Poltava and Mazepa
July 8, 2009 – 6:06 pmWALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
JULY 9, 2009
Historical Battle Lines
Why is Russia afraid of a 300-year-old Ukrainian hero?
By ADRIAN KARATNYCKY and ALEXANDER J. MOTYL
Lord Byron, Pushkin, and Victor Hugo wrote poems about him. Liszt composed a symphonic work in his honor, Tchaikovsky devoted an opera to him, and Gericault painted him tied naked to a horse. In centuries past he was a historical superstar — a poster child for the Romantic era.
His name was Ivan Mazepa, a Ukrainian Cossack chieftain who allied with Sweden’s Charles XII to fight Russia’s Czar Peter the Great at the Battle of Poltava, 300 years ago this week.
The swashbuckling subject of Romantic-era adulation is once again attracting attention, this time as the subject of a dispute over history between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. In the eyes of the Russian state and its propagandists, Mazepa is Public Enemy No. 1 — a turncoat who betrayed Peter the Great, Orthodox Christianity and the unity of Slavic peoples. Most Russian historians have judged Mazepa a traitor. Acting under the instruction of Czar Peter, the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated him and placed an anathema on him, and still vilifies him in annual Poltava services. In turn, many Ukrainian historians regard Mazepa as an honored fighter for Ukraine’s statehood. President Viktor Yushchenko extols Mazepa as a heroic precursor of Ukraine’s independence and his image is emblazoned on the 10 hryvnia note ($1.30).
Passions over Mazepa have not been as heated in three centuries as this year. In recent days, amid ceremonies, costumed reenactments, conferences and television programs on the Poltava battle, Russian demonstrators have burned him in effigy. Ukrainian patriots rallied in Poltava on June 27 and unfurled a 30-meter by 45-meter Ukrainian flag in his honor. And a security force of nearly 1,000 has been deployed in Poltava and successfully staved off conflicts between the two sides.
On the surface, there is little in Mazepa’s biography that would warrant such intense feelings. He was born to a prosperous and educated family in Polish-occupied Ukraine in 1639 and served in the Polish court until 1665, when he returned to Ukraine, eventually joining the ranks of the Cossacks loyal to the Polish crown. In 1687, Mazepa was elected Hetman, or chieftain, of the Cossack Host in eastern Ukraine that was loyal to the Muscovite Czar. A prosperous magnate, Mazepa built churches and supported the arts and education while pursuing the goal of uniting all Ukrainian lands in a Cossack state. After years of partnership with Peter the Great, Mazepa sensed Russia’s growing ambitions were a threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty. He abruptly turned against Peter and in 1709 joined Sweden’s young king, Charles XII, in a campaign against Russia. The Swedish-Ukrainian alliance suffered a crushing defeat at Poltava. Charles died from a battle wound and Mazepa fled to today’s Moldova, where he also died soon after.
Poltava helped shape Europe’s geopolitics for three centuries.
Russia’s emphatic rout of Sweden and its Cossack allies signaled its emergence as a European superpower and ensured Russian dominion over Eastern Ukraine for the bulk of three centuries. Peter constructed a new narrative for his realm. Instead of being Muscovy, it was to be Russia. As such, he and his state could claim lineage with the Kievan state called Rus that had accepted Christianity in 988 and collapsed in the 13th century. In one simple historical revision that complemented his opening to the West, Peter and his realm would be transformed from Asiatic upstarts to a European empire. Kiev would become the “mother of all Russian cities.”
There was, of course, no place in this scheme for anything resembling an independent or autonomous Ukraine. Indeed, any claim to Kiev’s autonomy or separate nationality, any Ukraine-based opposition to Russian rule, was a direct threat to the Petrine myth and the legitimacy that it helped confer on the Russian state. Mazepa had to go, and has never been allowed to return to historical grace for the same reason. Every Russian ruler has vilified him since the fateful battle at Poltava.
For Russians, Poltava without question was a great historical victory and Russians should be free to memorialize it as such. And there is no question that in the 17th century, national identities were ill-formed and many inhabitants of the territory of Ukraine felt a stronger kinship for the common Orthodox faith they shared with Russians than for any aim of independence. But for contemporary Ukrainians, there can be no similar ambivalence. As a young state that gained independence in 1991, Ukraine must develop its own sense of history, its own heroes and founding fathers. In short, it needs a common historical narrative to bind its citizens.
Such efforts are at best benign and should excite from Russia no more than a firmly agnostic ambivalence. But the vehemence of Russian polemics over events and personalities three centuries old speaks to the Russian state’s interest in keeping alive the idea of the eventual reunification of the two states. It also helps perpetuate a cultural divide between Ukraine’s Ukrainian-speaking west and the Russophone east.
In this context, there are several reasons why Poltava resonates.
First, Mazepa and the Cossacks represent a political force that sought autonomy and independence from Russian dominion. Second, Mazepa not only turned against Russia, he made common cause with Sweden, i.e.
with Europe and the West. Third, for politicians like Vladimir Putin who lionize the Russian empire and lament the disintegration of the Soviet Union, branding Mazepa a traitor sends a not-so-subtle message that proponents of Ukraine’s statehood today are also betraying the cause of Slavic unity.
With Russia adamantly opposed to Ukraine’s integration into European structures and with Mr. Putin on record as questioning the permanence of Ukraine’s statehood, Russia is investing significant resources on challenging Ukraine’s shaping of a separate national identity and history. These efforts include film documentaries challenging Ukraine’s effort to commemorate Stalin’s famine as a national genocide, and financing “Taras Bulba,” a big-budget epic film that depicts the Cossacks as loyal supporters of the Russian empire and adds scenes — absent in Gogol’s 19th century novel on which the movie is based — of Poles as murderous barbarians engaged in pillaging and rape.
While this Russian effort to upend Ukrainian national identity is not likely to succeed, over the short term it can help perpetuate Ukraine’s east-west divide, promoting instability and increasing Russia’s opportunities to reassert hegemony over its weak neighbor.
Until Ukraine can shape its historiography calmly and professionally without external interference, its polity will continue to be plagued by divisions and its society by lack of cohesion. This is why the contemporary battle over the meaning of Poltava is as significant as the Battle of Poltava was three centuries ago.
Mr. Karatnycky is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council of the U.S. Mr. Motyl is professor of political science at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
42 Responses to “Poltava and Mazepa”
Personally, I think it’s telling that the present Ukrainian leadership can think of nothing better to do but focus on historical controversies when every time the sun sets a there are about thousand fewer Ukrainians than there were the time before.
And Adrian Karatnycky & Alexander J. Motyl fit this pattern in spades.
By rkka on Jul 16, 2009
Personally, I think it’s about time that Ukraine got out from under Russian’s ongoing efforts to destroy Ukrainian identity.
And that Russia’s leadership stopped engaging in imperialistic adventures in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Plus – I think that Ukraine’s leadership is perfectly capable of multi-tasking, and does so.
Unlike Russia’s leadership, which focuses on Putler kissing little boys on the belly in public.
By elmer on Jul 16, 2009
There is nothing wrong with devoting time to national identity,re-writing history and nation-bilding. Every country has done it. What is wrong is if the leadership excessively focus on it while screwing up everything else. Here Yushchenko is at fault (as Zawada rote recently in the Weekly) as Ukrainians believe that he is devoted too much time to the dead and insufficient time to the living. There needs to be a balance and Yushchenko has not sought this balance. Especially if he has not shown leadership, conciliation and a willingness to work with others. As commentators are writing now in Ukraine, Yushchenko did not stand above inter-elite conflicts (as he should have) but actively took part in them. Another factor is that Yushchenko has not respected his voters (most Ukrainian politicians don’t but we thought Yushchenko was “different”) and has ignored their protests which between elections is best seen in opinion polls. His ratings declined dramatically in 2008 and he ignored this fact rather than (as in the West) adjusting his policies accordingly to take into account public disquiet. You cannot carry your policies (NATO membership, Ukrainian history, etc) if you only have 2% support. In the West a leader with such dismal support would have been forced into a pre-term election a long time ago.
A final factor that Yushchenko should not have done is to personalise his quest for history re-writing. Kuchma was the first to raise the famine as genocide in 2003 but he never personalised it as his crusade in the manner of Yushchenko. This personalisation has not done him favours inside Ukraine or abroad.
I wonder whether calling it a genocide was wise politically (I am not a lawyer and so will not go into the legal side). If it had not been personalised as a genocide I suspect that the Party of Regions would have supported the legislation adopted 2 years ago. Then it was backed by 3 out of five forces: BYuT, Our Ukraine and the Socialists. Getting Regions on board would have been in my view a key priority.
By Taras on Jul 16, 2009
Thank you for this insightful article.
Ukraine in the 1700, unlike today, was not as well educated. It was a nation of predominately surf’s and as you have pointed out its main common bond with the Russian state was it’s Orthodox religion.
The battle of Poltava was one of the main turning points in the world’s history. And much more should have been done to commemorate this event.
Sweden should have taken the opportunity to extend it’s new found association with Ukraine by offering to build a memorial museum and interpretation centre along the lines of the Swedish Vasa Ship that would depict the context of historical events though the use of multi-media displays and the like.
Ukraine had its chance to commemorate the battle of Poltava and set it on a new footing. It failed in pretty much the same way as it had in 1709
Mazeppa’s betrayal was not so much his betrayal of Russia but his failure to bring Ukrainians on board in support of his vision.
He was effectively signing away one imperial domination for another, yet more foreign imperialism. Whilst there is a remote historical Swedish connection in Ukraine’s past Ukraine and Russia were much greater.
Mazeppa’s betrayal was highlighted by the fact that Ukrainians did not turn up to support Mazeppa’s war. He failed to reflect and win over the support of the country he claimed he represented. Did he act on his own or in counsel?
We could draw many parallels to this fact with the current situation and moves for Ukraine to join NATO. It’s not a question of military might but a question of political will and strategy.
Ukraine will never be independent if it is to rely on another state to fight its own battles. Ukraine must first and foremost seek to unite it s own people and represent them accordingly. It needs to first become an independent state in its own nation.
The false stereotype of Russia versus the west must stop. All Ukrainian political parties are pro Europe and pro Ukraine. There is only a small percentage of Ukrainians that are anti Russian., They make up 5 to 10% of the population and whilst they claim to be nationalists the reality is they are not about nation building but division only.
Evolution not revolution.
The real lesson from Mazeppa’s betrayal is the need for Ukraine to embrace its own independence first and place faith in its people.
Ukraine today is not Ukraine of the 18th Century. It is a modern multi-cultural state trying to become a democracy. It must stop looking to others to govern itself, It must take collective responsibility for its governance, embrace its diversity and historical associations and build on the middle ground united by the one commonality, Ukraine and its people.
By Turning Point on Jul 16, 2009
Maybe all the criticisms of Yush are valid but misses the point completely – like getting a porche as a present and complaining about the colour. Come on what have Tym or Yanuk or Yats done about the matter which you say is important. Why not a word about Tym’s doing nothing and not caring a hoot? The point is compared to what everyone else doing it might not be prefect but certainly better – much better.
By anon on Jul 17, 2009
If Ukraine looses the Ukrainian language then what really has been achieved? Nothing. This is why it is of paramount importance to have more aggressive policies to get people to start speaking Ukrainian.
This guys gets it:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news_print/2009/7/17/98467.htm
By Bohdan on Jul 20, 2009
Yes Lozynsky does. The irony is that Ukrainian language has not expanded under Yushchenko. My own on the ground experience is that Ukraine is becomng a genuinely bilingual nation with Ukrainian being accepted as a bona fide language. In the USSR Ukraine was also bilingual but in fiction as Ukrainian was demoted as an unworthy and uncouth peasant language. At the same time, stick your head into any media kiosk and ask for Ukrainian-language publications. You will receive a handful only. All the rest are in Russian, especially the ones catering to the new middle class. Even the Ukrainian publications are published in bilingual editions – that is Russian and Ukrainian versions (Zerkaklo Nedeli-Tyzhnia, Den, etc). The main political magazines (looking like Newsweek are all in Russian except Ukrayinsky Tyzhden. The American owner of Kyiv Post closed 3 Ukrainian publications last August: Novynar weekly political magazine, and 2 for women – Pani and Vona. So there you have it. Russian on the march in orange Ukraine.
By Taras on Jul 20, 2009
The question is: would Newsweek, Playboy, Cosmopolitan etc. (and even the Russian media) still come to Ukraine if the law required them to publish in material in Ukrainian? I think that after a period of shock and dismay, in the end the business interests associated with 48 million potential customers would over-ride…at least that’s what happened in Quebec after they banned most English only media a few decades ago…
By Bohdan on Jul 20, 2009
At least for the future the education minister appointed under Yush’s quota introduced a nationwide leaving exam in Ukranian which for some reason Tymoschenko tried to cancel.
By anon on Jul 20, 2009
Its not as simple as that. The publishers see the “market” as the entire Russian-speaking CIS. That is a lot of sales. Another factor are advertising revenues as if published in Russian means you can attract advertisers from a far larger market, it is believed.
Many Russian newspapers are big in Ukraine – Izvestia v Ukrayini, Komersant v Ukraini, Komsomolska Prava v Ukraini, etc.
Ukraine is not Canada and Quebec is not the Crimea!
By Taras Kuzio on Jul 20, 2009
I understand the point about publishers seeing the entire market as the Russian speaking CIS, but how is that different than the english publishers view of North America prior to Quebec asserting its cultural heritage in the 1970s?
By Bohdan on Jul 20, 2009
English-only media in Quebec banned? That’s news to me. Can you name one newspaper/TV channel/radio station closed by an act of the Quebec Government?
I can’t.
By Blair on Jul 24, 2009
Bill 101 is Quebec’s language and cultural law that forbids the unrestricted and equally applied use and visibility of the English language, designed specifically to smother English in the province of Quebec.
By Bohdan on Jul 24, 2009
Bill 101 does not in any way restrict the use of English in the media. On street signs and in workplaces of (IIRC) 25 persons or more – yes.
Bill 101 is not designed to “smother” English, but to save French from being swamped in an overwhelmingly English-speaking North American cultural space.
As a born-and-bred English-speaking Quebecker, I have no trouble with Bill 101 and its follow-ons. I don’t feel oppressed in the slightest. For one thing, I and most of my friends studied from kindergarten to MA level in English (smothering a language is pretty difficult if you don’t even take action against the two English-language universities.
Of course, we studied French, and I’m mighty glad of it. There’s a lot more one can get out of a unique place like Montreal, when you speak both languages.
By Blair on Jul 24, 2009
I agree – the goal was to save French. The same goal is necessary in Ukraine. I’m a strong advocate of a Bill 101 for Ukraine.
I understand from my collegues in Montreal that the effort to save French had a profound impact on the educational system. Basically, it is very very hard to send children to English speaking schools nowadays.
In eastern Ukraine, they shut down Ukrainian language schools but keep the Russian ones open. How screwed up is that?
By Bohdan on Jul 24, 2009
In Quebec, Bill 101 has had a marked effect on immigrants, because these are required to send their children to school in French. They have no other choice.
Anglophone Canadians are allowed to send their children to school in English, provided only that the parents themselves attended primary English schooling in Quebec. If not (e.g., Canadian parents residing in Quebec, whether French or English-speaking, who obtained their elementary schooling in other provinces), then the children of such parents must go to school in French in Quebec.
Immigrants in Quebec constitute 12% of the total population (2006 census). They, and not native Quebecers, are the fastest-growing component of the Québécois mosaic. Their influx strongly bolsters use of the French language in the province even as the proportion of native “pure wool” Québécois declines due to low birth rate. The “pure wool” still dominate, however, outside of the metropolitan areas.
Given these facts, it seems clear that Bill 101, tailor-made for Quebec, would be a poor fit for Ukraine. Ukraine has (I am guessing) negligible immigration from “abroad” but, on the other hand, has a large proportion of Russian-speakers: the consequence of cultural genocide implemented there by the FSU. How to crack that nut is a very tough proposition, but Bill 101 is not a rabbit trail that’s worth following as a model.
In the free-market publishing field, Quebec has produced some very successful glossy magazines in French that are mirror-images of English-language ones. Actualité is a notable example (mirror of Time or Newsweek), as well as a wide range of professional publications.
By Roman on Jul 24, 2009
Historically, there’s much to second guess in this article, as some others besides yours truly privately noted.
Mazepa had been a trusted ally of Peter the Great. There’s reason to suspect that Mazepa sided with Charles XII against Peter the Great on the notion that the former would defeat the latter.
Did Mazepa actually “struggle for Ukrainian independence,” or did he seek to deliver a compromised state under Charles XII’s puppet Stanislaus Leszcyzinsky?
The historiography on this subject suggests that a comparatively greater number of Cossacks became disgusted with Mazepa in a way that saw them seek a new leader in Ivan Skoropadsky.
Despite its otherwise glaring slant, the article nevertheless acknowledges that in the 18th century “Ukrainian identity” was “not highly developed.”
On matter concerning Russia and Ukraine, the general views of Motyl, Karatnycky and Kuzio reflect the minority of Ukrainian public opinion – as post-Soviet public opinion polls have shown.
With this in mind, The Wall Street Journal once again misleads readers on issues pertaining to the territory of the former USSR.
By Political Dissident on Jul 31, 2009
Really? I have the best collection (maybe the only collection?) in the West of Ukrainian school textbooks that I have collected over 2 decades. These are sent to every school in Ukraine. The textbooks are in line with everything I would agree with on issues such as Kyiv Rus, Mazepa, Petliura, UPA. I have school maps of Ukraine with Ukrainian historical figures along the sides ranging from Kyiv Rus to Bandera.
Maybe it is you that is out of touch with what is going on in Ukraine.
By Taras Kuzio on Aug 1, 2009
The tyranny of the minority have been getting their way.
Bandera is a kind of Robert E. Lee figure (regional).
BTW, are you familiar with the attempt by some ultra-nationalists to have the Galician SS positively taught in Ukrainian schools?
KUDOS to Crimea for firmly saying no to that.
By Political Dissident on Aug 1, 2009
Precisely what do you have in mind by asking that crudely tendentious question, PD? Your hidden axiom seems to be that Ukraine must teach only Bolshevik-approved lies about the Ukrainian Division Halychyna, and suppress the truth such as one can read here:
http://halychyna.ca/VERYHATOC/MEMOCR000.pdf
By Roman on Aug 1, 2009
Oops, sorry. In my preceding post, I meant the link to open specifically at the following page:
http://halychyna.ca/VERYHATOC/MEMOCR000.pdf#page=4
By Roman on Aug 1, 2009
The SS Galicia Division should not be taught positively. But it cannot be ignored either. It should be included as part of Ukrainian history. All history in general should be taught – warts and all.
By Taras on Aug 1, 2009
Russia reminds me of the Wicked Witch in the movie “The Wizard of Oz,” when Dorothy threw water on her, and the witch began melting, and crying:
“Oh, I’m melting, my beautiful wickedness is melting, oh, what a world, what a world”
Those little russkie sovoks just keep hanging on to that bulshevik propaganda – as it’s melting around them, and the truth is exposed.
Little russkie sovoks hate the truth more than anything.
For them, the beautiful wickedness of bulshevik propaganda is the way to go.
Oh, what a world, what a world.
By elmer on Aug 1, 2009
Slightly off topic, but well worth it:
On the links provided by Roman, one of the pages has a music link to one of the most beautiful Ukrainian songs ever:
http://halychyna.ca/C-Introduction-uke.htm
At the top of the page, if you click on the QuickTime music link, you’ll hear it.
By elmer on Aug 1, 2009
Roman, are you saying that the Galician SS should be positively taught?
As for Bolshevik thinking, Putin had a recent chat with Solzhenitsyn’s widow, with the two of them sympathetic to the view that his works should be taught in the public schools. (There’ve been some attempts to misrepresent that discussion.)
The “sovok” term is periodically misused. I’ve run into my share of Ukrainians (not folks categorizing themselves as ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine) who feel a close kinship with Russia, while being anti-Soviet. Note that Ukraine’s boundaries are Soviet influenced. Yet, the support for that isn’t considered by many to be “sovok.” IMO, it shouldn’t. Terms like sovok can over-simplify things. At the same time, it’s true that the sovok mentality is evident throughout the former USSR. Other former Communist republics have versions of sovok as well.
By Political Dissident on Aug 1, 2009
How does one teach history “positively” or “negatively”?
The bulsheviks and the sovoks did that.
The facts are what they are.
The bulsheviks and the sovoks revised the facts to suit their needs.
the term “sovok” accurately describes what the sovok union created – a bunch of zombified people who are not capable of thinking logically, who are afraid to act, who are incapable of organizing to eliminate abuse by government.
That is why the mention of Bandera still drives little sovoks into apoplectic frenzy today – because there were Ukrainians who stood up to the upside down, Alice-in-Wonderland fairy tale system of the sovok union.
And because they reflected a “can-do” and “will-do” attitude and spirit, for a free, independent, sovereign Ukraine – the thought of which Russia and the Kremlin can’t stand, and never could.
As was reflected in songs of the OUN-UPA, such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0_O4wGjsn0
Nowadays, Ukrainians watch the “political elite,” they know the “political elite,” they know all of the abuse by and the tricks of the “political elite,” – but they throw up their hands and say “what can we do – someday, democracy, true democracy will happen.”
That’s what the sovoks created.
Not only in Ukraine.
By elmer on Aug 2, 2009
History can have its more open to interpretation moments. In other instances, a complete analytical overview can show one perspective as being the more accurate.
Suggesting that the Galician SS should be taught in a positive light isn’t something that truly pro-democracy/ethnically tolerant people support. To a lessor extent, one can find this view regarding the OUN/UPA.
Concerning some of the discussion at this thread, here’s what one person privately said:
“The attitude of the authorities currently in control in Ukraine to public opinion is that we don’t care what you you think, just let us teach your children what to think.”
****
To some degree, it’s kind of like what Hungary and Poland were like during the post WW II/pre-Glastnost years.
Meantime, the relationship between Russia and much of Ukraine goes back to a period longer than Communism. Whether on the left or right, a number of Ukrainians don’t support the extremist anti-Russian rhetoric put out by some ultra-nationalists. Equatintg this feeling with being a “sovok” is off the mark.
By Political Dissident on Aug 3, 2009
Well, at least some Ukrainians in that fifth column in Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church, are even realizing the “anathema” pronounced and held in force to today to be a symptom of malorosiystvo.
http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/religion.and.society/analysis/article;29245/
By Mike on Aug 3, 2009
For that matter, the stated “fifth column” use can be applied at some of those levying it.
On some issues, it’s healthy to have different views within the same grouping, as opposed to a party line or your out mindset.
By Political Dissident on Aug 3, 2009
From the risu link – analysis:
“And who was the initiator of the pronunciation of the anathema? Tsar Petro I, a person who gave the orders to kill and destroy the entire population of the city Baturyn. And this was almost 23 thousand people. So does a person so savagely cruel, a criminal, have the right to impose anathema even on an average person?”
And therein lies the exact problem with oily orthodox rooshan orthodoxy even today: no freedom of religion, no separation of church and state.
The tsar gets to declare a religious anathema for political purposes.
And Kirill, today, parades around Ukraine making political pronouncements about how everyone should be “unified” – under him and his $36,000 watch – and how stalin really was an OK guy.
A huge part of Mazepa’s problem was that the cossacks who pretended to be loyal to Ukraine, under his command, simply sat down in the battle of Poltava – because they wouldn’t fight against their orthodox “brothers.”
The same “brothers” who, for centuries, have been beating Ukraine over the head and trying to destroy it.
And today, Kirill is trying to do the same thing, together with Putler. In other words, Russia continues to pervert religion for political purposes.
Noone needs that kind of “brother.”
By elmer on Aug 3, 2009
As if there was no dubious Greek Catholic religious figures during WW II.
If the MP in Ukraine was so brutal and foreign, it would’ve disappeared by now. Instead, it remains the largest denomination in Ukraine.
To the dismay of the anti-Russian extremist minority, Russia and Russians in Ukraine aren’t unpopular. Putin would win the Ukrainian presidency when matched against any Ukrainian or other world leader.
On the earlier mentioned “fith column” claim, that tag can be put on Mazepa.
Filaret with his KGB (as claimed by some) ties is now overlooked by some as they heep negatives on some others.
Link and quote showing Kirill lauding Stalin. please.
The “pervert religion” matter more accurately applies to those seeking to change something against what’s popularly accepted.
By Political Dissident on Aug 3, 2009
The only ones who put tags on Mazepa were and are – rooshans.
The MP has practically disappeared – in roosha, where church attendance is way, way down, to only between 1 and 10 percent.
Cyril comes to Ukraine, they play “God save the tsar” – what on earth does that have to do with serving God, or with religion?
We shall see how long the MP can continue to fool the few remaining people who fall prey to a wizard in a Halloween costume.
There have been plenty of articles about Cyril defending stalin in view of the OSCE declaration equating nazism and stalinism.
Here is a link with an explanation of the whole thing:
http://foreignnotes.blogspot.com/2009/08/kirill-fighting-pull-of-western-magnet.html
So if Cyril is on some sort of religious excursion, why does he feel the need to make pronouncements about stalin?
Because he’s on a political mission, and he’s merely a charlatan dressed up in a wizard costume.
By elmer on Aug 3, 2009
The religious situation is more complicated than Political Dissent states:
1. in the USSR two thirds of the ROC was in Ukraine.
2. the majority of these ROC parishes were in Western-Central Ukraine (some were former UCC parishes)
3. Ukraine, with a third of Russia’s population, has more Orthodox parishes than Russia, making Ukraine home to the world’s largest Orthodox Church
4. Opinion polls from the early 1990s always show the Kyiv Patriarch to have 3-4 times more believers than the UOC-MP (ROC).
5. Many people, particularly rural and old, do not understand the difference as the ROC in Ukraine is called since 1990 the UKRAINIAN OC.
6. Post orange revolution surveys showed that more Orthodox believers voted for Yushchenko than they did for Yanukovych.
7. The reason for this is that a majority of UOC (ROC) parishes are in the more religious Western-Central (orange) Ukraine. Trans-Carpathia, which is usually depicted as Greek-Catholic, is an oblast where the largest Church is the UOC (ROC).
8. The UOC is a mix of different orientations ranging from local patriotic Ukrainian (West) to Russian chauvinist (Odesa, Crimea) and everything in between.
In conclusion, the UOC should be re-registered as the ROC which would lose it countless believers.
By Taras on Aug 3, 2009
Political Dissident, the MP does not look for long to be the dominant denomination in Ukraine and that’s the whole point of Kyrill’s visit. The situation on the ground apparently inevitably is moving towards the KP among the faithful. There really is a trend and people are leaving the MP, so you can accept what the people accept as well. The stock of the MP is sinking, hence the Russian Caesar’s rush to get Kyrill off to Ukraine to balance the situation with political speeches given in Donbass and Krym (a little knock at the Ukie fleet there , because that of course is a religious question). Kyrill, since becoming Soviet ROC rep to the World Council of Churches in 1971 is a political reptile. How is it he is suddenly proclaiming the need for Russian pilgrimages to Krym, based on Khersonesus. Now that’s a new one.
What do any of these modern actions have to do with you taking a pot-shot at Ukie Catholics from 70 years ago? The Ukr. Catholic Church did not directly get involved in the last presidential election in Ukraine. The ROC blatantly campaigned for that reprehensible reptile Yanukovych. The ROC continues to serve the Caesar in Moscow, whether Red, White, or Chekist.
Kirill’s p.r. agent, protodeacon Anrij Kuraev tells Ukes that the name of your country comes from the Polish insulting term “okraina”; Kuraev then goes on to lecture Ukes that Ukes should use the proud term of “Malorosiya” as it is “an esteemed and rooted name”. Nice advice that. (sources: dzerkalo tyzhnia, radiosvoboda)
The ROC knows perfectly well that if Ukraine is granted its own Church by Constantinople, the ROC loses half of its faithful and parishes overnight and becomes a shadow of its imperial self.
By Mike on Aug 4, 2009
The overall file footage of Kirill’s visit shows significant support for him.
The so-called (by Mike) “reptile” Yanukovych would win the Ukrainian presidency if it were to occur right now. For that matter, pro-ROC Putin would win the Ukrainian presidency against any Ukrainian and other political figure. Using such terms as “reptile” can be done towards the likes of Filaret.
This one from Taras takes the cake and then some: “from local patriotic Ukrainian (West) to Russian chauvinist (Odesa, Crimea) and everything in between.”
How about: from chauvinistic Ukrainians (west, notably Galicia) to the Russocentric and everything in between.
No, Russians aren’t alone in viewing Mazepa as a historically suspect figure. This point relates to how many more Cossacks went against him.
The “pot shot” point of mine was in reply to the pot shot point made against the ROC.
I asked for a link and direct quote from Kirill showing support for Stalin as earlier claimed. This hasn’t happened. Likewise, I’d like to see a link showing a scientifically conducted poll with the recent claims made by Taras.
By Political Dissident on Aug 4, 2009
Political Diss. Do you have a poll that shows Putin winning an election in Ukraine? Most Ukrainians do watch Russian T.V. a lot and, surely, you know the routine there when it comes to Putin. Every single news segment on him is positive on Russian T.V. The Ukes watch this indoctrination all the time on their tubes. Always paint the tsar in a good light.
You do understand that Ukraine at least has a semblance of free press now, whereas in Russia Politkovskaya and Memorial activists get shot? OMON forces just arrested and bashed a pro-democracy protest over the weekend. Do you feel anything for these victims of Putinism?d
On Yanukovych, what do you want be to used to describe a guy who was almost killed by an egg in Ivano-Frankivsk and then gave a pathetic lecture on T.V. on the dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. Yan seems in great health now.
Putin – “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the last century”. Am I to take that you agree with the K.G.B. Colonel on that one and approve of his Chekist-regulated press. You just posted of the benefits of a diversity of views, where do you see a healthy diversity in expression in the political sphere in Russia? I mean Orlando Figes gets his works banned from Russia by Putin because they tell the truth of Stalin’s victims. You see nothing wrong with this?
By Mike on Aug 4, 2009
From Professor Wasyliw of Ithaca, N.Y.
“Patriarch Kirill opposes “political orthodoxy,” yet the Russian Orthodox Church closely collaborates with Russian leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev in spreading a Russian nationalist (some say proto-fascist) message in Russia and the “near abroad.”
“Putin, Medvedev and Kirill [Moscow Patriarch], a powerful Russian troika, engage in joint political and religious commemorations of the White General Anton Denikin, supporting and echoing Denikin’s denigration of Ukrainians, the political canonization into sainthood of Tsar Nicholas II, his wife and five children, in support of a reactionary Russian imperial ideological foundation of Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Russian Nationality with its legacy of chauvinistic policies and pogroms.
Many other examples bring to question whether Patriarch Kirill’s visit is a political mission to re-engage a reactionary past of a revived vision of Russian imperial control over Ukraine.
The Russian Orthodox Church remains silent on many recent and current human rights abuses by the Russian state, such as the suspicious deaths of journalists critical of the government, the assault upon the human rights group Memorial, the censorship and political control of history, among many others.”
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op_ed/46190
By Mike on Aug 4, 2009
http://hnn.us/articles/103288.html
Russia: The Aggrieved Great Power
By Leonid Luks
http://ut.net.ua/art/166/0/2859/
[?????????? ??????????]
? ??????????? ????????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????? (Rise of Eurasianists. In Russia’s Political Establishment There is a Growth of Fascist Tendencies)
by Andreas Umland
By Taras on Aug 4, 2009
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/7/28/99057.htm
?????? ??????, ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????
Kyrylo believes that Stalinism did not aim to destroy people?
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/7/27/98990.htm
??????????? ????????: ????????? – ??????? ???????? ????????? ? ??????
The famine was a joint tragedy for Ukrainians and Russians (straight out of Putin-Medvedev’s rhetoric)
By Taras on Aug 4, 2009
Assuming this not gets posted:
I provided a lengthy reply inclusive of links.
It didn’t go thru.
I’ll try again.
By Political Dissident on Aug 4, 2009
No, for whatever reason it’s not going thru.
It’s not too long, in addition to having links which substantiate what I said and in answer to what was asked for.
By Political Dissident on Aug 4, 2009
Mr. Kuzio, I have a comment at this link since Aug. 5, 2009, hung up with a note “Your comment is awaiting moderation”.
http://blog.taraskuzio.net/2009/07/08/poltava-and-mazepa/
That item is now in the archives. Is it not now past time for you to decide whether to keep or delete my comment?
By Roman on Oct 9, 2009