecutions; turn from them to the Gospel; choose before all the Saviour and Advocate and Paraclete of your soul, the Prince of life. "For the things which are seen are temporary; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

[whatdoesshedotothem]

Monday 16 September 1839 Travel Journal

5

11 35/..

fine morn[in]g and F[ahrenheit] 56° at 5 a.m. off at 6 –

at Lillpero at 7 38/.. – off at 7 58/..

just out of Wiborg [Vyborg] bouldery com[mo]n

i.e. aft[e]r pass[in]g thro’ the suburb w[i]th the

good ch[ur]ch – then fr[om] there for so[me] dist[an]ce

thinned young Scotch fir forest and

a few lit[tle] corn fields and aft[er]w[ar]ds young rocky bouldery young Scotch

fir forest and coarse sandy r[oa]d as yest[erday] – ver[y] few cot[tage]s

b[u]t I slept gr[ea]t p[ar]t of the way look[in]g out ev[er]y now and then –

Lillpero well en[ou]gh lit[tle] lone h[ou]se – Russ[ia]n – we ha[ve]

met sev[era]l lit[tle] waggons load[e]d w[i]th so[me]th[in]g cov[ere]d gen[erall]y

w[i]th matt[in]g – no [servant] ab[ou]t at Wiborg [Vyborg] so ga[ve]

noth[in]g – fr[om] Lillpero to the frontier 86 [w] at 12 k[opek]

=26/64 I shall ha[ve] en[ou]gh Finnish mon[ey] left -  

Lillpero in the forest and forest forw[ar]ds b[u]t yest[erday]

gen[erall]y and today so far the forest less swampy than

 Wiborg [Vyborg] 18 2/3

Hotoka [Kotka] 17

St. P- [Petersburg] 83 2/3

Heslingfors [Helsinki] 300.

 Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

common – r[oa]d good – sandy soil as yest[erday]

b[u]t r[oa]d hard and good – the police declin[e]d search[in]g

carr[ia]ge at W- [Wiborg] [Vyborg] s[ai]d they c[oul]d n[o]t do it – now (9 10/60) 1st

view of sea or lake or wat[e]r s[in]ce leav[in]g Wiborg [Vyborg] – and now nice

woody open count[r]y and farms and cot[tage]s a lit[tle] [?] – pass[e]d a

farm or 2 ab[ov]e 1/2 h[ou]r ago in a break of the forest –

fields – no corn out – good flock of

sheep recently shorn in 1/2 h[ou]r ago saw a pl[an]t of cranberry in

flow[e]r – at the beyond stat[io]n at 9 13/.. h[a]d to turn b[a]ck - alight at our stat[io]n

at Hotoka [Kotka] comf[orta]ble rooms

at 9 1/4 br[eak]f[a]st – beaut[iful]

view fr[om] our br[eak]f[a]st r[oo]m wind[ow]

of the fine wood[e]d fjord – Russ[ia]n – our beard[e]d landlord

ver[y] civ[i]l and good look[in]g – the men m[u]ch bet[ter] look[in]g than the

wom[e]n – br[eak]f[a]st boil[e]d milk and 4 boil[e]d eggs and br[ea]d and butt[e]r

they br[ou]ght us butt[e]r b[u]t we h[a]d our own and br[ea]d spar[e]d of

yest[erday]s’ din[ner] – br[eak]f[a]st at 9 38/.. to 10 5/.. – sev[era]l nice

outbuild[in]gs – off at 10 19/..

thin bouldery young forest and sea

(right) coup[le] of hund[re]d y[ar]ds off

ver[y] beaut[iful] – and at 10 27/.. peep

of the sea n[o]t far off (left) – at 10 33/..

(in 14 min[ute]s) ha[ve] lost sight of sea exc[ept]

our lit[tle] glimpse or 2 soon aft[er]w[ar]ds – and a beaut[iful] peep ag[ai]n of sea (left) –

10 40/.. unpainted hamlet 1 st[ree]t of gable-ends to the r[oa]d perh[aps] 200 y[ar]ds

long – the 1st vil[lage] there ans[werin]g Handb[oo]ks’ descript[io]n p[age] 142 it is in [?]

break of the forest, w[i]th nice clean even lit[tle] corn fields

asleep – till at 11 1/2 ver[y] pict[uresque] vil[lage] irregul[a]r vil[lage] of

Kyröla [Kyrölä] and our good stat[io]n – large good one story wood h[ou]se

 Stolpebod – stolpe, stoop

Baaum (beam) tree

 Hotacka [Kotka]

Lillpero 17 v[ersts]

Kyröla [Kyrölä] 14 v[ersts]

St. P- [Petersburg] 100 2/3 v[ersts]

Viborg [Vyborg] 35 2/3

 SH:7/ML/TR/14/0009

Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

yellow (b[u]t old paint[e]d) w[i]th whi[te] wind[ow] frames –

ver[y] nice lit[tle] neat new-look[in]g fresh paint[e]d (yellow w[i]th pea green roof)

ch[ur]ch – and 2 or 3

good h[ou]ses w[i]th red roofs

oldish yel[low] paint

I th[in]k – the rest of the vil[lage] hamlet-like

and unpaint[e]d – by irreg[ula]r I mean that

the mid[dle] of the vil[lage] street swell[e]d out into

a sort of large square cont[ainin]g the ch[ur]ch and good h[ou]ses

ver[y] pret[ty] ab[ou]t here – fine br[oa]d expanse of wood[e]d

islandy wat[e]d left – and extens[ive] view of open

wood[e]d count[r]y – woody birchy and firs along our r[oa]d

capit[a]l r[oa]d – and n[o]t hilly today – this last vil[lage] of

Kyröla [Kyrölä] or Krasnoje Selo [Krasnoe Selo]  the prett[ies]t we ha[ve] seen  

ver[y] nice drive this stage – open birchy Scotch fir forest –

freq[uen]t peeps of the wat[e]r left – nice dry upland forest –

sandy b[u]t r[oa]d good – and mo[re] hilly than bef[ore] – the wat[e]r

left m[u]st be part of the series of lakes fr[om] Viborg [Vyborg]

that join the Ladoga? – plenty of cranberries

al[on]g b[u]t the pret[ty] red birnes n[o]t larg[e]r than our bilberry –

at 1 3/4 at [Pampala] good sm[all] unpaint[e]d lone h[ou]se

in nice dry airy break in the forest

snow plough – a calèche drove up –

just aft[e]r us – off at 1 12/.. – at 1 22/..  

(in 10 min[ute]s) nice peep ov[e]r the forest

up fine wood[e]d extens[ive] count[r]y all ar[ou]nd us [crossed word] –

sev[era]l lit[tle] s[u]ch peeps last stage fr[om] the tops of lit[tle] hills –

sandy b[u]t r[oa]d good – at 2 10/.. (right – near) large pict[uresque]

ch[ur]ch on hill – yel[low] w[i]th dark col[oure]d roof exc[ept] East

end cupola roof red – and unpaint[e]d hamlet at its f[ee]t

 Krasnoje Selo [Krasnoe Selo]                    Hotacka [Kotka]  14

St. P- [Petersburg] 87                                  Pampala 15 1/2

V- [Vyborg] 49 2/3

Helsingfors [Helsinki] 326 2/3

  Kyröla [Kyrölä] 15 2/3

Kivinebb 13

St. P- [Petersburg] 71

 Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

and our stat[io]n (good unpaint[e]d h[ou]se at 2 12/.. might ha[ve] slept

here appar[entl]y ver[y] well) – 2 snow ploughs –

nice hilly wood[e]d op[e]n airy count[r]y all

r[ou]nd ab[ou]t – the vil[lage] nicely plac[e]d on highgr[ou]nd –

off ag[ai]n at 2 1/2 – on ris[in]g the hill, the

count[r]y ver[y] pret[ty] here – fine extens[ive]

view – hamlets and farms scatt[ere]d up and d[o]wn – yel[low] stub[ble] f[iel]ds and green

young rye and good green pasturage – the unpaint[e]d (drab) hamlets and dark pine

wood[e]d hills finely contrast[e]d – b[u]t the hills n[o]t high – mere

rising gr[ou]nds all ar[ou]nd us – all right and left a wide woody plain

pret[ty] well peopl[e]d – no over-flow[in]g populat[io]n anywhere –

in this cold nord – gr[ea]t deal of birch all today –

now at 2 50/.. the wide plain right seems one sheet

of dark pine forest we pass thro’ a lit[tle] unpaint[e]d

scatt[ere]d hamlet or 3 or 4 or a series of scatt[ere]d farms and the villages

num[erou]s hamlet-like appurt[enan]ces – here and ev[er]y where

the wood fences as in S. and N- [South and North] at 3 5/.. cross good

riv[e]r and wood br[idge] and 14 men w[i]th as many one horse

ploughs plough[in]g in one stubble f[iel]d – cattle –

3 lit[tle] corn stacks in a f[iel]d – nice farm[in]g here –

7 nar[row] lines (bet[ween] Stakes or rails or [how] of

so[me]th[in]g like peasholm – plenty of geese here –

abund[an]ce of them at Viborg [Vyborg] in the Baltic near the

2 steams, and on the ramparts and in the st[ree]ts and

ev[er]ywhere – one stage hill this ti[me] and r[oa]d sandy b[u]t good

at 3 23/.. unpaint[e]d scattered hamlet and pret[ty] lit[tle] lake near right

and a bit of sm[all] bould[e]r stone cobble wall fence

the 1st I ha[ve] seen in the north – S.N. [South and North] or here)

 Kiviniebb

Pampala 13 v[ersts]

Raiaioki 12 1/2 v[ersts]

St. P- [Petersburg] 58 v[ersts]

 Geese

 1st cobble st[one]

wall.

 SH:7/ML/TR/14/0010

Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

at the stat[io]n at 3 33/.. – on highgr[ou]nd – lone

h[ou]se unpaint[e]d body – red roof

good en[ou]gh look[in]g h[ou]se – m[i]ght sleep

appar[entl]y as well as at many of the

oth[e]r stat[io]ns – the hamlet scatt[ere]d ab[ou]t

at a lit[tle] dist[an]ce – the appurt[enan]ces of the

stat[io]n num[erou]s as us[ua]l and hamlet-like

wide wood[e]d plain right and left and surely it the sea we

just see in the extreme dist[an]ce before us (right) –

off at 3 47/.. ver[y] pret[ty] at 3 52/.. lit[tle] steep desc[en]t on to

wood[e]n br[idge] ov[e]r lit[tle] stream that is perh[aps] the boundary?

steep boulder stones pav[e]d asc[en]t – en[ou]gh for our horses to do to get

us up – and good largeish houses – good all the way fr[om]

Viborg [Vyborg] – pret[ty] and hilly and m[u]ch birch – thin

forest, and pasture and cows – yes! (now 4 3/4) it

is the sea, a long sweep, in the dist[an]ce (right) –

the pavé roughish beg[a]n on this side the bridge at 3 52/..

b[u]t we go on the sides (sandy b[u]t ver[y] fine) now and then

ver[y] m[u]ch – and aft[e]r all the pavé is n[o]t so bad

so far – I w[oul]d rath[e]r risk our carr[ia]ge here than

fr[om] Hamburg to Lubeck, or even in the st[ree]ts of

Stockholm where if the pavé is so[me]th[in]g between the

deep chan[nel]s are terrib[le] – now at 4 5/.. the aft[ernoo]n

is dullish – shall we ha[ve] r[ai]n? now at 4 1/4 fine

wood[e]d count[r]y – range of wood[e]d hill left,

closes in (at perh[aps] 7 or 8 inches Eng[lish]) our plain

at the left  - low birch wood bushes and young Scotch

firs scatt[ere]d here and to the right (in the dist[an]ce)  

 Raiaioki

Kivinebb 12 1/2 v[ersts]

Walkiasari 12 1/2 v[ersts]

St. P- [Petersburg] 45 4/6 v[ersts]

 Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

and to the right in the dist[an]ce the fine sweep of

sea w[i]th a dark line at the b[a]ck of it form[in]g the horizon

lookd[o]wn in front in the dist[an]ce up[on] dark plan

ris[in]g to the horizon – and now 4 25/.. a scatt[ere]d hamlet

unpaint[e]d as us[ua]l – the sea now sweeps 1/2 r[ou]nd us

in the dist[an]ce fr[om] right to en face – we look up[on]

one sheet of forest belt[e]d right and in front by sea –

now towns or vil[lage]s distinguishable – the r[oa]d now

sandy (at 4 1/2) and goodish – the pavé nowhere

prev[ente]d my writ[in]g – at 4 1/2 lose my pen – in tak[in]g

off bon[ne]t m[u]st ha[ve] kick[e]d it out – now at 4 1/2 ver[y]

sandy and heavy –

the birch gen[erall]y green shew[in]g merely a tinge of autumn

here and there – hilly stage – now at 4 55/.. a lit[tle]

town or vil[lage] in sight bef[ore] us (right) w[i]th handso[me]

white, blue-cupolaed, ch[ur]ch – now at 5 first

buckwheat that I ha[ve] obs[erve]d part stand[in]g ripe,

and part cut, ti[e]d up in lit[tle] sheaves, and in stock – and

our road now and for a lit[tle] whi[le] b[a]ck as broad as

3 r[oo]ds (perh[aps] 60 y[ar]ds wide) and we go on the grass or

as well as we can thro’ the sand – and now (5 5/..) a few scatt[ere]d

farmsteads – our r[oa]d this stage the worse we ha[ve] h[a]d in

Denm[ar]k Swed[e]n or Norway, b[u]t still the r[oa]d to Hazelunen

m[u]ch worse in point of sand, and the r[oa]d fr[om] Hamburg to

Lubeck m[u]ch worse in 1833 in point of pavé –

the pavé beg[i]ns ag[ai]n now at 5 10/.. (we h[a]d it fr[om] 3 52/.. to 4 1/2)

b[u]t we keep on the side – on the sand – sev[era]l lit[tle] long nar[row]

stacks w[i]th spruce fir branches laid on the thatch (as obs[erve]d

once before) steep pitch d[o]wn to wood br[idge] x [cross] stream – then ascend to the

town, and at the Station at 5 1/4 at Walkiasari

 SH:7/ML/TR/14/0011

Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

John stopt at the stat[io]n h[ou]se and we h[a]d s[e]nt Gross to

the douane, and g[o]t the bask[e]ts and cloaks out bef[ore] they ca[me] to say the

carr[ia]ge and all m[u]st go to the place – there at 5 25/.. and A- [Ann] and I there 3/4 h[ou]r –

then ca[me] b[a]ck sided our r[oo]m and A- [Ann] made tea – sat ov[e]r it till 8 10/..

then prepared our bed – on[l]y one in the h[ou]se – h[a]d Grotza at

8 3/4, when we h[a]d g[o]t all ready – and then till now (10 p.m.)

ink[e]d ov[e]r the latt[e]r 2/3 of the last p[age] and so far of this –

Jean w[a]s in desp[ai]r at the th[ou]ght of our stay[in]g all night –

s[ai]d if we d[i]d we must sleep up[on] hay for there were

no beds – and in ca[me] a large bundle of nice soft

hay w[hi]ch now lies in the corn[e]r of our r[oo]m – we ha[ve]

spr[ea]d out the one scant[l]y fill[e]d bed (w[i]th flocks I suppo[se])

on sofa and chairs so as to be wide en[ou]gh for us both –

of the 2 pieces  of linen each n[o]t qui[te] clean ab[ou]t 1 1/2 y[ar]d sq[uare] we ha[ve] made

[crossed word] an und[e]r sheet, and shall put our cloaks ov[e]r

us – we ha[ve] the luxury of 4 pillows, and shall do ver[y]

well – we ha[ve] our own br[ea]d and butt[e]r and tea and sug[a]r b[u]t they

br[ou]ght ver[y] fair br[ea]d (wheat) and good butt[e]r, and 4 boil[e]d

eggs and a lit[tle] bowl of milk w[i]th the cream on it for our tea –

the cream made our tea excell[en]t and we sat ov[e]r and enjoy[e]d

it, declar[in]g how well off we were – we h[a]d g[o]t well

thro’ the ordeal of the douane, and congrat[ulate]d ours[elves] on being

in Russia – our b[oo]ks I bel[ieve] were all tak[e]n out of the carr[ia]ge

and look[e]d at; b[u]t, as desir[e]d, I cop[ie]d the list I ha[ve] and the Stockholm [crossed word] date

dat[e]d it Stockholm as really dat[e]d there, and sign[e]d it

= A. [Anne] Lister [sign]                   and then enclos[e]d it an envelope,

‘de Shibden hall’ and as desir[e]d seal[e]d it w[i]th my own seal

my arms, wr[ote] on the back ‘List of the books belonging to Mrs. Lister’

 Sept[embe]r Mon[day] 16

and s[e]nt this by Gross to the Douane to be forward[e]d

to St. Petersburg, I engaging to go w[i]thin six weeks to the

committee of censorship to claim the list – s[ai]d I sh[oul]d

go to Mrs. Wilsons’ – we are thus allow[e]d to ta[ke] all our

b[oo]ks and th[in]gs and go in comf[or]t – How m[u]ch bet[ter] than to the poth[e]r

we sh[oul]d ha[ve] h[a]d if we h[a]d arriv[e]d at St. P- [Petersburg] by the steamer! –

our journ[e]y thro’ Finland h[a]s really been a ver[y]

agreeab[le] and a ver[y] economic[a]l one; and we ha[ve] seen

the count[r]y and the peop[le] – the latt[e]r alw[a]ys civ[i]l and ready to do

their utm[o]st to please, and the form[e]r well-farm[e]d (made

the m[o]st of) and interest[in]g – the r[oa]ds ev[er]ywhere good till

this last stage – and the sand of this noth[in]g to that of Hazelunen

and the for post aft[ernoo]n post pavés of the s[ou]th of Fr[an]ce often qui[te] m[u]ch or more as jolt[in]g and try[in]g to

the springs of a carr[ia]ge then the 43 min[ute]s out 88 min[ute]s

(fr[om] 3 47/.. to 5 1/4) here – this is the 1st ti[me] we ha[ve] fail[e]d

to find good clean beds and sheets at the Stat[io]n houses

and on[l]y once or twice we ha[ve] the peop[le] been w[i]thout

whi[te] (wheat) bread – the lit[tle] steep pitches are too short

to be dang[erou]s – the horses rarely stumble; and a man m[u]st be

a ver[y] bad driv[e]r and totally unaccust[ome]d to this sort of r[oa]ds if

he can[no]t get on comf[ortabl]y ev[e]n w[i]th a heavy Eng[lish] carr[ia]ge like ours ab[ou]t

8 versts an h[ou]r – I nev[e]r obs[erve]d the man or boy (Holcar)

ask for anyth[in]g mo[re] than wh[a]t w[a]s due for the horses

6 kopeks each fr[om] country stat[io]ns and doub[le] that fr[om] towns –

Åbo is a good town – Heslingfors [Helsinki] ver[y] beaut[iful]

cheerful and comf[orta]ble (the Societys’ h[ou]se good hot[e]l) and one

might ha[ve] advantages fr[om] the univers[it]y prof[essor]s (all the

students away – vacance for a fortnight longer) –

Viborg [Vyborg] dull as all fortresses of such sort m[u]st be? b[u]t a good

town and its fjord and situat[io]n beaut[iful] – the cold

SH:7/ML/TR/14/0012

September Monday 16the cold weather is coming – I have had a little chilblain in my right little finger these 2 days or more and Jean has got a little lumbago since Saturday – fine day (tho’ dullish coldish in the morning and dampish in the afternoon) – F56 ¼° now at 10 ¾ pm our 2 rooms have been warmed by a stove; for they were quite comfortably warm on our arrival no pot ath [at] breakfast and we have a tureen for one tonight Raining now at 10 ¾ pm

[nicholasroerich]

Old Ladoga. Fortress., 1899, Nicholas Roerich

Medium: charcoal,paper

[slushyseals]

Водоканал Санкт-Петербурга

В Центре изучения морских млекопитающих появился второй пациент в сезоне 2020💙 ⠀ Около 13:00 в Центр изучения морских млекопитающих, который находится на территории Водоканала поступило сообщение из поселка Отрадное о нерпенке, который дрейфует на льдине. По словам очевидца, над животным кружили вороны, которые то и дело пикировали на маленького «путешественника». Но помочь животному никто не мог, т.к. льдина находилась посередине Невы – оставалось только ждать, когда нерпа «причалит» к берегу. ⠀ Следующий звонок поступил в районе 17:00 из поселка Свердлова – житель сообщил о том, что заметил маленького нерпенка, который сидит на льдине в 20 метрах от берега. Помочь животному отправили пожарную бригаду МЧС, которые, строго следуя рекомендациям Вячеслава и Елены Алексеевых, сняли малышку с тающей льдинки из реки Нева и отвезли в пожарную часть. Там сотрудники МЧС поместили нерпу в пластиковую емкость подальше от теплых помещений – для кольчатых нерп перегрев может быть крайне опасен. Там животное дождалось специалистов Центра изучения морских млекопитающих, которые транспортировали нерпу в Центр на территории Водоканала, где оказали всю необходимую помощь. ⠀ 💫По словам специалистов Фонда друзей балтийской нерпы, детеныш родился буквально вчера или позавчера и должен был находиться рядом с мамой под снежным укрытием на протяжении 40-50 дней. Быстрое течение Невы вынесло малютку из Ладожского озера в неподходящую для нее среду обитания. Новорожденная самочка весит 4 килограмма. Животное находится в крайне слабом состоянии и сейчас не смогло бы выжить в дикой природе. Сейчас она помещена на карантин и находится под постоянным наблюдением. ⠀ ❗Водоканал напоминает, что в случае обнаружения нерп или тюленя ни в коем случае нельзя приближаться к животному или кормить его! Необходимо сразу же связаться с Центром изучения морских млекопитающих по номеру 📞 (812) 699-23-99 и, в случае необходимости, строго следовать их рекомендациям, дожидаясь прибытия специалистов.

This little baby was rescued from atop the ice of Lake Ladoga. He is only a day old and weight 4 lbs.

[xtruss]

Article by President Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine. "We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia"

— Vladimir Putin, President of Russia | July 12, 2021

Putin: The formation from our lands and people of an anti-Russia “is comparable in its consequences to the use of WMDs against us.”

Editor’s note: Published in July 2021, and made mandatory reading for the Russian military just days later. If Moscow goes to war in the coming months you can take this text as its “Why We Fight”. Some select quotes:

“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.”

“But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy.”

“The path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.”

“We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia”

“Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.”

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.

To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, ”Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“

Kievan Rus

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.

The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which – most significantly – was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas – Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk – fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila – son of the Princess of Tver – led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.

Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.

At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes – the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky – cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. [From Baltic paganism.] In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. [After which its nobility largely Polonised.] The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.

The 1648 Orthodox cossack-serf revolt that would seek Russian aid against Poles

As a consequence, in the 16–17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. [Albeit the revolt was largely social. More so than ethno-political.] The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking ”the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.

Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would ”detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).

The name ”Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.

Truce of Andrusovo 1667, left-bank transferred from Poland to Russia, cossack Zaporozhia under Russian protection

On the right bank, which remained under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.

During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.

Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate – an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure – and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country – its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.

In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.

The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.

Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?

The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.

I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.

At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.

Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.

In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.

In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.

In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks’ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.

Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.

Donetsk-Krivoy Rog

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.

In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ”parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.

In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.

In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.

I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine ”with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ – as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

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-wishers 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. Whatever ”political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.

Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.

Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.

Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has nearly halved in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.

Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who wasted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality are not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.

Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the ”aggressor state“ is.

When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events – at first gradually, and then more rapidly – started to move in a different direction.

In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.

The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.

Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.

All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new ”Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the ”purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.

Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on ”indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.

There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.

But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.

I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.

For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.

The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.

This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military ”development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on ”indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.

This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.

The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as ”pro-Russian“ agents.

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.

Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

Source: The Kremlin