What do you think?
Rate this book
What Everyone Needs to Know
Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know
Conventional wisdom dictates that Ukraine's political crises can be traced to the linguistic differences and divided political loyalties that have long fractured the country. However, this theory obscures the true significance of Ukraine's recent civic revolution and the conflict's crucial international dimension. The 2013-14 Ukrainian revolution presented authoritarian powers in Russia with both a democratic and a geopolitical challenge. In reality, political conflict in Ukraine is reflective of global discord, stemming from differing views on state power, civil society, and democracy.
Ukraine's sudden prominence in American politics has compounded an already-widespread misunderstanding of what is actually happening in the nation. In the American media, Ukraine has come to signify an inherently corrupt place, rather than a real country struggling in the face of great challenges. What Everyone Needs to Know� is an updated edition of Serhy Yekelchyk's 2015 publication, The Conflict in Ukraine. It addresses Ukraine's relations with the West, particularly the United States, from the perspective of Ukrainians. The book explains how independent Ukraine fell victim to crony capitalism, how its people rebelled twice in the last two decades in the name of democracy and against corruption, and why Russia reacted so aggressively to the strivings of Ukrainians. Additionally, it looks at what we know about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, the factors behind the stunning electoral victory of the political novice Volodymyr Zelensky, and the ways in which the events leading to the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump have changed the Russia-Ukraine-US relationship.
This volume is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the forces that have shaped contemporary politics in this increasingly important part of Europe, as well as the international background of the impeachment proceedings in the US.
Ukraine's sudden prominence in American politics has compounded an already-widespread misunderstanding of what is actually happening in the nation. In the American media, Ukraine has come to signify an inherently corrupt place, rather than a real country struggling in the face of great challenges. What Everyone Needs to Know� is an updated edition of Serhy Yekelchyk's 2015 publication, The Conflict in Ukraine. It addresses Ukraine's relations with the West, particularly the United States, from the perspective of Ukrainians. The book explains how independent Ukraine fell victim to crony capitalism, how its people rebelled twice in the last two decades in the name of democracy and against corruption, and why Russia reacted so aggressively to the strivings of Ukrainians. Additionally, it looks at what we know about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, the factors behind the stunning electoral victory of the political novice Volodymyr Zelensky, and the ways in which the events leading to the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump have changed the Russia-Ukraine-US relationship.
This volume is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the forces that have shaped contemporary politics in this increasingly important part of Europe, as well as the international background of the impeachment proceedings in the US.
230 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 6, 2015
154 people are currently reading
807 people want to read
About the author
Serhy Yekelchyk
18 books25 followersDr. Serhy Yekelchyk received his BA from Kyiv University and an MA from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Following a research fellowship in Australia in 1993–94, he came to Canada in 1995 to pursue a Ph.D. in Russian and Eastern European History at the University of Alberta. His dissertation analyzed representations of the past in Stalinist culture, with special emphasis on Soviet Ukraine. After graduating, he taught for a year at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) before coming to Victoria in 2001.
Dr. Yekelchyk’s research interests evolved since then to include the social and political history of the Stalin period, as well as the formation of a modern Ukrainian nation from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. His Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation (Oxford University Press, 2007) was the first Western history of Ukraine to include the coverage of the Orange Revolution and was translated into five languages. His monograph on late-Stalinist political rituals appeared in 2014 and a book about the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict is coming out in 2015.
Dr. Yekelchyk is cross-appointed between the departments of Germanic and Slavic Studies and History and teaches a variety of courses on Russian history, Stalinism, Modern Ukraine, and Cold-War cinema. He supervises graduate and Honours students working on various aspects of Russian and Eastern European history and culture.
Dr. Yekelchyk’s research interests evolved since then to include the social and political history of the Stalin period, as well as the formation of a modern Ukrainian nation from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. His Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation (Oxford University Press, 2007) was the first Western history of Ukraine to include the coverage of the Orange Revolution and was translated into five languages. His monograph on late-Stalinist political rituals appeared in 2014 and a book about the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict is coming out in 2015.
Dr. Yekelchyk is cross-appointed between the departments of Germanic and Slavic Studies and History and teaches a variety of courses on Russian history, Stalinism, Modern Ukraine, and Cold-War cinema. He supervises graduate and Honours students working on various aspects of Russian and Eastern European history and culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews
April 3, 2022
"I would very much like for you NOT to have my portraits in your office. No Portraits! A president is not an icon or an idol. A president is not a portrait. Put photographs of your children there instead. And before making any decision, look them in the eyes!"
Volodymyr Zelensky, 20019 Inaugural Address
When I read or watch the news on Ukraine, events like the Orange revolution, Maiden protests, the annexation of Crimea, War in the Donbas region appear consistently. Yet, while I have learned the significance of these events, my knowledge base remained sketchy. So I looked for a book to fill in the gaps. The Conflict in Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know more than met this need.
Serhy Yekelchyk is a Professor of History and Slavonic Studies at the University of Victoria. He has a clear appreciation of what a novice needs to know to understand the complex situation in Ukraine. He is also a skilled writer who recognizes how to structure a text that examines history and culture, both international and domestic, to make this information relevant and accessible.
The Conflict in Ukraine is a short book, just 166 pages. The author divides it into several chapters that examine the Making of Modern Ukraine, Ukraine after Communism, the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan, Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the War in the Donbas. In addition, he uses in question-and-answer format, which is a style I found especially helpful. For example, in Ukraine after Communism, Yekelchyk asks how independent Ukraine became an inefficient economy and a paragon of crony capitalism? Who are the Oligarchs?
While reading the book, I watched Servant of the People, the Ukrainian comedy that catapulted Zelensky into the Presidency. Although the show is meant as a spoof, it clearly illustrates the oligarchs and political elites' stranglehold on the Ukrainian economy. Both highlight specific issues like the failing infrastructure and delays in paying the salaries of municipal workers.
Yekelchyk links a detailed analysis of this type of internal political corruption and attempts at Russian intervention to the Orange Revolution and protests on the Maiden. He also examines the historical and current internal and external forces that led to the Russian annexation of the Crimea and War in the Donbas. I found his analysis eye-opening, and the book deepened my understanding of the current conflict. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Ukraine. The Conflict in Ukraine is an excellent foundational text that I will refer to repeatedly.
Volodymyr Zelensky, 20019 Inaugural Address
When I read or watch the news on Ukraine, events like the Orange revolution, Maiden protests, the annexation of Crimea, War in the Donbas region appear consistently. Yet, while I have learned the significance of these events, my knowledge base remained sketchy. So I looked for a book to fill in the gaps. The Conflict in Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know more than met this need.
Serhy Yekelchyk is a Professor of History and Slavonic Studies at the University of Victoria. He has a clear appreciation of what a novice needs to know to understand the complex situation in Ukraine. He is also a skilled writer who recognizes how to structure a text that examines history and culture, both international and domestic, to make this information relevant and accessible.
The Conflict in Ukraine is a short book, just 166 pages. The author divides it into several chapters that examine the Making of Modern Ukraine, Ukraine after Communism, the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan, Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the War in the Donbas. In addition, he uses in question-and-answer format, which is a style I found especially helpful. For example, in Ukraine after Communism, Yekelchyk asks how independent Ukraine became an inefficient economy and a paragon of crony capitalism? Who are the Oligarchs?
While reading the book, I watched Servant of the People, the Ukrainian comedy that catapulted Zelensky into the Presidency. Although the show is meant as a spoof, it clearly illustrates the oligarchs and political elites' stranglehold on the Ukrainian economy. Both highlight specific issues like the failing infrastructure and delays in paying the salaries of municipal workers.
Yekelchyk links a detailed analysis of this type of internal political corruption and attempts at Russian intervention to the Orange Revolution and protests on the Maiden. He also examines the historical and current internal and external forces that led to the Russian annexation of the Crimea and War in the Donbas. I found his analysis eye-opening, and the book deepened my understanding of the current conflict. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Ukraine. The Conflict in Ukraine is an excellent foundational text that I will refer to repeatedly.
March 21, 2022
Slava Ukraini!
Most of this went in my ears and promptly out the top of my head. I don't know if there might be a better way of organizing and presenting this material, or if Ukraine just has a confusing history that is difficult for Westerners to comprehend. America is such a young country, relatively speaking, that its history is fairly easy to map out in our heads. Not so with Ukraine.
The takeaway from this brief overview is that the Ukrainian people are no strangers to political strife and corruption and brutal attempts to subjugate them and deny them sovereignty. This has been going on for centuries. Given current events, this 2020 book is already outdated. The Ukrainian people are once again showing the world their fortitude and courage and indomitable will for self-determination. This is not new. They know how to do this. Not giving up and not backing down is their national identity.
April 11, 2022
Complicated and manipulated, Ukraine’s history has been anything but easy. Reading this was like watching a tennis match and Ukraine was the tennis ball, swatted around by whoever had a need to occupy their territory.
I’m glad I learned some basic information about Ukrainian history and politics, but this book was so poorly organized and written, it was really just a jumbled mess.
I’m glad I learned some basic information about Ukrainian history and politics, but this book was so poorly organized and written, it was really just a jumbled mess.
December 21, 2020
This highly informative book written by the Ukrainian-Canadian historian Serhy Yekelchyk not only deals with the contemporary conflict in Ukraine following the Maidan Revolution (though it was published in 2015, which means that it's not completely up-to-date since the war in Donbass is still active) but also dives into related topics that help to better understand the language used in, and issues connected to, the conflict, such as the historical background of the conflict, historical figures that are used as contemporary symbols (such as Stepan Bandera), as well as clarifications of over simplified explanations that are really more nuanced (such as that Eastern and Southern Ukraine is necessarily pro-Russian simply because they are more Russophone; speaking Russian more than Ukrainian doesn't necessarily mean that you want Ukraine to be a part of Russia). I'm highly impressed by the impartial presentation given by Yekelchyk where on the one hand he dispels some of the rhetoric of Russian propaganda (such as the Maidan Revolution being a Neo-Nazi coup) he's also willing to report on violence by right-wing Ukrainian nationalists (particularly the group Right Sector). For anyone with an interest in Ukrainian history, and especially the contemporary situation regarding the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass, I would highly recommend this book.
Read
February 27, 2022A compact, introductory but information-dense book on the history of Ukraine. I learned a lot from it. Ukraine's history has been full of pain. First they were under the rule of Poland and Lithuania which pushed Ukrainians out of authority and led to a series of rebellions.. Then the Crimean Tatars started a slave trade that resulted in the enslavement of a million Slavs (including Ukrainians) sold to the Ottomans.. Then in the 20th century Holodomor, the famine that Stalin created to take Ukraine's grain for Soviet industrialization purposes to also punish Ukrainians, an extreme act of cruelty that led to 3.5 million deaths, mainly by starvation.. Then WWII and the fight with the Nazis took an additional 5 million Ukrainian deaths, as well as additional 1.5 million civilian death.. Then Chernobyl happened and caused further national trauma to Ukraine, a wound that Soviet-era Ukraine lacked the resources to deal with and heal from..Crony capitalism and all-for-grabs privatization that created a wide wealth gap in the 2000s.. Hopefully the next chapter in this persevering nation's life will be a much happier one..
April 30, 2023
Serhy Yekelchyk – Ucrânia, o que toda a gente precisa de saber
Escrito antes de 24 de Fevereiro de 2022, tem o mérito de fazer uma análise do “problema Ucraniano” sem a contaminação resultante da barbárie. É por isso uma visão do autor, em que este faz uma compilação da história dos factos passados e recentes dessa terra que dá pelo nome de “Ucrânia”.
Da leitura do livro e da fundamentação do autor fiquei com a impressão de que a Ucrânia é um mito que gostaríamos que existisse. A Ucrânia actual é uma terra de fronteira, aliás o termo ucrânia é isso o que significa, uma terra que teve nos seus limites geográficos, étnicos, linguísticos e religiosos inúmeros pontos de atrito que se têm manifestado mais ou menos violentamente após a queda do império mongol em 1480. Desde essa data essas estepes foram sempre palco de inúmeros atritos cuja configuração sempre dependeu das forças em conflito e nunca de uma ideia de nação contra o inimigo. E se a invasão russa de 2022 teve algum efeito prático foi o de unir a heterogeneidade do caleidoscópio ucraniano num “povo” e uma “nação” unidos contra o invasor.
Neste livro, Ucrânia, Serhy Yekelchyk apresenta-se como um conhecedor da história da Rússia, em particular da sua fase de sovietização e do rescaldo da queda desse império. Ao contar-nos a sua visão dessa história o autor fá-lo com a isenção possível, recorrendo a uma técnica pouco usual em historiadores, e que foi a de elaborar um conjunto de questões relevantes (82 para ser mais preciso) e com as respostas ás mesmas descrever a história desse território desde a constituição do Rus de Kiev até à data de publicação (2020). Foi bem conseguido neste objectivo que concretizou de forma convincente, mas suficientemente descomprometida permitindo ao leitor fazer a sua própria interpretação do quadro global. E é isso que pretendo fazer.
Ucrânia, e eu não o sabia até ler este livro significa terra de fronteira. E é isso o que se intui da leitura deste livro. Essa terra que se interpõe entre o mundo “ocidental” a oeste e a Rússia a leste, encontrou as sua origens no Rus de Kiev quando aos senhores eslavos, que habitualmente saqueavam esses territórios, lhe foi pedido que aí se fixassem e protegessem as populações autóctones. Essa é a origem comum dos actuais territórios de Rússia, Bielorrússia, Finlândia e Ucrânia, mas se quisermos ser rigorosos foi no território deste último que no XIX a Rus de Kiev foi constituída. O poder destes príncipes foi progressivamente aumentando, o que foi acompanhado pela expansão do território. O segundo facto importante para se compreender os dias de hoje, resulta das opções religiosas assumidas então.
Vladimir o Grande (980-1015), é considerado na Rus como o responsável pela adoção oficial do cristianismo. Foi batizado onde hoje é a Catedral de S. Vladimr em Kiev e foi beatificado por ambas as Igrejas. Para a adesão à religião cristã reza a história que uma delegação da Rus de Kiev se terá deslocado a Constantinopla onde ficou deslumbrada com o luxo das cerimónias e um ambiente que descreveram como uma representação “dos Céus na Terra”. Sugerem ainda alguns historiadores que a permissão do consumo de bebidas alcoólicas não deverá ter sido alheia à escolha.
Quando em 1054 ocorre o Grande Cisma, a Igreja do Rus de Kiev segue o patriarca de Constantinopla. E é nesta opção que se alicerçam muitas das diferenças entre ocidentais e os povos desse oriente. O não reconhecimento da infalibilidade nem da primazia papal, criou as condições para que a Igreja Ortodoxa Russa tivesse autonomia eclesiástica e litúrgica. Dessa autonomia resultaram duas consequências que ainda se refletem nos nossos dias. A primeira é que acentuou o caracter conservador da ortodoxia que lhe esteve na génese. À sua maneira podemos vê-la como “fundamentalista”. Deste conservadorismo resultou uma impermeabilização aos princípios iluministas que nunca conseguiram moldar as mentalidades naquelas estepes. Como conservadores encerram-se nas “suas verdades” e vêm com muita desconfiança, senão com hostilidade tudo o que a mudança possa trazer. Alguns Czares (Pedro o Grande, Catarina II, Nicolau II, entre outros) tentaram importar para o império alguma modernidade. Poder-se-ia pensar que com a intromissão da literatura, música, ciências e filosofia ocidentais, a sociedade dessas paragens ficasse mais disponível para os princípios de “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” do iluminismo. Mas não estavam. Nem a estrutura feudal em que os regimes Czaristas assentavam, nem a ortodoxia anquilosada da sua Igreja o permitia.
A segunda consequência da autonomia da ortodoxia russa e da sua igreja em relação a estruturas supranacionais, foi tê-la colocado mais disponível para interagir com o poder secular. Com maiores ou menores distensões o poder secular e o espiritual sempre tiveram na Rússia uma aproximação de onde tiraram proveito mútuo num misto de dependência e domínio. Durante a época soviética esta aproximação foi quebrada, mas depois de um período jacobino de perseguição de sacerdotes e destruição de símbolos, e no rescaldo “bonapartista da revolução, o poder dos sovietes encontrou no metropolita Sergius alguém disponível para jurar fidelidade ao regime dos sovietes. Se as condições para a intromissão do poder secular na vida da Igreja já existiam, com este passo, a dependência estava facilitada.
O terceiro ponto importante para compreendermos a actualidade passa pelos conflitos que desde cedo assolaram essas terras de ”fronteira”.
Invadidos por mongóis que os dominaram entre 1223 e 1480, e após esses quase três séculos de domínio, e até à queda da URSS, esses territórios foram dominados por lituanos, polacos, tártaros, suecos, russos, turcos, austro-húngaros, etc. Foi um território disputado pela riqueza das suas terras e nos últimos anos pelos recursos energéticos, minerais e posicionamento geográfico. Neste carrocel de ocupação, os novos inquilinos nunca desalojaram totalmente os predecessores, e do harmónio entre invasores, populações residentes e novos colonos “importados” para ocupar aquela imensidão de território (judeus, gregos, germânicos, polacos, oriundos dos balcãs, menonitas, etc), resultou a paleta de etnias que povoam aquele território e o reclamam.
Território que enquanto fronteira retêm em si o potencial de conflito das forças em atrito.
Após a queda da URSS, e no rescaldo bonapartista da libertação na era de Ieltsin, no território que adquiriu a independência constituindo-se como Ucrânia. Os que se consideravam de etnia russa, tinham o russo como língua mãe, e seguiam a igreja de Moscovo. Deste conjunto, ortodoxos russos, apenas alguns, que, ou saudosos do império perdido, ou motivados por interesses económicos, sonhavam com um regresso à casa mãe, um regresso à Rússia. Esse era um grupo minoritário, eventualmente com maior expressão na Crimeia, mas que com a invasão da Crimeia, a guerra do Donbas e em 2022 com a invasão da Ucrânia teve como resultado imediato a união todos os restantes dando-lhes o que at�� esse momento nunca tinham tido, um líder e uma vontade de pertença a uma nação. Se até essa última invasão a Ucrânia era um mito, ela é agora uma Nação.
Para reclamarem o actual território os dois principais beligerantes (os russos e os que podemos agora reconhecer como ucranianos) são motivados por factores de identificação geográfica e cultural – os que se identificam mais com o mundo ocidental e os que se vêm representados no mundo russófilo, mas também por factores religiosos.
Assim e provavelmente a sedimentar esta posição anti-ocidental está sem dúvida a ortodoxia da Igreja Russa (uma igreja profundamente anti-ocidental e que reconhece a autoridade do Patriarca de Moscovo). Do lado ucraniano encontramos seguidores dessa Igreja, mas há também mais duas igrejas ortodoxas (uma com o Patriarca em Kiev e outra reconhecendo o de Constantinopla). A estas igrejas ortodoxas deve acrescentar-se a Igreja Greco-Católica Ucraniana, uma Igreja católica que reconhece o Papa, mas a que lhe foi concedida uma prática e liturgia de raízes ortodoxas.
Este caleidoscópio de origens étnicas, diferenças linguísticas e de devoções religiosas caracterizam as diferenças das populações que ocupavam o território da Ucrânia.
Serhy Yekelchyk diz-nos que estas divisões são fictícias. Segundo o autor, à exceção da Crimeia, no resto do território predomina a etnia ucraniana (60%), sendo a população que se identifica com uma etnia russa de cerca de 20%. Na Crimeia a situação é diferente com cerca de 50% a considerarem-se russos e 30% ucranianos. Proporções idênticas podem ser encontradas na utilização do ucraniano ou russo como língua mãe. Na Crimeia predominam os de língua mãe russa. Nas regiões fronteira com a Rússia (Donbas) a população que tem o russo como primeira língua é percentualmente maior que na fronteira ocidental e na Galícia. Mas segundo Serhy Yekelchyk nem as divisões religiosas, étnicas ou linguísticas perecem estar na origem da guerra primeiro “proto-civil” e agora de invasão que assola aquela região. Segundo o autor este momento surge em parte como instigado de fora pelas pretensões imperialistas russas, mas também em causa locais que poderíamos agregar em saudosistas do império da URSS, nos desconfiados do mundo ocidental, liberal e libertário, nos fanáticos e extremistas e nos que aproveitam as mudanças de regime para retirarem vantagens políticas e económicas. À exceção da Crimeia este conjunto foi sempre minoritário e mesmo aí há sondagens anteriores à anexação que os colocam perto, mas abaixo dos 50%.
A restante Ucrânia e a restante população, Serhy Yekelchyk descreve-a como maioritariamente de etnia ucraniana. Mas nunca identifica claramente o que caracterizava essa etnia ucraniana. Não era a geografia, a ocupação do território foi sempre muito heterogênea, não era a religião, a língua, ou a cultura que conseguimos identificar como própria. Nem mesmo a história parece fornecer o cimento necessário à constituição de um nacionalismo. Não conhecemos livros de história ucraniana (só após a invasão da Crimeia é que estes surgiram), não conhecemos uma cultura própria. Putin estava certo quando disse que o conceito de nacionalismo ucraniano era um mito. Mas com a anexação da Crimeia e a invasão de 2022 forneceu o cimento necessário para a sua edificação. A Ucrânia enquanto nação e nacionalismo popular foi forjada na invasão e agressão russa.
Um nacionalismo pode ser definido, não como uma questão de sangue, ainda que o sangue seja importante, mas antes como resultante de uma educação e da acção dos média que ajudam as massa a imaginarem-se como parte de uma nação. O folclore também é importante mas sem a acção dos intelectuais não é mais que uma manta de retalhos.
A Ucrânia teve as suas personalidades com influência na sua época como muitos cossacos e os seus Hétmanes, mas estes sempre actuaram como “bandos de saqueadores”, mais movidos pela glória da morte pela espada e ódio religioso, que imbuídos de algo que possa ser considerado como embrião de uma nação. Nikolai Gogol no seu livro Taras Bulba conta-nos a vida desses cossacos e de que forma esse exército mercenário variava a sua actuação entre o combate a otomanos, judeus, polacos e cristãos. Em lado algum sentimos no livro que essa desprendida distribuição de ressentimentos alguma vez tivesse russófilos como destinatários.
Os cossacos sempre foram usados como mercenários, e enquanto tal entregavam as suas fidelidades conforme as conveniências do momento. Regra geral actuavam nas fronteiras do sul onde combatiam os otomanos, mas a sua lealdade, se é que existiu tanto podiam estar entregues ao Czar como aos senhores da Polónia. Nem mesmo os seus heróis como Bogodan khmelnitski que se revoltou contra os polacos na “Revolta de Chmielnicki”, acabou fundando um estado independente que terminou como um protetorado do Czar. Pelos séculos XVI, XVII e XVIII o que é hoje o território da Ucrânia era dividido pelo rio Dniepre em área oriental e ocidental. Ambos os lados eram dominados por cossacos, sendo do lado leste desse rio as lealdades iam para com o Czar e do lado ocidental pendiam para polacos e suecos. Este era o traço geral, mas as flutuações eram uma nota dominante que ocorria segundo caprichos e oportunidade do momento. Assim esses homens eram heróis para uns e traidores para outros. Dependia de que lado se observava a história. Um bom exemplo deste comportamento foi o líder cossaco Ivan Mazepa que sendo leal ao Czar, acabou por em diferendo com este fazer alinhar os seus homens ao serviço de exército polaco-sueco. Neste este líder nem nenhum outro lutou por uma nação. Aliás não o podiam fazer. O constructo de uma Nação é um conceito de meados do século XIX.
Um outro herói, pelo menos para alguns, foi Stefan Bandera que combateu a tropas soviéticas ao lado das forças nazis. Mas a sua luta foi mais contra o comunismo que pela edificação de uma nação a que hoje se designa por Ucrânia.
A Ucrânia sempre foi uma terra de fronteira, possuidora de uma painel de heterogeneidades de tal forma diversa que impossibilitava a noção e sentimento de nacionalidade. Isto foi assim até 24 de Fevereiro de 2022, altura em que a invasão e a barbárie que se seguiu forneceram o cimento que fez desapontar os heróis necessários à constituição de uma nacionalidade. Putin é o grande obreiro da nacionalidade ucraniana.
Escrito antes de 24 de Fevereiro de 2022, tem o mérito de fazer uma análise do “problema Ucraniano” sem a contaminação resultante da barbárie. É por isso uma visão do autor, em que este faz uma compilação da história dos factos passados e recentes dessa terra que dá pelo nome de “Ucrânia”.
Da leitura do livro e da fundamentação do autor fiquei com a impressão de que a Ucrânia é um mito que gostaríamos que existisse. A Ucrânia actual é uma terra de fronteira, aliás o termo ucrânia é isso o que significa, uma terra que teve nos seus limites geográficos, étnicos, linguísticos e religiosos inúmeros pontos de atrito que se têm manifestado mais ou menos violentamente após a queda do império mongol em 1480. Desde essa data essas estepes foram sempre palco de inúmeros atritos cuja configuração sempre dependeu das forças em conflito e nunca de uma ideia de nação contra o inimigo. E se a invasão russa de 2022 teve algum efeito prático foi o de unir a heterogeneidade do caleidoscópio ucraniano num “povo” e uma “nação” unidos contra o invasor.
Neste livro, Ucrânia, Serhy Yekelchyk apresenta-se como um conhecedor da história da Rússia, em particular da sua fase de sovietização e do rescaldo da queda desse império. Ao contar-nos a sua visão dessa história o autor fá-lo com a isenção possível, recorrendo a uma técnica pouco usual em historiadores, e que foi a de elaborar um conjunto de questões relevantes (82 para ser mais preciso) e com as respostas ás mesmas descrever a história desse território desde a constituição do Rus de Kiev até à data de publicação (2020). Foi bem conseguido neste objectivo que concretizou de forma convincente, mas suficientemente descomprometida permitindo ao leitor fazer a sua própria interpretação do quadro global. E é isso que pretendo fazer.
Ucrânia, e eu não o sabia até ler este livro significa terra de fronteira. E é isso o que se intui da leitura deste livro. Essa terra que se interpõe entre o mundo “ocidental” a oeste e a Rússia a leste, encontrou as sua origens no Rus de Kiev quando aos senhores eslavos, que habitualmente saqueavam esses territórios, lhe foi pedido que aí se fixassem e protegessem as populações autóctones. Essa é a origem comum dos actuais territórios de Rússia, Bielorrússia, Finlândia e Ucrânia, mas se quisermos ser rigorosos foi no território deste último que no XIX a Rus de Kiev foi constituída. O poder destes príncipes foi progressivamente aumentando, o que foi acompanhado pela expansão do território. O segundo facto importante para se compreender os dias de hoje, resulta das opções religiosas assumidas então.
Vladimir o Grande (980-1015), é considerado na Rus como o responsável pela adoção oficial do cristianismo. Foi batizado onde hoje é a Catedral de S. Vladimr em Kiev e foi beatificado por ambas as Igrejas. Para a adesão à religião cristã reza a história que uma delegação da Rus de Kiev se terá deslocado a Constantinopla onde ficou deslumbrada com o luxo das cerimónias e um ambiente que descreveram como uma representação “dos Céus na Terra”. Sugerem ainda alguns historiadores que a permissão do consumo de bebidas alcoólicas não deverá ter sido alheia à escolha.
Quando em 1054 ocorre o Grande Cisma, a Igreja do Rus de Kiev segue o patriarca de Constantinopla. E é nesta opção que se alicerçam muitas das diferenças entre ocidentais e os povos desse oriente. O não reconhecimento da infalibilidade nem da primazia papal, criou as condições para que a Igreja Ortodoxa Russa tivesse autonomia eclesiástica e litúrgica. Dessa autonomia resultaram duas consequências que ainda se refletem nos nossos dias. A primeira é que acentuou o caracter conservador da ortodoxia que lhe esteve na génese. À sua maneira podemos vê-la como “fundamentalista”. Deste conservadorismo resultou uma impermeabilização aos princípios iluministas que nunca conseguiram moldar as mentalidades naquelas estepes. Como conservadores encerram-se nas “suas verdades” e vêm com muita desconfiança, senão com hostilidade tudo o que a mudança possa trazer. Alguns Czares (Pedro o Grande, Catarina II, Nicolau II, entre outros) tentaram importar para o império alguma modernidade. Poder-se-ia pensar que com a intromissão da literatura, música, ciências e filosofia ocidentais, a sociedade dessas paragens ficasse mais disponível para os princípios de “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” do iluminismo. Mas não estavam. Nem a estrutura feudal em que os regimes Czaristas assentavam, nem a ortodoxia anquilosada da sua Igreja o permitia.
A segunda consequência da autonomia da ortodoxia russa e da sua igreja em relação a estruturas supranacionais, foi tê-la colocado mais disponível para interagir com o poder secular. Com maiores ou menores distensões o poder secular e o espiritual sempre tiveram na Rússia uma aproximação de onde tiraram proveito mútuo num misto de dependência e domínio. Durante a época soviética esta aproximação foi quebrada, mas depois de um período jacobino de perseguição de sacerdotes e destruição de símbolos, e no rescaldo “bonapartista da revolução, o poder dos sovietes encontrou no metropolita Sergius alguém disponível para jurar fidelidade ao regime dos sovietes. Se as condições para a intromissão do poder secular na vida da Igreja já existiam, com este passo, a dependência estava facilitada.
O terceiro ponto importante para compreendermos a actualidade passa pelos conflitos que desde cedo assolaram essas terras de ”fronteira”.
Invadidos por mongóis que os dominaram entre 1223 e 1480, e após esses quase três séculos de domínio, e até à queda da URSS, esses territórios foram dominados por lituanos, polacos, tártaros, suecos, russos, turcos, austro-húngaros, etc. Foi um território disputado pela riqueza das suas terras e nos últimos anos pelos recursos energéticos, minerais e posicionamento geográfico. Neste carrocel de ocupação, os novos inquilinos nunca desalojaram totalmente os predecessores, e do harmónio entre invasores, populações residentes e novos colonos “importados” para ocupar aquela imensidão de território (judeus, gregos, germânicos, polacos, oriundos dos balcãs, menonitas, etc), resultou a paleta de etnias que povoam aquele território e o reclamam.
Território que enquanto fronteira retêm em si o potencial de conflito das forças em atrito.
Após a queda da URSS, e no rescaldo bonapartista da libertação na era de Ieltsin, no território que adquiriu a independência constituindo-se como Ucrânia. Os que se consideravam de etnia russa, tinham o russo como língua mãe, e seguiam a igreja de Moscovo. Deste conjunto, ortodoxos russos, apenas alguns, que, ou saudosos do império perdido, ou motivados por interesses económicos, sonhavam com um regresso à casa mãe, um regresso à Rússia. Esse era um grupo minoritário, eventualmente com maior expressão na Crimeia, mas que com a invasão da Crimeia, a guerra do Donbas e em 2022 com a invasão da Ucrânia teve como resultado imediato a união todos os restantes dando-lhes o que at�� esse momento nunca tinham tido, um líder e uma vontade de pertença a uma nação. Se até essa última invasão a Ucrânia era um mito, ela é agora uma Nação.
Para reclamarem o actual território os dois principais beligerantes (os russos e os que podemos agora reconhecer como ucranianos) são motivados por factores de identificação geográfica e cultural – os que se identificam mais com o mundo ocidental e os que se vêm representados no mundo russófilo, mas também por factores religiosos.
Assim e provavelmente a sedimentar esta posição anti-ocidental está sem dúvida a ortodoxia da Igreja Russa (uma igreja profundamente anti-ocidental e que reconhece a autoridade do Patriarca de Moscovo). Do lado ucraniano encontramos seguidores dessa Igreja, mas há também mais duas igrejas ortodoxas (uma com o Patriarca em Kiev e outra reconhecendo o de Constantinopla). A estas igrejas ortodoxas deve acrescentar-se a Igreja Greco-Católica Ucraniana, uma Igreja católica que reconhece o Papa, mas a que lhe foi concedida uma prática e liturgia de raízes ortodoxas.
Este caleidoscópio de origens étnicas, diferenças linguísticas e de devoções religiosas caracterizam as diferenças das populações que ocupavam o território da Ucrânia.
Serhy Yekelchyk diz-nos que estas divisões são fictícias. Segundo o autor, à exceção da Crimeia, no resto do território predomina a etnia ucraniana (60%), sendo a população que se identifica com uma etnia russa de cerca de 20%. Na Crimeia a situação é diferente com cerca de 50% a considerarem-se russos e 30% ucranianos. Proporções idênticas podem ser encontradas na utilização do ucraniano ou russo como língua mãe. Na Crimeia predominam os de língua mãe russa. Nas regiões fronteira com a Rússia (Donbas) a população que tem o russo como primeira língua é percentualmente maior que na fronteira ocidental e na Galícia. Mas segundo Serhy Yekelchyk nem as divisões religiosas, étnicas ou linguísticas perecem estar na origem da guerra primeiro “proto-civil” e agora de invasão que assola aquela região. Segundo o autor este momento surge em parte como instigado de fora pelas pretensões imperialistas russas, mas também em causa locais que poderíamos agregar em saudosistas do império da URSS, nos desconfiados do mundo ocidental, liberal e libertário, nos fanáticos e extremistas e nos que aproveitam as mudanças de regime para retirarem vantagens políticas e económicas. À exceção da Crimeia este conjunto foi sempre minoritário e mesmo aí há sondagens anteriores à anexação que os colocam perto, mas abaixo dos 50%.
A restante Ucrânia e a restante população, Serhy Yekelchyk descreve-a como maioritariamente de etnia ucraniana. Mas nunca identifica claramente o que caracterizava essa etnia ucraniana. Não era a geografia, a ocupação do território foi sempre muito heterogênea, não era a religião, a língua, ou a cultura que conseguimos identificar como própria. Nem mesmo a história parece fornecer o cimento necessário à constituição de um nacionalismo. Não conhecemos livros de história ucraniana (só após a invasão da Crimeia é que estes surgiram), não conhecemos uma cultura própria. Putin estava certo quando disse que o conceito de nacionalismo ucraniano era um mito. Mas com a anexação da Crimeia e a invasão de 2022 forneceu o cimento necessário para a sua edificação. A Ucrânia enquanto nação e nacionalismo popular foi forjada na invasão e agressão russa.
Um nacionalismo pode ser definido, não como uma questão de sangue, ainda que o sangue seja importante, mas antes como resultante de uma educação e da acção dos média que ajudam as massa a imaginarem-se como parte de uma nação. O folclore também é importante mas sem a acção dos intelectuais não é mais que uma manta de retalhos.
A Ucrânia teve as suas personalidades com influência na sua época como muitos cossacos e os seus Hétmanes, mas estes sempre actuaram como “bandos de saqueadores”, mais movidos pela glória da morte pela espada e ódio religioso, que imbuídos de algo que possa ser considerado como embrião de uma nação. Nikolai Gogol no seu livro Taras Bulba conta-nos a vida desses cossacos e de que forma esse exército mercenário variava a sua actuação entre o combate a otomanos, judeus, polacos e cristãos. Em lado algum sentimos no livro que essa desprendida distribuição de ressentimentos alguma vez tivesse russófilos como destinatários.
Os cossacos sempre foram usados como mercenários, e enquanto tal entregavam as suas fidelidades conforme as conveniências do momento. Regra geral actuavam nas fronteiras do sul onde combatiam os otomanos, mas a sua lealdade, se é que existiu tanto podiam estar entregues ao Czar como aos senhores da Polónia. Nem mesmo os seus heróis como Bogodan khmelnitski que se revoltou contra os polacos na “Revolta de Chmielnicki”, acabou fundando um estado independente que terminou como um protetorado do Czar. Pelos séculos XVI, XVII e XVIII o que é hoje o território da Ucrânia era dividido pelo rio Dniepre em área oriental e ocidental. Ambos os lados eram dominados por cossacos, sendo do lado leste desse rio as lealdades iam para com o Czar e do lado ocidental pendiam para polacos e suecos. Este era o traço geral, mas as flutuações eram uma nota dominante que ocorria segundo caprichos e oportunidade do momento. Assim esses homens eram heróis para uns e traidores para outros. Dependia de que lado se observava a história. Um bom exemplo deste comportamento foi o líder cossaco Ivan Mazepa que sendo leal ao Czar, acabou por em diferendo com este fazer alinhar os seus homens ao serviço de exército polaco-sueco. Neste este líder nem nenhum outro lutou por uma nação. Aliás não o podiam fazer. O constructo de uma Nação é um conceito de meados do século XIX.
Um outro herói, pelo menos para alguns, foi Stefan Bandera que combateu a tropas soviéticas ao lado das forças nazis. Mas a sua luta foi mais contra o comunismo que pela edificação de uma nação a que hoje se designa por Ucrânia.
A Ucrânia sempre foi uma terra de fronteira, possuidora de uma painel de heterogeneidades de tal forma diversa que impossibilitava a noção e sentimento de nacionalidade. Isto foi assim até 24 de Fevereiro de 2022, altura em que a invasão e a barbárie que se seguiu forneceram o cimento que fez desapontar os heróis necessários à constituição de uma nacionalidade. Putin é o grande obreiro da nacionalidade ucraniana.
May 11, 2022
I found this a pretty timely and important book.
I learned quite a lot when reading this one!
Would recommend to learn more about the Ukraine.
3.9/5
I learned quite a lot when reading this one!
Would recommend to learn more about the Ukraine.
3.9/5
March 12, 2022
Serhy knows what questions people might have about Ukraine. He addresses them all very succinctly. Very straightforward. No BS.
December 21, 2021
It has a typical anti-Russian, pro-Western bias - but it is still educational, just not ideally so. That said, given I don't share the view that we must wage war to "preserve democracy" like some do -I believe if we want democracy to flourish we should provide the world with a great example- and generally have my own opinion on the matter of the conflict going on in Ukraine, this book was okay. I would warn those who do not know anything about this conflict however as it takes sides too much and may obscure your perspective of the matter if taken verbatim. It is better to think critically about this book and challenge the author's assumptions for the best educational outcome.
March 9, 2022
As a complete novice on all things Ukraine, I found this fascinating, helpful, and thoroughly efficient in its layout and breadth. It offers a concise history of Ukraine, its involvement with Russia and European affairs, all the way up to the annexation of Crimea and beyond. Someone well versed might dispute different political points, but this serves as a very handy first look for anyone else. It came up as an available option at the library - I didn’t realize Oxford Univ Press had a whole line of these “What Everyone Needs to Know” books. Will absolutely look for more of these.
March 20, 2022
Yekelchyk earns my first two-star rating with this book. An effective primer for those who want to know some basics but its consistent pro-western bias renders the analysis not only useless but naïve. In these pages the conflict is reduced to a clear-cut case of naked Russian aggression motivated by cynical self-interest against the West's disinterested attempts to preserve a "world order based on the rule of law rather than the right of the strong"....lol. Anyway, I learned some dates and names and basic Ukrainian history and at least it wasn't long so it gets more than the minimum rating.
March 12, 2022
A rather dry and matter-of-fact book, but that's what I expected. It's also obviously aimed at an American audience. I mostly got what I wanted; a brief history of Ukraine and information on the country's recent developments and the recent situation. The Ukrainians have faced quite a lot of harsh times. Wars, The Holodomor, the Holocaust, Chernobyl, terribly corrupted regimes and the difficult geopolitical position and rather constant pressure from one or more other countries. Hopefully things will someday be better around there, though that's probably in the quite distant future, things being as they now are.
Read
September 20, 2022Don't be fooled by this generic title and cover. As with most books in the ‘Everything You Need to Know’ series, it isn't a dry list of facts and figures. Instead it's full of considered analysis, nuances, and insight. Yekelchyk, a Ukrainian-Canadian, gives an accessible, detailed, and balanced overview of Ukraine's recent history. This book does serve well as a primer for getting to know modern Ukraine but the author is not afraid to make his own conclusions about the events and trajectories of this troubled country. It brings us up to where things stood in 2020, which actually might be one of its strengths, because it isn't under pressure to frame things as a lead up to February 24th 2022.
Yekelchyk doesn't shy away from discussing the more negative elements of Ukrainian politics and society. The problems of corruption and political skulduggery, similar to those found in post-Soviet Russia are laid bare. However, they are presented in the context of Ukraine's positive trajectory towards a more liberal and democratic country. It is clear from the book, that it was primarily the Ukrainian people, rather than a singular leader, who put and kept Ukraine on this path. This was often done through mass demonstrations whose symbolic centres in both 2004 and 2014 was Kiev's Maidan Square. The people who gathered in this square come from a place which history has been unimaginably brutal, and with this in mind they made decisions to move towards a way of life more like our own. Not all Ukrainians wanted this, the nostalgia for the paternalistic Soviet system lingered hard in the Soviet creations of Crimea and the Donbass. Yekelchyk is keen to stress that it was this positive remembering for a Soviet past, rather than the pull of Russian ethnicity, coupled with Russian intervention, that led to the split in the Donbas.
On reading this book it became even clearer to me that the initial and perhaps primary reason for the war is because of something which happened in Ukraine – the demand for liberal democracy, which people felt could be facilitated by moving towards Europe. How Russia reacted to these aspirations and actions, and how others reacted to their reactions, while pivotal, are secondary. Ukraine may not be the most powerful actor in this story, but it is the main one.
That this is a story about the desires of Ukrainians for a democratic life, is clear from the level of support for Ukraine in the democratic West. There is a palpable - albeit slightly vague - feeling of Ukraine as a nation on a path, not in a good place now but trying to get there. If Russia had invaded Belarus or Kazakhstan, would the same level of support from the West have been forthcoming?Perhaps support to ease the suffering of Belorussians and Kazakhs (and to punish Russia) but perhaps not to facilitate the victory of their militaries? Perhaps this is evident by the fact that whole hearted support for Ukraine is lacking in the non-democratic world. The criticisms of the war from these places seem to stem more from the idea of sovereignty and fears of their own secessionists and potential democratic rumblings below.
In the oft-mis-cited 'The End of History and the Last Man', Francis Fukuyama wrote about nation states being like wagons on a road to liberal democracy. The road is long, varied, dangerous, and not all wagons will reach the end together. Some wagons will stall, take a detour, or even go backwards. The Ukrainian wagon was finally able to pass through the ruins of Marxist-Leninist road block in 1991. On getting through it found itself in dense fog, along with its old Soviet comrades. Though laden down with dangerous baggage, uneven wheels, and striking many muddy patches and potholes, those with liberal democratic ideals slowly managed to push their way to the front, and are steering it where they think the promised land lies. As liberal democrats, what we need to ask ourselves is how to help them get here in once piece, and to ensure that when they arrive, they aren’t disappointed by what they find.
Yekelchyk doesn't shy away from discussing the more negative elements of Ukrainian politics and society. The problems of corruption and political skulduggery, similar to those found in post-Soviet Russia are laid bare. However, they are presented in the context of Ukraine's positive trajectory towards a more liberal and democratic country. It is clear from the book, that it was primarily the Ukrainian people, rather than a singular leader, who put and kept Ukraine on this path. This was often done through mass demonstrations whose symbolic centres in both 2004 and 2014 was Kiev's Maidan Square. The people who gathered in this square come from a place which history has been unimaginably brutal, and with this in mind they made decisions to move towards a way of life more like our own. Not all Ukrainians wanted this, the nostalgia for the paternalistic Soviet system lingered hard in the Soviet creations of Crimea and the Donbass. Yekelchyk is keen to stress that it was this positive remembering for a Soviet past, rather than the pull of Russian ethnicity, coupled with Russian intervention, that led to the split in the Donbas.
On reading this book it became even clearer to me that the initial and perhaps primary reason for the war is because of something which happened in Ukraine – the demand for liberal democracy, which people felt could be facilitated by moving towards Europe. How Russia reacted to these aspirations and actions, and how others reacted to their reactions, while pivotal, are secondary. Ukraine may not be the most powerful actor in this story, but it is the main one.
That this is a story about the desires of Ukrainians for a democratic life, is clear from the level of support for Ukraine in the democratic West. There is a palpable - albeit slightly vague - feeling of Ukraine as a nation on a path, not in a good place now but trying to get there. If Russia had invaded Belarus or Kazakhstan, would the same level of support from the West have been forthcoming?Perhaps support to ease the suffering of Belorussians and Kazakhs (and to punish Russia) but perhaps not to facilitate the victory of their militaries? Perhaps this is evident by the fact that whole hearted support for Ukraine is lacking in the non-democratic world. The criticisms of the war from these places seem to stem more from the idea of sovereignty and fears of their own secessionists and potential democratic rumblings below.
In the oft-mis-cited 'The End of History and the Last Man', Francis Fukuyama wrote about nation states being like wagons on a road to liberal democracy. The road is long, varied, dangerous, and not all wagons will reach the end together. Some wagons will stall, take a detour, or even go backwards. The Ukrainian wagon was finally able to pass through the ruins of Marxist-Leninist road block in 1991. On getting through it found itself in dense fog, along with its old Soviet comrades. Though laden down with dangerous baggage, uneven wheels, and striking many muddy patches and potholes, those with liberal democratic ideals slowly managed to push their way to the front, and are steering it where they think the promised land lies. As liberal democrats, what we need to ask ourselves is how to help them get here in once piece, and to ensure that when they arrive, they aren’t disappointed by what they find.
October 24, 2022
Un libro muy bueno, necesario para entender lo que está ocurriendo actualmente, la lectura es muy sencilla, y la división capitular por preguntas hace que sea fácil entender cada idea que expone el autor. Eso sí, se nota mucho que hay una inclinación muy occidental del escritor, lo cual puede que a algunas personas no les guste, pese a eso, no quita el mérito de explicar todo lo necesario.
La primera parte explica la importancia de Ucrania, para ello nos adentra de manera breve en lo que se abordará a lo largo de todo el libro, el apoyo desde los noventa de EEUU a Ucrania, las revoluciones, naranja y del euromaidan, la anexión de Crimea y el posterior conflicto en el Dombas.
La segunda parte son el contexto donde se envuelve Ucrania un país que es el segundo más grande Europa, con suelos negros fértiles y ricos en humus, no por nada era el granero de Europa, con grandes yacimiento de carbón y hierro, y con un gran potencial para la explotación de hidrocarburos, lamentablemente tiene una población en decrecimiento, pero que se siente Ucraniana, esta es la mayor etnia del país, incluso en el Dombas, tal vez en el occidente si es más cercana a Europa pero la mayoría se identifican como Ucraniano, algunos de los cuales, como judíos, han migrado a EEUU y Canadá.
La tercera parte es un acercamiento a la historia de Ucrania, para ello se nos remonta a la Rus de Kiev y como luego de su fin, el oeste de Ucrania estaba más bajo el dominio Lituano, y luego polacos lo que hizo que conociera las estructuras europeas, luego los cosacos se unieron a la Rusia zarista, que en un primer momento tuvieron autonomía, para posteriormente ser pérdida en un proceso de rusificacion.
La primera guerra mundial y con ello la paz bolchevique con Alemania hizo una Ucraniana independiente por un momento, que luego también se vio afectada por la guerra civil rusa. Con Stalin los ucranianos sufrieron la colectivización de la tierra, trayendo consigo el holomodor, luego con la segunda guerra mundial, algunos ucranianos apoyaron el nazimos, con el pretexto de independencia frente a la Urss como lo es Bandera; este lugar estuvo lleno de muchas muertes y ataques a los judíos. Con el fin de Stalin igualmente Ucrania siguió sin tener mucha autónomia, desde Kiev había toda una élite algo autónoma, el incidente de Chernóbil mostró la inoperancia del comunismo.
La cuarta parte es sobre la Ucrania pos comunista, con unas protestas en busca de independencia y un refendum que ratifica tal hecho, este país aunque tuvo buenas relaciones con Rusia, el tema de CEI llevo a que está unión no se efectuara, el tema de Sebastopol fue otro punto de debate que luego fue solucionado. El tener armas nucleares no era barato, la presión de EEUU y sus posteriores ayudas económicas hizo que se desmantelen. Las privatizaciones no fueron fáciles, estuvieron llenas de corrupción, que como Rusia, creo oligarcas que se caracterizaban por vender energía más cara Europa y tener relaciones con el aparato estatal. El tema de la energía ha ocasionado que Ucrania compré carbón de otros países, aunque no es dependiente de Rusia debido a sus centrales hidroeléctricas y energía nuclear.
La quinta parte es sobre las dos grandes revoluciones de Ucrania, para ello se exponen sus similitudes con su lugar de encuentro, sus demandas relacionadas con mayor democracia y contra el mismo actor prácticamente Yanukóvich. Antes de la revolución naranja hubo protestas a principios del siglo XXI contra Kushama debido a la corrupción y la muerte de un periodista, frente a esto surge la oposición que parecía ganar la segunda vuelta pero hay fraude por lo que se dan protestas con lo que se repiten de las elecciones donde gana Yashenko, el cual fue envenenado supuestamente por el kremlin, igual siguió la inestabilidad dentro de su coalición de gobierno y reino la crisis.
Con esto en mente y la Crisis economíca del país, gana Yanukóvich que fue muy corrupto y clientelista, con lo que con esto, más la no firma de acuerdo de asociación con UE fue lo que llevo a protestas en el 2013 que luego se radicalizaron más a causa de la violencia del gobierno, frente a esto es que surge una facción de ultra derecha que igual luego perdería poder, sobre la ayuda extranjera fue más bien poca y fue diplomática, en comparación con Rusia que si invirtió mucho en pro Rusos, las protestas llevaron a que Yanukóvich saliera del país.
La sexta parte es sobre la anexión de Crimea y el conflicto en el Dombas. Sobre el primero se narra una breve historia del lugar, así como de las etnias que hay allí, como los tártaros, además de la entrega de Crimea en 1954 a Ucrania por temas administrativos y por contentar elites locales, con las revolución del Maidan los intereses de las élites de allí parecían verse afectados, las cuales tenían en el imaginario una Rusia más Rica y próspera frente a una Ucrania que poco ofrece, por eso es que militares sin identificar toman edificios gubernamentales y se hace un refendum donde gana la anexión a Rusia, igual poca gente antes de eso tenía ganas de unirse a Rusia, igual ese territorio es muy subvencionado por lo que su economía a corto plazo no dará mucho.
Sobre el Dombas es verdad que mucha gente allí habla ruso pero en su mayoría vivían allí Ucranianos, las elites de allí tenían una nostalgia por el pasado Soviético de industrias prósperas, luego del euromaidan, se proclaman repúblicas independientes, en otros lugares como Odessa o Khariv los ucranianos toman el control. Rusia apoyaría con armamento y tropas al ejército de dichas repúblicas, al punto de derribar un avión comercial, Rusia no se las anexióno ahí por la razón de que era difícil su control total por la ausencia de fronteras naturales y que era más estratégico un conflicto congelado, por otra parte, el ejército de Ucrania era muy débil mostrando la corrupción que había allí, luego del 2015 iniciaría una gran reforma que hoy ven sus frutos.
La última parte es sobre la Ucrania luego del euromaidan, muchos países establecieron sanaciones contra Rusia que afectó su economía, Ucrania por su parte llevo a cabo reformas contra la corrupción que mejoraron algunas cosas pero no solucionó todo, incluso el presidente porochenko tenía investigaciones de corrupciones. EEUU siguió apoyando económicamente y militarmente a Kiev. La paz no triunfo, los dos acuerdos de Minsk no quedaron en nada y el conflicto siguió.
La llegada Zelesnky dio un nuevo aire a Ucrania debido a su independiecia y juventud, igual no pudo establecer la paz con Rusia, a causa de las duras concesiones que debía hacer que no gustaba mucho entre la Población, con Trump en el poder las relaciones entre ambos países fueron algo duras. Ucrania no inició una nueva guerra fría, como lo señala el autor, el concepto ya estaba desde principios del 2000, y el conflicto no es ideológico y tampoco global.
El libro es muy bueno y necesario para entender lo que pasa, es una lástima que llegue al 2020, es necesaria una tercera edición para saber porqué Rusia invadió Ucrania desde la visión del autor.
La primera parte explica la importancia de Ucrania, para ello nos adentra de manera breve en lo que se abordará a lo largo de todo el libro, el apoyo desde los noventa de EEUU a Ucrania, las revoluciones, naranja y del euromaidan, la anexión de Crimea y el posterior conflicto en el Dombas.
La segunda parte son el contexto donde se envuelve Ucrania un país que es el segundo más grande Europa, con suelos negros fértiles y ricos en humus, no por nada era el granero de Europa, con grandes yacimiento de carbón y hierro, y con un gran potencial para la explotación de hidrocarburos, lamentablemente tiene una población en decrecimiento, pero que se siente Ucraniana, esta es la mayor etnia del país, incluso en el Dombas, tal vez en el occidente si es más cercana a Europa pero la mayoría se identifican como Ucraniano, algunos de los cuales, como judíos, han migrado a EEUU y Canadá.
La tercera parte es un acercamiento a la historia de Ucrania, para ello se nos remonta a la Rus de Kiev y como luego de su fin, el oeste de Ucrania estaba más bajo el dominio Lituano, y luego polacos lo que hizo que conociera las estructuras europeas, luego los cosacos se unieron a la Rusia zarista, que en un primer momento tuvieron autonomía, para posteriormente ser pérdida en un proceso de rusificacion.
La primera guerra mundial y con ello la paz bolchevique con Alemania hizo una Ucraniana independiente por un momento, que luego también se vio afectada por la guerra civil rusa. Con Stalin los ucranianos sufrieron la colectivización de la tierra, trayendo consigo el holomodor, luego con la segunda guerra mundial, algunos ucranianos apoyaron el nazimos, con el pretexto de independencia frente a la Urss como lo es Bandera; este lugar estuvo lleno de muchas muertes y ataques a los judíos. Con el fin de Stalin igualmente Ucrania siguió sin tener mucha autónomia, desde Kiev había toda una élite algo autónoma, el incidente de Chernóbil mostró la inoperancia del comunismo.
La cuarta parte es sobre la Ucrania pos comunista, con unas protestas en busca de independencia y un refendum que ratifica tal hecho, este país aunque tuvo buenas relaciones con Rusia, el tema de CEI llevo a que está unión no se efectuara, el tema de Sebastopol fue otro punto de debate que luego fue solucionado. El tener armas nucleares no era barato, la presión de EEUU y sus posteriores ayudas económicas hizo que se desmantelen. Las privatizaciones no fueron fáciles, estuvieron llenas de corrupción, que como Rusia, creo oligarcas que se caracterizaban por vender energía más cara Europa y tener relaciones con el aparato estatal. El tema de la energía ha ocasionado que Ucrania compré carbón de otros países, aunque no es dependiente de Rusia debido a sus centrales hidroeléctricas y energía nuclear.
La quinta parte es sobre las dos grandes revoluciones de Ucrania, para ello se exponen sus similitudes con su lugar de encuentro, sus demandas relacionadas con mayor democracia y contra el mismo actor prácticamente Yanukóvich. Antes de la revolución naranja hubo protestas a principios del siglo XXI contra Kushama debido a la corrupción y la muerte de un periodista, frente a esto surge la oposición que parecía ganar la segunda vuelta pero hay fraude por lo que se dan protestas con lo que se repiten de las elecciones donde gana Yashenko, el cual fue envenenado supuestamente por el kremlin, igual siguió la inestabilidad dentro de su coalición de gobierno y reino la crisis.
Con esto en mente y la Crisis economíca del país, gana Yanukóvich que fue muy corrupto y clientelista, con lo que con esto, más la no firma de acuerdo de asociación con UE fue lo que llevo a protestas en el 2013 que luego se radicalizaron más a causa de la violencia del gobierno, frente a esto es que surge una facción de ultra derecha que igual luego perdería poder, sobre la ayuda extranjera fue más bien poca y fue diplomática, en comparación con Rusia que si invirtió mucho en pro Rusos, las protestas llevaron a que Yanukóvich saliera del país.
La sexta parte es sobre la anexión de Crimea y el conflicto en el Dombas. Sobre el primero se narra una breve historia del lugar, así como de las etnias que hay allí, como los tártaros, además de la entrega de Crimea en 1954 a Ucrania por temas administrativos y por contentar elites locales, con las revolución del Maidan los intereses de las élites de allí parecían verse afectados, las cuales tenían en el imaginario una Rusia más Rica y próspera frente a una Ucrania que poco ofrece, por eso es que militares sin identificar toman edificios gubernamentales y se hace un refendum donde gana la anexión a Rusia, igual poca gente antes de eso tenía ganas de unirse a Rusia, igual ese territorio es muy subvencionado por lo que su economía a corto plazo no dará mucho.
Sobre el Dombas es verdad que mucha gente allí habla ruso pero en su mayoría vivían allí Ucranianos, las elites de allí tenían una nostalgia por el pasado Soviético de industrias prósperas, luego del euromaidan, se proclaman repúblicas independientes, en otros lugares como Odessa o Khariv los ucranianos toman el control. Rusia apoyaría con armamento y tropas al ejército de dichas repúblicas, al punto de derribar un avión comercial, Rusia no se las anexióno ahí por la razón de que era difícil su control total por la ausencia de fronteras naturales y que era más estratégico un conflicto congelado, por otra parte, el ejército de Ucrania era muy débil mostrando la corrupción que había allí, luego del 2015 iniciaría una gran reforma que hoy ven sus frutos.
La última parte es sobre la Ucrania luego del euromaidan, muchos países establecieron sanaciones contra Rusia que afectó su economía, Ucrania por su parte llevo a cabo reformas contra la corrupción que mejoraron algunas cosas pero no solucionó todo, incluso el presidente porochenko tenía investigaciones de corrupciones. EEUU siguió apoyando económicamente y militarmente a Kiev. La paz no triunfo, los dos acuerdos de Minsk no quedaron en nada y el conflicto siguió.
La llegada Zelesnky dio un nuevo aire a Ucrania debido a su independiecia y juventud, igual no pudo establecer la paz con Rusia, a causa de las duras concesiones que debía hacer que no gustaba mucho entre la Población, con Trump en el poder las relaciones entre ambos países fueron algo duras. Ucrania no inició una nueva guerra fría, como lo señala el autor, el concepto ya estaba desde principios del 2000, y el conflicto no es ideológico y tampoco global.
El libro es muy bueno y necesario para entender lo que pasa, es una lástima que llegue al 2020, es necesaria una tercera edición para saber porqué Rusia invadió Ucrania desde la visión del autor.
March 3, 2022
This is a decent introduction for someone who knows absolutely nothing about Ukraine and needs general background on the country. Unfortunately, when it comes to modern history it was difficult to get past the author’s overwhelming bias towards the pro-western/EU elements in Ukrainian politics. The early history described in the book is informative, but the problems lie when the author moves into modern history. While I have no reason to believe the facts are necessarily incorrect, the author’s negative framing of figures who did not adhere to a pro-EU line and even direct calls for Western assistance make it hard to accept all of the items presented in the book. That all being said, it was a quick read to get abreast of the current history. However, I think its necessary to counter-balance this book with some more nuanced perspectives.
dnf
March 13, 2022Disappointingly dry and dispassionate. DNF at around an hour into the audiobook.
February 3, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Цель книги: объяснить западному читателю, почему Россия является исторической перманентной угрозой для Украины. В принципе, в 2022 году, это уже не нуждается в доказательстве. Однако эта книга не является политической, точнее, она не позиционирует себя в качестве политической. Название книги призвано определить оную как короткое введение в историю Украины. И вот если рассматривать эту книгу именно с этой точки зрения, то книга очень и очень слабая. Другими словами, в качестве исторической книги, она скучная и малозапоминающаяся.
Автор начинает с древних времён, т.е. с Киевской Руси. Потом быстро переходит к периоду московского царства и далее к периоду Российской Империи. Единственная связь между этими событиями – насильственное принуждение Украины существовать в составе России. С точки зрения истории, такая позиция выглядит довольно неубедительной, ибо не позволяет показать полную картину того, что на самом деле происходило между двумя странами. С точки зрения автора, это выглядело, как вся Украина была «против» такого союза и только Российская Империя была «за». Только Российская Империя была бенефициаром такого союза, в то время как Украина ничего кроме издержек (от союза) не получала. Мне в это трудно поверить. Особенно трудно, учитывая, что в книге The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy, я ничего подобного не встречал. Да и в целом не выглядело, чтобы вся Украина, в то время, была против такого союза. Может оно, конечно, и было не выгодно Украине и возможно было много недовольных, вот только автор не смог привести убедительные доводы. Вообще, в те времена союзов/объединений было очень много, вспомнить хотя бы Австро-Венгерскую империю или Оттоманскую Империю. Насколько выгодным был союз тех областей/стран, которые входили как в первую, так и во вторую империи? Нельзя сказать, что он был выгоден абсолютно для всех, но и нельзя сказать, что он был абсолютно невыгоден или что все 100% населения были «против» (ведь в таком случаи были бы постоянные бунты). Вот в этой книге ситуация обрисовывается так, что союз Украины и России, в те времена, был не выгоден для всего населения Украины. Мне в это трудно поверить (хотя, я не исключаю, что большинство было «против»). Думаю, главная проблема здесь заключается в том, что когда пишешь книгу по истории, нужно предлагать все факты, а не только те, которые тебе, т.е. автору книги, нравятся. Вот в этой книге нет цельной картины, т.е. перечисления фактов которые бы показывали, как союз с Россией был выгоден для Украины, кто выигрывал больше всего от него и почему он был не выгоден и кто страдал больше всего. Такого анализа в этой книге нет. А есть нынешний тренд, продиктованный сегодняшней трагической реальностью: Российская Империя являлось злом для Украины и точка. Повторюсь - для политической книги, это нормально, но для исторической, это неприемлемо. Но даже если смотреть через призму сегодняшнего отношения к России, то даже в этом случаи книга крайне слабая, ибо автор очень плохо обрисовывает проблемную ситуацию, за исключением темы голода в Украине в 1921-1933 (хотя, тут дело скорее в том, что всё и так ясно, понятно и однозначно). Однако в этом случаи лучше прочесть книгу Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 или статью на Википедии, если для книги нет времени или желания.
Второй проблемой книги является слишком широкий охват. Автор начинает с Киевской Руси и заканчивает ситуацией, которая сложила в Украине на 2014 год. Учитывая, что книга небольшая, написать хорошую книгу в принципе невозможно, ибо максимум, что может получиться - энциклопедия из дат и коротких описаний происходивших событий. Поэтому для тех, кто интересуется историей Украины, было бы намного лучше прочитать три книги, вместо одной. Первая была бы про историю Киевской Руси. Вторая про ��краину в составе Российской Империи (очень условно). Третья книга, Украина времён советского правления. Я сам ищу такие три книги, но пока ничего стоящего не нашёл. Проблема в том, что на русском языке стоит искать книги, только если они были изданы до 2012 г., ибо дальше были изданы книги по истории Украины с сильным политическим уклоном, т.е. сильно искажены в угоду сегодняшней политике. Поэтому либо на русском языке найти такие книги, которые были бы изданы до 2012-х годов (или первого Майдана) либо искать книги иностранных авторов. Я нашёл только две книги на английском, но опять же, они обо всей истории Украины - Ukraine: A History by Orest Subtelny и A History of Ukraine by Paul Robert Magocsi. И одну на русском – «Очерк истории Украины в Средние века и раннее Новое время» Наталия Яковенко. И да, ни эта книга, ни книга The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy не являются стоящими книгами главным образом из-за слишком широкой/большой по охвату темы.
В заключение стоит отметить, что где-то после середины книги автор начал пересказывать современную историю, начиная с первого Майдана. Читать об этом было довольно скучно, ибо всё подаётся в стиле новостных сводок. Опять же, автор попытался взять сразу два жанра: политическая и историческая литература. Делать этого явно не стоило. Вот есть две интересные книги: Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 (не читал ещё) и The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution (читал и рекомендую). Одна затрагивает исключительно исторические вопросы, а другая – политические. Именно так и нужно делать. Автор данной книги смешал два жанра, и в итоге получилось что-то непонятное. Т.е. да, суть понятна, как я написал в начале. Но для того чтобы всё-таки попытаться разобраться в том, какие же отношения были между Россией и Украиной на всём протяжении их совместного существования, книга явно не подходит.
Вообще, я тут подумал, что тема отношений Украины и России, с исторической точки зрения, довольно интересная, и я абсолютно ничего не знаю об этом. К примеру, а что вообще происходило в Украине, когда она была в составе Российской империи, насколько сильной была русификация Украины и какое к этому было отношение (тот же Гоголь почему-то не написал свои работы на двух языках, а только на одном, русском), какая позиция была у украинской элиты в тот период, а также в советский, какие плюсы и минусы были у такого союза и почему не было восстаний на территории Украины (больших/успешных, исключая УПА времён СССР). В принципе, это актуально к любому региону, как самой России, так и бывших частей Российской империи/СССР (Украина, Грузия, Белоруссия, Казахстан и пр.). На всех есть одна лишь история – история Москвы или лучше сказать, история российской столицы, в тени которой находятся история всех остальных территорий и государств Российской Империи. И это – не случайность.
The purpose of the book is to explain to the Western reader why Russia is a historical, permanent threat to Ukraine. In principle, in 2022, this no longer needs to be proven. However, this book is not political, or rather, it does not position itself as political. The title of the book is intended to define it as a brief introduction to the history of Ukraine. And so, if one considers this book from this point of view, the book is very, very weak. In other words, as a historical book, it is boring and not very memorable.
The author begins with ancient times, i.e., Kievan Rus'. Then he quickly moves on to the period of the Muscovite kingdom and then on to the period of the Russian Empire. The only connection between these events is the forcible compulsion of Ukraine to exist as part of Russia. From the point of view of history, such a position looks rather unconvincing, for it does not show the full picture of what actually took place between the two countries. From the author's point of view, it looked like all of Ukraine was "against" such a union, and only the Russian Empire was "for" it. Only the Russian Empire was the beneficiary of such a union, while Ukraine received nothing but costs (from the union). It is hard for me to believe. It is especially difficult given that I did not see anything of the kind in the book The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy. And in general, it did not seem that the whole of Ukraine, at that time, was against such an alliance. Maybe, of course, it was not beneficial to Ukraine, and perhaps there were a lot of dissatisfied, but the author could not give a convincing argument. In general, there were a lot of unions in those days, remember, at least the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire. How profitable was the alliance of those regions/countries that were part of both the first and the second empires? We cannot say that it was beneficial to absolutely everyone, but we cannot say that it was absolutely disadvantageous or that all 100% of the population was "against" (because, in this case, there would have been constant revolts). This book outlines the situation so that the union of Ukraine and Russia, at that time, was not beneficial to the entire population of Ukraine. I find this hard to believe (although I don't exclude that the majority was "against" it). I think the main problem here is that when you write a history book, you have to offer all the facts, not just the ones you, i.e., the author of the book, like. There is no whole picture in this book, i.e., a list of facts that would show how the alliance with Russia was beneficial to Ukraine, who benefited most from it, why it was not beneficial, and who suffered most. There is no such analysis in this book. Instead, there is the current trend dictated by today's tragic reality: the Russian Empire was evil for Ukraine, and that's it. Again, for a political book, this is fine, but for a historical book, it is unacceptable. But even if we look through the prism of today's attitude to Russia, even in this case, the book is extremely weak because the author very poorly outlines the problematic situation, except for the topic of the famine in Ukraine in 1921-1933. However, in this case, it is better to read the book Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933, or the article on Wikipedia if there is no time or desire for a book.
The second problem with the book is that it is too broad in scope. The author begins with Kievan Rus' and ends with the situation that developed in Ukraine in 2014. Given that the book is small, it is basically impossible to write a good book because the maximum that can turn out is an encyclopedia of dates and short descriptions of the events that took place. Therefore, for those interested in the history of Ukraine, it would be much better to read three books instead of one. The first would be about the history of Kievan Rus'. The second would be about Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire (very conventionally). The third book is about Ukraine during Soviet rule. I'm looking for three books like this myself, but so far I haven't found anything worthwhile. The problem is that it is worth looking for books in Russian only if they were published before 2012 because, further, books on the history of Ukraine were published with a strong political bias, i.e., badly distorted to please today's politics. Therefore, either find books in Russian that were published before 2012 (or the first Maidan) or look for books by foreign authors. I found only two books in English, but again, they are about the whole history of Ukraine - Ukraine: A History by Orest Subtelny and A History of Ukraine by Paul Robert Magocsi. And one in Russian - "An Essay on the History of Ukraine in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times" by Natalia Yakovenko. And yes, both this book and The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy are not worthwhile books, mainly because they are too broad in scope.
In the end, it is worth noting that somewhere after the middle of the book, the author began to retell modern history, beginning with the first Maidan. It was boring to read about it because everything is presented in the style of news bulletins. The author tried to take two genres at once - political and historical. It clearly should not have been done. Here are two interesting books: Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 (not yet read) and The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution (read and recommended). One deal exclusively with historical issues, and the other with political issues. It is exactly the way to do it. The author of this book mixed the two genres and ended up with something incomprehensible. I mean, yes, the point is clear, as I wrote in the beginning. But to try to make sense of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine throughout their coexistence, the book is not suitable.
Actually, I was thinking that the topic of Ukraine-Russia relations, from a historical point of view, is quite interesting, and I know absolutely nothing about it. For example, what happened in Ukraine when it was part of the Russian Empire, how strong was the Russification of Ukraine, and what was the attitude to it (for some reason, Gogol did not write his works in two languages, but only in one, Russian), what was the position of the Ukrainian elite in that period and in the Soviet period, what were the pros and cons of this union and why there were no uprisings in Ukraine (large/successful, excluding the UPA). In principle, this is relevant to any region, both Russia itself and the former parts of the Russian Empire/USSR (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.). All have only one history - the history of Moscow or, better said, the history of the Russian capital, in the shadow of which is the history of all the other territories and states of the Russian Empire. And this is no accident.
Цель книги: объяснить западному читателю, почему Россия является исторической перманентной угрозой для Украины. В принципе, в 2022 году, это уже не нуждается в доказательстве. Однако эта книга не является политической, точнее, она не позиционирует себя в качестве политической. Название книги призвано определить оную как короткое введение в историю Украины. И вот если рассматривать эту книгу именно с этой точки зрения, то книга очень и очень слабая. Другими словами, в качестве исторической книги, она скучная и малозапоминающаяся.
Автор начинает с древних времён, т.е. с Киевской Руси. Потом быстро переходит к периоду московского царства и далее к периоду Российской Империи. Единственная связь между этими событиями – насильственное принуждение Украины существовать в составе России. С точки зрения истории, такая позиция выглядит довольно неубедительной, ибо не позволяет показать полную картину того, что на самом деле происходило между двумя странами. С точки зрения автора, это выглядело, как вся Украина была «против» такого союза и только Российская Империя была «за». Только Российская Империя была бенефициаром такого союза, в то время как Украина ничего кроме издержек (от союза) не получала. Мне в это трудно поверить. Особенно трудно, учитывая, что в книге The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy, я ничего подобного не встречал. Да и в целом не выглядело, чтобы вся Украина, в то время, была против такого союза. Может оно, конечно, и было не выгодно Украине и возможно было много недовольных, вот только автор не смог привести убедительные доводы. Вообще, в те времена союзов/объединений было очень много, вспомнить хотя бы Австро-Венгерскую империю или Оттоманскую Империю. Насколько выгодным был союз тех областей/стран, которые входили как в первую, так и во вторую империи? Нельзя сказать, что он был выгоден абсолютно для всех, но и нельзя сказать, что он был абсолютно невыгоден или что все 100% населения были «против» (ведь в таком случаи были бы постоянные бунты). Вот в этой книге ситуация обрисовывается так, что союз Украины и России, в те времена, был не выгоден для всего населения Украины. Мне в это трудно поверить (хотя, я не исключаю, что большинство было «против»). Думаю, главная проблема здесь заключается в том, что когда пишешь книгу по истории, нужно предлагать все факты, а не только те, которые тебе, т.е. автору книги, нравятся. Вот в этой книге нет цельной картины, т.е. перечисления фактов которые бы показывали, как союз с Россией был выгоден для Украины, кто выигрывал больше всего от него и почему он был не выгоден и кто страдал больше всего. Такого анализа в этой книге нет. А есть нынешний тренд, продиктованный сегодняшней трагической реальностью: Российская Империя являлось злом для Украины и точка. Повторюсь - для политической книги, это нормально, но для исторической, это неприемлемо. Но даже если смотреть через призму сегодняшнего отношения к России, то даже в этом случаи книга крайне слабая, ибо автор очень плохо обрисовывает проблемную ситуацию, за исключением темы голода в Украине в 1921-1933 (хотя, тут дело скорее в том, что всё и так ясно, понятно и однозначно). Однако в этом случаи лучше прочесть книгу Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 или статью на Википедии, если для книги нет времени или желания.
Второй проблемой книги является слишком широкий охват. Автор начинает с Киевской Руси и заканчивает ситуацией, которая сложила в Украине на 2014 год. Учитывая, что книга небольшая, написать хорошую книгу в принципе невозможно, ибо максимум, что может получиться - энциклопедия из дат и коротких описаний происходивших событий. Поэтому для тех, кто интересуется историей Украины, было бы намного лучше прочитать три книги, вместо одной. Первая была бы про историю Киевской Руси. Вторая про ��краину в составе Российской Империи (очень условно). Третья книга, Украина времён советского правления. Я сам ищу такие три книги, но пока ничего стоящего не нашёл. Проблема в том, что на русском языке стоит искать книги, только если они были изданы до 2012 г., ибо дальше были изданы книги по истории Украины с сильным политическим уклоном, т.е. сильно искажены в угоду сегодняшней политике. Поэтому либо на русском языке найти такие книги, которые были бы изданы до 2012-х годов (или первого Майдана) либо искать книги иностранных авторов. Я нашёл только две книги на английском, но опять же, они обо всей истории Украины - Ukraine: A History by Orest Subtelny и A History of Ukraine by Paul Robert Magocsi. И одну на русском – «Очерк истории Украины в Средние века и раннее Новое время» Наталия Яковенко. И да, ни эта книга, ни книга The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy не являются стоящими книгами главным образом из-за слишком широкой/большой по охвату темы.
В заключение стоит отметить, что где-то после середины книги автор начал пересказывать современную историю, начиная с первого Майдана. Читать об этом было довольно скучно, ибо всё подаётся в стиле новостных сводок. Опять же, автор попытался взять сразу два жанра: политическая и историческая литература. Делать этого явно не стоило. Вот есть две интересные книги: Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 (не читал ещё) и The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution (читал и рекомендую). Одна затрагивает исключительно исторические вопросы, а другая – политические. Именно так и нужно делать. Автор данной книги смешал два жанра, и в итоге получилось что-то непонятное. Т.е. да, суть понятна, как я написал в начале. Но для того чтобы всё-таки попытаться разобраться в том, какие же отношения были между Россией и Украиной на всём протяжении их совместного существования, книга явно не подходит.
Вообще, я тут подумал, что тема отношений Украины и России, с исторической точки зрения, довольно интересная, и я абсолютно ничего не знаю об этом. К примеру, а что вообще происходило в Украине, когда она была в составе Российской империи, насколько сильной была русификация Украины и какое к этому было отношение (тот же Гоголь почему-то не написал свои работы на двух языках, а только на одном, русском), какая позиция была у украинской элиты в тот период, а также в советский, какие плюсы и минусы были у такого союза и почему не было восстаний на территории Украины (больших/успешных, исключая УПА времён СССР). В принципе, это актуально к любому региону, как самой России, так и бывших частей Российской империи/СССР (Украина, Грузия, Белоруссия, Казахстан и пр.). На всех есть одна лишь история – история Москвы или лучше сказать, история российской столицы, в тени которой находятся история всех остальных территорий и государств Российской Империи. И это – не случайность.
The purpose of the book is to explain to the Western reader why Russia is a historical, permanent threat to Ukraine. In principle, in 2022, this no longer needs to be proven. However, this book is not political, or rather, it does not position itself as political. The title of the book is intended to define it as a brief introduction to the history of Ukraine. And so, if one considers this book from this point of view, the book is very, very weak. In other words, as a historical book, it is boring and not very memorable.
The author begins with ancient times, i.e., Kievan Rus'. Then he quickly moves on to the period of the Muscovite kingdom and then on to the period of the Russian Empire. The only connection between these events is the forcible compulsion of Ukraine to exist as part of Russia. From the point of view of history, such a position looks rather unconvincing, for it does not show the full picture of what actually took place between the two countries. From the author's point of view, it looked like all of Ukraine was "against" such a union, and only the Russian Empire was "for" it. Only the Russian Empire was the beneficiary of such a union, while Ukraine received nothing but costs (from the union). It is hard for me to believe. It is especially difficult given that I did not see anything of the kind in the book The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy. And in general, it did not seem that the whole of Ukraine, at that time, was against such an alliance. Maybe, of course, it was not beneficial to Ukraine, and perhaps there were a lot of dissatisfied, but the author could not give a convincing argument. In general, there were a lot of unions in those days, remember, at least the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire. How profitable was the alliance of those regions/countries that were part of both the first and the second empires? We cannot say that it was beneficial to absolutely everyone, but we cannot say that it was absolutely disadvantageous or that all 100% of the population was "against" (because, in this case, there would have been constant revolts). This book outlines the situation so that the union of Ukraine and Russia, at that time, was not beneficial to the entire population of Ukraine. I find this hard to believe (although I don't exclude that the majority was "against" it). I think the main problem here is that when you write a history book, you have to offer all the facts, not just the ones you, i.e., the author of the book, like. There is no whole picture in this book, i.e., a list of facts that would show how the alliance with Russia was beneficial to Ukraine, who benefited most from it, why it was not beneficial, and who suffered most. There is no such analysis in this book. Instead, there is the current trend dictated by today's tragic reality: the Russian Empire was evil for Ukraine, and that's it. Again, for a political book, this is fine, but for a historical book, it is unacceptable. But even if we look through the prism of today's attitude to Russia, even in this case, the book is extremely weak because the author very poorly outlines the problematic situation, except for the topic of the famine in Ukraine in 1921-1933. However, in this case, it is better to read the book Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933, or the article on Wikipedia if there is no time or desire for a book.
The second problem with the book is that it is too broad in scope. The author begins with Kievan Rus' and ends with the situation that developed in Ukraine in 2014. Given that the book is small, it is basically impossible to write a good book because the maximum that can turn out is an encyclopedia of dates and short descriptions of the events that took place. Therefore, for those interested in the history of Ukraine, it would be much better to read three books instead of one. The first would be about the history of Kievan Rus'. The second would be about Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire (very conventionally). The third book is about Ukraine during Soviet rule. I'm looking for three books like this myself, but so far I haven't found anything worthwhile. The problem is that it is worth looking for books in Russian only if they were published before 2012 because, further, books on the history of Ukraine were published with a strong political bias, i.e., badly distorted to please today's politics. Therefore, either find books in Russian that were published before 2012 (or the first Maidan) or look for books by foreign authors. I found only two books in English, but again, they are about the whole history of Ukraine - Ukraine: A History by Orest Subtelny and A History of Ukraine by Paul Robert Magocsi. And one in Russian - "An Essay on the History of Ukraine in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times" by Natalia Yakovenko. And yes, both this book and The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy are not worthwhile books, mainly because they are too broad in scope.
In the end, it is worth noting that somewhere after the middle of the book, the author began to retell modern history, beginning with the first Maidan. It was boring to read about it because everything is presented in the style of news bulletins. The author tried to take two genres at once - political and historical. It clearly should not have been done. Here are two interesting books: Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 (not yet read) and The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution (read and recommended). One deal exclusively with historical issues, and the other with political issues. It is exactly the way to do it. The author of this book mixed the two genres and ended up with something incomprehensible. I mean, yes, the point is clear, as I wrote in the beginning. But to try to make sense of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine throughout their coexistence, the book is not suitable.
Actually, I was thinking that the topic of Ukraine-Russia relations, from a historical point of view, is quite interesting, and I know absolutely nothing about it. For example, what happened in Ukraine when it was part of the Russian Empire, how strong was the Russification of Ukraine, and what was the attitude to it (for some reason, Gogol did not write his works in two languages, but only in one, Russian), what was the position of the Ukrainian elite in that period and in the Soviet period, what were the pros and cons of this union and why there were no uprisings in Ukraine (large/successful, excluding the UPA). In principle, this is relevant to any region, both Russia itself and the former parts of the Russian Empire/USSR (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.). All have only one history - the history of Moscow or, better said, the history of the Russian capital, in the shadow of which is the history of all the other territories and states of the Russian Empire. And this is no accident.
February 27, 2022
A short and informative read that will take readers all the way up to just before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Deals a lot with both identity in Ukraine and post-Soviet politics. If you are a regular consumer of Brooklyn podcasts, AJ+, RT, or Press TV you probably won't like this book unless you approach it with an open mind.
April 4, 2022
I feel like a just had an 8 hour history lesson with reading/listening to this book. Ukraine’s history is complicated, and though I am better informed now, I’m not sure how to process so much information. I do, however, remain amazed by their strength and resilience, they’ve been through this before.
I found the beginning especially interesting, especially about the wave of emigrants who came to Canada (my grandparents included), and the end where the author describes Zelenskyy’s rise to Presidency and complex relations with both Russia and the US, especially Russia’s disinformation campaigns.
I think I would need to read it again to fully comprehend the whole history, but I won’t. I will however, get the author’s update on what is going on now. An insightful and informative read if you’re interested in the Ukraine.
I found the beginning especially interesting, especially about the wave of emigrants who came to Canada (my grandparents included), and the end where the author describes Zelenskyy’s rise to Presidency and complex relations with both Russia and the US, especially Russia’s disinformation campaigns.
I think I would need to read it again to fully comprehend the whole history, but I won’t. I will however, get the author’s update on what is going on now. An insightful and informative read if you’re interested in the Ukraine.
May 23, 2022
*This book was published before Russia’s February 2022 invasion into Ukraine
TW: Anti-semitism, murder, war, invasions, political corruption
5/5
Wow. There is so much information in this book: to the point where it can be very overwhelming at times.
However, the author did a really good job breaking down all the politics and relevant history!
If you are interested in the history behind Russian/Ukrainian tensions, (up until ~2020) then this is a really really good overview with questions written out and then answered.
*consumed as an audiobook
TW: Anti-semitism, murder, war, invasions, political corruption
5/5
Wow. There is so much information in this book: to the point where it can be very overwhelming at times.
However, the author did a really good job breaking down all the politics and relevant history!
If you are interested in the history behind Russian/Ukrainian tensions, (up until ~2020) then this is a really really good overview with questions written out and then answered.
*consumed as an audiobook
March 14, 2022
A brief history of Ukraine and all the relevant political machinations that serves as a great context for understanding the current war - it traces the story of human strife, corruption galore, oligarchic rule and power dynamics with Russia, US and NATO.
It also highlights how low the odds were for the coming about of V. Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine - but it did happen. I wish him and his people all the luck to prevail in this unjust war.
It also highlights how low the odds were for the coming about of V. Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine - but it did happen. I wish him and his people all the luck to prevail in this unjust war.
March 26, 2022
A concise and clever look into how Ukrainian history affects the country since 90s until 2020. Anyone who wants to tweet or post something stupid on SM about the current russian aggression should be made to read this book first.
Слава Україні
Слава Україні
March 17, 2022
Extremely helpful book for understanding current world affairs and Ukraine's complex history, especially the past 20 years and the global conflict surrounding it. I just think the book could have done with a more fluent writing style since it was extremely history-text-book-like and therefore very slow, monotonous and sometimes too abstract. I'm a firm believer that even text books can profit from good writing and don't have to be written boringly. It was very factual though and managed to contextualise all that was explained, so all in all a good resource if you want to learn more about the topic.
March 23, 2022
Yekelchyk has written an introduction to the West about the players, history and culture of Ukraine.
Why I started this book: I don't know much about Ukraine history or current contemporary politics and with it dominating the news cycle, I wanted a solid base so that I could understand what's going on.
Why I finished it: Great foundation, short, succinct this book is not for anyone who has studied Ukraine and it's long, nuanced history. This is a crash course with emphasis on the players and their antecedents for the 2014-2020 international crisis. The Russian invasion, "Trump's perfect call" and all the other messy bits.
Why I started this book: I don't know much about Ukraine history or current contemporary politics and with it dominating the news cycle, I wanted a solid base so that I could understand what's going on.
Why I finished it: Great foundation, short, succinct this book is not for anyone who has studied Ukraine and it's long, nuanced history. This is a crash course with emphasis on the players and their antecedents for the 2014-2020 international crisis. The Russian invasion, "Trump's perfect call" and all the other messy bits.
July 19, 2022
Quick impressions: The book is more an academic textbook, in other words I would not label it for pleasure reading (unless you are a policy wonk, history buff, or similar reader), but it should be of interest to general readers who want to learn more about the topic.
(Full review on my blog.)
(Full review on my blog.)
January 31, 2023
Pretty uninteresting.
(Audiobook, Ft. Worth Public Library)
(Audiobook, Ft. Worth Public Library)
March 6, 2022
Brief but solid overview of the conflicts and how Russia has been after Ukraine as a strategic location for decades.
March 6, 2022
كتاب مفيد جدا من الناحية المعلوماتية. الكاتب منحاز للتصورات الغربية حول روسيا لكنه منصف ويحاول أن يكون موضوعيا. والأكيد أن الصراع ليس فيه ملائكة ولا رواد للحرية سوى الشعوب وأن الأمور مركبة جدا على المستوى الاثني والثقافي والتاريخي وأن أوكرانيا ملعب لقوى دولية مختلفة كأنها لبنان في لحظة ما من تاريخها مع الفوارق.
April 8, 2022
a great comprehensive compendium of Ukraine and its rich and complicated history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews