Putins Wrong Claim on Ukrainians and Russians as One People

Arguments that overstate dissimilar nations proximity are often instrumentalized to provide justification for the annexation of territories and even military operations, which is a recent problem in Russo-Ukrainian relationships. This is the case for Vladimir Putins statements on Ukraine. Putin defines Ukrainians identity as the invention of the Polish-Lithuanian rulers who imposed this artificial identity to divide one nation, presents Ukraines territory as a gift from the USSR, and draws links between a short period of Ukraines alignment with Nazi Germany during WWII and the neo-Nazi Ukrainian government that seeks to cause division. This essay refutes Putins viewpoint as one that misrepresents facts, thus demonstrating that Ukraine is a separate nation.

Putins (2021) first main claim regarding Ukrainians national identity as something artificial and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealths involvement is beneath criticism. The first issue is that it offers an incorrect interpretation of historical facts and promotes an opinionated viewpoint rather than a takeaway from research. Along with Putins words, some territories of present-day Ukraine were heavily influenced by Poland-Lithuania for around four centuries since the early fourteenth century, which could not go unnoticed for their inhabitants identity (LSE International History, 2020). At the same time, in 1667, Poland-Lithuania ceded the control of Kyiv and the territory surrounding it to Moscow (LSE International History, 2020). There is no evidence that former rulers imposed any self-identity on Ukrainians. Even if they did, this sense of nationhood would be fragile and could easily be destroyed by Russian rule, but it remains strong even today. The second prominent problem with the statement is more ethical in nature; the claim basically ignores that Ukrainians, just like any other nation, have the right to national self-identification. Therefore, Putins claim on artificial self-identity is not grounded in research while also being ethically problematic.

To continue, Putins perspective on Ukraines territory as a gift from the Soviet Union is rooted in fantasy rather than facts. On the 21^st of February this year, Putin explained the existence of Ukraine as the generous gifts of Russian territory that the Bolsheviks gave to Ukrainians (Smolkin, 2022, para. 2). This claim assumes that Ukraine was not a state prior to the USSRs emergence, but Ukraine became one of the first national republics to enter the Soviet Union in 1922 (Smolkin, 2022). Historically speaking, it is more accurate to relate Ukraines independence to the collapse of the Russian Empire (Smolkin, 2022). Also, giving something as a gift involves possessing it, and the southern or eastern territories of modern-day Ukraine experienced significant Russian presence only in the nineteenth century, which cannot be equal to possession (LSE International History, 2020). As per the Soviet census of 1926, most territories of Ukraine were dominated by people identifying as ethnic Ukrainians rather than Russians (LSE International History, 2020). If the territories were a gift, their ethnic makeup would be greatly different.

Next, Putins claims about the neo-Nazi government and Ukraines collaboration with Nazi Germany are illogical. Ukrainians actually collaborated with Germany at the beginning of WWII. However, it stemmed from their reactions to the USSRs oppressive politics and the hope for independence, but they switched sides rather quickly (Cengel, 2022). From Putins viewpoint, Ukraines government has recently seen the onset of neo-Nazism (Treisman, 2022). Although it might be true that separate politicians or activists secretly hold pro-Nazi views, President Zelenskyy, who has the largest influence on the countrys vision and politics, is Jewish, which makes his supposed involvement in the spread of neo-Nazi ideologies a nonsensical argument.

In summary, Putins statement regarding Ukraines and Russias ethnic unity turns out to be based on misrepresented historical facts and opinions and fails to recognize Ukrainians right to free self-identification. The flawed nature of the politicians arguments has implications for the rationale of Russias recent invasion of Ukraine and demonstrates its nature as an artificially constructed pretext for disguising expansion-related or economic purposes. Although refuting the Russian leaders perspective is not enough to stop the war, fact-checking and promoting the global communitys awareness of these findings might increase the foreign support for the invaded state.