Guerrilla History - History of Russia/Ukraine Relations w/ Alexey Sakhnin: Dispatch

Episode Date: February 25, 2022

In this episode of Guerrilla History, we bring on Alexey Sakhnin to discuss the history of Russia/Ukraine relations.  Given the current events, this is an important topic for us to understand the historical context of.  Take the information here and use it to help you analyze what is unfolding! Alexey Sakhnin is a Russian activist, historian, Progressive International Council member, and member of the Left Front.  He has articles published all over the place, and more coming out all the time.  He will hopefully have a new article coming out via Jacobin soon, which will be available on his author page on their website: https://jacobinmag.com/author/alexey-sakhnin. Guerrilla History is the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history, and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present.  If you have any questions or guest/topic suggestions, email them to us at [e-mail]. Your hosts are immunobiologist Henry Hakamaki, Professor Adnan Husain, historian and Director of the School of Religion at Queens University, and Revolutionary Left Radio's Breht O'Shea.   Follow us on social media!  Our podcast can be found on twitter @guerrilla_pod, and can be supported on patreon at https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory.  Your contributions will make the show possible to continue and succeed! To follow the hosts, Henry can be found on twitter @huck1995, and also has a patreon to help support himself through the pandemic where he breaks down science and public health research and news at https://www.patreon.com/huck1995.  Adnan can be followed on twitter @adnanahusain, and also runs The Majlis Podcast, which can be found at https://anchor.fm/the-majlis, and the Muslim Societies-Global Perspectives group at Queens University, https://www.facebook.com/MSGPQU/.   Breht is the host of Revolutionary Left Radio, which can be followed on twitter @RevLeftRadio and cohost of The Red Menace Podcast, which can be followed on twitter @Red_Menace_Pod.  Follow and support these shows on patreon, and find them at https://www.revolutionaryleftradio.com/.     Thanks to Ryan Hakamaki, who designed and created the podcast's artwork, and Kevin MacLeod, who creates royalty-free music.

You remember Den Bamboo? No! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rank. The prince had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerrilla action on. Hello and welcome to guerrilla history. Gorilla History, the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history

and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present. This is a guerrilla history dispatch where we look at current events through the lens of historical narratives. We try to historicize the background so that we can understand the present a little bit more. And we are taking on a very timely topic today. I'm your host, Henry Huckimacki, joined by my co-hosts, Professor Adnan Hussein, historian and director of the School of Religion at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada. Hello, Adnan.

How are you doing today? I'm doing well. It's great to be with you, Henry. Also great to see you. We're also joined by Brett O'Shea, host of Revolutionary Left Radio and co-host of the Red Menace podcast. Hello, Brett. How are you holding up? Hello.

I'm doing good. Great. So today we're joined by a great guest who's going to be telling us a lot about history and very important history given current events. So we are joined by Alexei Sacknan, who is a Russian activist, a member of the left front, and a historian by training. So somebody who really given the current events, we could not hope for a better guest then. Hello, Alexi.

How are you doing today? It's not the best day in my life, mostly because of my country is now aggressor. It's difficult to put it together in my moral picture of the world. even after 20 years of oppositional activities. Yeah. But then fine, quite fine. I totally understand that also is a, you know, Russian resident myself. So we're glad that we have you with us here.

We're going to jump into the context to try to understand the topic today to discuss Ukrainian history and the history of Ukrainian-Russian relations. That's kind of the overarching theme of today's conversation. And I'm just going to give it over to Adnan to kind of. get us into how we want to start this conversation. Adnan, why don't you just take it away? Sure, great. Thanks, Henry. Yeah, obviously people are watching the news.

And I, like many of our listeners, don't have a really precise foundation in understanding the history of the region, and in particular, because history has become so much a part of how discussions are taking place today, different visions and understandings of history. history. I thought it would be really helpful to gain a better understanding from you about the nature of Ukrainian political and cultural identity and history and its relations with, you know, the Russian peoples and later the Russian Empire and so on. Because the area I study is the medieval period and it's well known that, you know, there was the Kiev-An-Rousse, you know, polity, you know, the prince of Kiev, Vladimir. you know, second, he converts to orthodoxy, and you have some of the elements at that point of what is foundational in kind of Russian and Slavic people's identities in that region

is this history that intertwines peoples who live in what is present-day Ukraine and, you know, the Russian people. So I'm wondering if maybe you could tell us a little bit more about how you see the unfolding of these relationships and the basis for really understanding Ukraine as an independent polity politically, what points it was within the Russian Empire and give us that kind of a background. I think that would be very useful for listeners who may not have a background or understanding of this. Strange to discuss thousand years ago history in day when tanks and military flights make the contemporary history. But in any case, we were invited to this discussion by Russian president, who started his intervention from one-hour election about history in very specific, let's say, extreme conservative version.

And his version is the most radical, and I would say, even marginal form of romantic nationalism, which were created. as everywhere in Europe in 19th century, romantic nationalistic interpretation of the national birth and growing up with some mission and glory of future in future. Ukraine also have such nationalistic mythology, but it was created much later and partly it was created just during the last 30 years of social house and cultural disaster and that's why Ukrainian ultra-right nationalistic interpretation of history sometimes much more funny than boring Putin's shit. For example, if you would take a walk in Maidan, not today, today probably is not the best day to walk on Maidan in the

Independence Square in Kyiv. But if you would take a walk in some peaceful day two months ago or what two years ago, you would find a lot of guys who old usually guys who sell historical books. And you would be impressed, I promise, because part of the books would look for roots of Ukrainian glory and history in Buddha, Gautama, Siddharth Gautama Buddha. or Putin, like parallels between mythological Aryan people like in Nazi mythology and Ukrainians in form of fake linguistic and so on. But that specific anecdote-style mythology is out, is not contested by Russian nationalistic narrative. The first room, the first place which is contested between two nationalistic narratives is Kiev and Rus.

is a first form of statehood which both of our countries pretend to be Naslednikia. Harris to them. Harris too. Just a few years ago, like 2016, I guess it was, in Moscow, in the center of Moscow, authorities put huge monument to Prince Vladimir, the saint Vladimir, the guy who is according to official

legends, chronics, make Russia even, Rusch, make orthodox country. And he is very contested person. Who is he Ukrainian or Russian? And it was a real serious discussion between politicians on the top between Russian president and Ukrainian president, who of them can pretend to the heritage of St. Vladimir more. I just want to remind that St. Vladimir died 10, 15. And the day when Ruth became orthodox was 988.

So quite long board. You know, my second language is not English. My second language is Swedish. I lived in Sweden, so I tried always to speak to convert in Swedish. So, Kiev and Rus, of course, have nothing to do with both contemporary Russia and Ukraine. It was kind of early Middle Ages feudal society, not even feudal society. I would say it was the Targoye Company, trade company. You know, it was trade company which controlled the river, river trade

ways between Scandinavia with its metal and main centers of civilization of the early Middle Ages, Byzantine and Sassanid Iran, in Iran and Greece and Turkey today. And the main warrants was not even iron and skin. Mecha, Pels, not. First, Peltz. Pels in Swedish. But it was the slave trade. So slave

Slavic and Finnish girls was the main resource of that huge raw resources colony with Scandinavian by origin elite, which first dynasty of Russia, which rule Russia until

the 16th century. was Scandinavian by origin, with Greek official culture of the ruling class, and with mixed Slavic, Finnish and Baltic population, which never knew that they are living in something called Kyiv and Rus. But that was kind of unity, cultural and political and military unity of early Middle Ages and then history forced it to be broken because two different part of that continuum of that place was included in two different cultural and political world systems or regional systems, let's say, economical, political, cultural, judicial and so on.

The northern part, northern east, first of all, and then northern west, was included in Golden Hort, the nomad empire with Mongolian dynasty and the Turkish nomadic population in the contemporary southern and eastern southern Russia. and Russian principates small feudal principates were satellites, vassal. Vassals. Vessels. Vessels of Golden Hort. They paid taxes there.

They got permission to power from Golden Hort. But Western Russia tribes, Slavic and Baltic tribes, of Western Russia and southern parts of Kiev and Rus. former Kiev and Russe, they already in the beginning of 14th century, became part of great principat of Lithuania, which in 15th century joined in dynastic and political union in commonwealth with Poland. So, Eastern Slavic population during 15th and 16th century, in contemporary northern Ukraine and Belarus, they lived under feudal rule of Catholic,

Lithuanian and Polish aristocracy. And that became the Razvilka. Where the roads had split. Crossroads or crossroads? Crossroads. Cross road, right? And that was crossroad, which made us Unfortunately to Vladimir Putin, unfortunately to Vladimir Putin, that made us two or three different nations, peoples, very similar one.

So, in 15th century, predecessors of contemporary Belarusians was probably about to be majority in a great principal part of Belarusians. and the western dialect of old Russian, Dreevny Rusky, old Russian, was official language. So one of chronics described the war between Moscow-Rus and Lithuania with words, and then come Moscow with war on Rousse. Sometimes that old feudal shit

uses, until now, especially in Belgrade, Russian nationalistic environment. But Ukraine as a term first appears just in 16th century. And as you probably have heard, Ukraine from Eastern Slavic languages, could be translated as a Kant, as a crime. Frontier, probably, frontier. And it was true. It was frontier for all of players, for all feudal players in that tragic Eastern European

Ravnina. Plaint. Plaint. Because until the 18th century, in the southern steps near the Black Sea, lived nomads. There was a crimine, there was golden fort, and then in line of Caganauts, Kazan Kaganats, where Henry is, yes. Yes, exactly. There's still remnants here, by the way.

Sure, and half of populations are Tatars. Of course, in very strong cultural identity. In 16th century, and until 18th century, Crimean Kaganat was quite strong country with Nabathevaheconomic. with the economics that's built on attacks of other places as Pustoon tribes probably heard more in Pakistan and Afghanistan they have not enough resources through raiding

yes through raiding raiding economy so every second year there was attack from Crimean Kaganat and about three millions of Polish, Russian and Ukrainian or proto-Russians, Ukrainian and Polish persons were sold on the slave markets of the Black Sea in Ottoman Turkey during from 15th to 18th century. So, Sargent Park was quite dangerous place and its step. In forest, it's easier to hide yourself. But in the 16th century, start a new, very important process which were living in until now, appearance of capitalism in a form of global market.

And both Russia and Poland or Commonwealths of Poland and Lithuania were included in European market. as sources of raw resources. In the 16th century, Ivan the terrible, the famous Russian Tsar had a war in Baltic countries, which could

be our next direction. I hope not. And he he Nanyl Pirata hired a pirate. Hired a pirate from Denmark.

He fired 52 ships on the Baltic Sea and 51 of them was with bread. So both Russia and Polish lands, feudal societies, became a source of

raw resources, the bread, the corn and also pels, also forest, many other things the fleets of Gunza, of Great Britain and Holland they have all

canata, snasty all the ship of equipment like the ropes and that were made from Russian linen. But Eastern European society was not market economies at time. To get

that product ruling class had to use open force. And that is famous in historiography, the process of secondary coming of the serfdom, Kripasnoy Pravo. So all Western European society said goodbye to serfdom, but in Eastern Europe, it restores and make much harder than it was. Real serfdom in Russia became the norm of life from Europe. 16 to 18th century and was dissolved, was at minimum.

Abolished. Abolished just in the middle of 19th century, exactly when Lincoln abolished abolished slavery in the US. So the feudal pressure on the population get harder and harder, both in Poland and Russian. and thousands of thousands run away to the cold Siberian forests, but also to the quite warm and dangerous southern steps. And they establish a form of life, very similar to pioneers of the Wild West,

kind of military anarchist republics, who used, of course, religious ideology in 16 and 17th century. And the strongest one in the 16th century, 17th century, was established in the middle and low Dneper River, Porogian. As it descends, so basically like going down. That kind of military republic called Zaporozsche. Yeah, the Zaporosian siege, I think it's in Ukrainian, the Zaporosan siege. You're saying it's sort of like the Texas of the region, like a quasi-independent military settler frontier zone. Yes, exactly.

They lived on frontier of three civilization between Tatar nomads and the Ottoman feudal rule, Catholic Poland, Orthodox Russian. So it was a Kant, it was the border, it was a frontier. Ukraine come from, just listen, Ukraine, Akraina, it's almost the same. And the people who lived on the border, on the frontier, they wore psychological and culture. Most of them come from orthodox regions. They run away from growing feudal and tax pressure from states. So extremely important for them was kind of freedom, as in sometimes in very reactionary forms. For example, before Hitler, the biggest anti-Semitic pogroms was pogroms during the Ukrainian national rebel in 17th century.

But the same time, most of them were orthodox. So they culturally, they tend to Russia. bit more than to Catholic feudalism of Lithuanian Poland. And formally, they lived in the territory which Krakow and then Varshava pretend to take the sovereignty on. And feudal pretenses of Warsaw court war, kings court, kings. for them to make sometimes rebels. But with much pleasure, they also participate in civil war in Russia in the beginning of 17th century.

And there were other Kazakh territories in Don, which then in 18 and 19th century became the strongest base for Tsarism. But in 17th century, there was a haptic region of Anarshishian. and in some way, democratic and emancipation movements, archaic one, of course. So the important point for Ukrainian history is 17th century. When the guy whose name was Baghdadmelnitsky became the leader of the rebels in that Kazakh region in Dnieper, low Dneper. And his rebel was quite successful. His enemies was Polish crown. In the beginning, he was quite loyal one.

Demand was some compromise with the Cossack's elite. Some respect from Polish monarchy to Ukrainian orthodox ruling class. And they wanted to be equal with the Catholic nobility. model, nobility, nobility, equal with Polish Catholic nobility. That's why those ideological rhetoric demands were painted in orthodox colors. But Ukraine or sometimes in historiography, one call it Gittmannschina, because the head of that Republic, elected head of that military republic, called Getman, the chief, probably, the leader, Gatman.

So Gittmann-Schina, the Gatman region, was too weak to pretend be really independent. And that was the reason of the 40 years civil war in 17th century Ukraine, which called Ruinan and could be translated as ruins or chaos also. And it was the first attempt, first attempt to establish kind of separate Ukrainian statehood. But Gittmannchina was too weak, as I said, and different parties in that Kazakh region tried to make all possible geopolitical alliances. The war pro-Polish groups try to make deal with

Warsaw. The war, even pro-Turkish deals tried to make Ukraine autonomium as a Crimean Kaganat, but under Ottoman patronage. But even, as you know, in the early 18th century when Russia was in war with Sweden, the Getman Mazepa, the leader of

autonomy, Ukraine tried to make that kind of geopolitical alliance. But the strongest party of Cossack's elite made decision

and made stil di Stavku. Put their bat on the something on Russia. There was in

town Pereslau There was 1649, I guess. There was Pereslaval Rada, Pereslavl consul, Pereslaval meeting, could we say, when delegates from different Cossacks groups decide that they want to ask Russian Tsai about patronage, but ask not to be included just in Russia,

to be an autonomous region with self-ruling, And five years later, or probably it was 1654, I hadn't any time to prepare. In Russia, also feudal, summing, feudal meeting of all, you know, persons, nobility, priests and so on, they, Zemskisabor called it, they, after a long discussion, accepted that deal that Kazakh get Manchin, that quite small region, would be part of Russian sardom, with many autonomous self-ruling begransing, a

grinseng, Limits, limited. Independent Kurds, independent military groups, Kozaks militares,

and they have to be paid from Moscow. And the Ukrainian kind of independence of Cossacks existed until the end of 18th century, just in Yacetitina the second time when Crimean Kaganat was conquered, the last ruins of that autonomy was abolished.

And Ukraine was included in Russia Empire as a just part of Russian Empire. Russian, if you would look in the patriotic sector of Russian Internet, you would find as many as you want maps how Ukraine should look like. And often, they paint borders of Ukraine as it was in 17th century, as it was Gittmannshima. It's quite small. It's two regions from 28.

Because western part of Ukraine, almost all what was on the right side of NEPA was still under Polish rule until the 18th century, when Poland itself was divided between Russia, Prussia, and Austerican. Austria. Austria. Then it was empires, you know. And Russia got mostly Orthodox East Slavic regions

with orthodox majority, but sometimes with the Catholic elite, the Catholic nobility who own the peasants. But small part of Ukraine, Wallin, was present of a Vienna emperor, not Eukaterina. So that small part of Ukraine is more special. It's probably the own part of the country where Ukrainian language totally dominate in private life of the people. In Kiev, people mostly.

so, so, but mostly speaking Russian to each other, even in families. I would say 70% Russian and 30% Ukrainian. In Levovost, 90% or 95% is Ukrainian, because it was part of Austria and then Austria-Hungary until the First World War. And Habsburg Monarchie really, played some games with the local elite. There was a kind from Polish-Littuanian state. They got such heritage as a uniazstan. It was a form of compromise between Catholicism and orthodoxy, orthodox Greek rituals, but Roman Pope on the top. So that UNIATS church,

which is quite popular just in the Western Ukraine, in Levo, region, in Walling, and Galicia, it was one of the sources of contemporary Ukrainian nationalism. Metropolitan Andreas Shedaretsky was blessing Austro-Hungarian soldiers who should fight with Orthodox Russia and then was Blazian Ukrainian extreme far nationalist who fought on the Nazi side.

And he was a represent of that tradition. But West I described shortly, briefly, central and northern Ukraine was part of Russia. It was also two parts. On the right side of NEPA in villages, people spoke on some. dialects which then was solved in Ukrainian literature language. But in the East, they spoke mostly on Suresh, kind of dialect of Russian, with Russian, grammar, and mixed words between Russian and Ukrainian, totally transparent. Until now, 30% of Ukrainians use Sushi, which could be presented as a dialect of Russian or dialect of Ukrainian. There is no any strict

border between them. So left side of Dnieper, eastern Ukraine was very similar, without any hard cultural border. And there was a huge southern part, which was almost empty, because before there was nomads, just nomads, and nobody lived in files, almost. Then from the end of 18th century and older 19th century, Russian Tsarism made a huge. huge move of population, mostly Russian population from central Russian. So that frontier, that plodododian, a very good land that's very fertile. Fertile lands, they got named

Nova Russia, New Russia, Noworosia. So in Russian nationalistic tradition, you would see a lot of forms how to split Ukraine between that historical regions, which are still quite different in cultural and linguistic nuances. But that have nothing to do with modern nationalism, modern nation, and modern statehood. And that class mosaic, which is the background for all that modern shit. So that was briefly excursing Ukrainian history.

That was tremendous. Thank you so much. It really gave a picture of how this is a variegated region with many complex interactions and that it had

various different orientations and identity. Some connected with the kind of Catholic world of Eastern Europe. the you know Polish and Lithuanian kind of world as well as with Austro-Hungria and then also being

situated with Russians and so the areas we were talking about Novo-Rusia are those areas that during the Russian Empire successful conquests and wars with the Ottoman Empire it took those areas in the northern

coastline of the black In Tivore's time all that step regions called wild filed. That's right, yes, yeah. But then they populated them with new populations coming from northern part. Central Russian, Ukraine, from all over the world. And don't forget that in the beginning of 20th century, Ukraine was also home for the hugest Jewish diaspora. More than half of Jews in the world lived in Russian Empire, and they were limited. There was only one name. group, ethnic group, and religious group, which was limited in rights. There was a line of

sale of settlement. So they had the right to live just in former Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealths. So Ukraine and Belarus. You know, just to jump in very quickly, that's something that lasted for a very long time in terms of the limitation of rights for Jews within the Russian Empire. I'm getting through Sokolan Island by Chekhov right now. And one of the things that's mentioned in there is that on Sauclein Island, it was basically the only place that Jews could own any businesses or anything like that. Because within the Russian Empire proper, they were prohibited from doing so. But Sauclein Island was this penal colony that was even more of the Wild West than perhaps we're talking about in other places. So I thought that that was very, very interesting. thing that, you know, there's this limitation of rights that would go for this, this length of time. You're talking about these pogroms back in, you know, 17th century. We're talking about the prohibition prohibition of Jews being able to own property in 1890. And there was more pogroms in, you know, 1917. Brett, I know that you have something that you want to jump in here on.

Sure. Well, I mean, that was a fascinating summary of complex and, and a lot of, long duration of history. So I appreciate that. The Russian Empire, Imperial Russia, for those that don't know, lasted from 1721 up until the revolution with the provisional government and then eventually the Bolshevik revolution. And I kind of want to move into this period a little bit because that the recent justification that Putin gave for his aggression into Ukraine was sort of tongue in cheek saying that you want the decommunization of Ukraine. Well, it was actually Lenin, who after the Russian Empire fell, you know, Lenin and Stalin gave Ukraine their own statehood.

So I was hoping that you kind of talk about that transition from the Russian Empire into the Bolshevik revolution and then what the truth is of what Lenin and Stalin did with Ukraine in the wake of the revolution. So the national movement in Ukraine appeared in 19th century. It was quite weak and quite moderate. It was mostly intelligence who, as all over the Europe, look for folk songs and tales, created language and have nostalgia feelings about local ethnic culture.

But most of them, in 19, end of 19. beginning of 20th century was very left, very left. It's important because current Ukrainian national building could not appear to people created Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture in the beginning who was founders of Ukrainian literature, because all of them were socialists, mostly not Marxists, mostly asserts, you know, in Russia there was the biggest left party was not Bolsheviks. The biggest left party was a party of socialist revolutionaries, some anti-afferitarian, peasantry socialism, how Bolsheviks described them, but they were very influenced and popular. And in Ukraine, most part of national activists.

activities and demands of cultural autonomy of demand to just speak in courts in native language, they was included in agenda of social transformation and they were directly connected with demands, for example, to abolish nobility landlords' ownership, property. Ownership, landowners. Landowners. So there was quite radical agrarian and cultural and social program, which is totally banned in the eyes of current Ukrainian national builders.

Just Shepchenka, just Taras Shivchenka, the most famous Ukrainian writer of 19th century, is canonized, but not actual figure in current mythology. That's why current nationalistic myphology is so in Ukraine is so brutal and incredible cannibal. Because they have almost nobody in the long line of the cultural heroes and political heroes, which they can use because of their too far to left. They're all Bolshev are mostly assets. Then coming Russian Revolution in that environment when all progressive intelligence and all peasantry in Ukraine, as well as in Central Russia, sympathize to socialist parties, mostly to a Servan, socialist revolutionists. And during 1917, on the provisional government appears national building, the national movement became stronger that create an assembly in Kiev and demand autonomy. But provisional government, as you remember, was led not even by moderate socialist, or the war few moderate socialists, but the

real power was in hands of bourgeoisie, in hands of liberal politicians, which who at that time represent directly sense of elements, as they said that time, people who was under the property sense. So, bourgeoisie. Yeah, those people who were, who had some more land, so were able to participate. Property, huge property. Nobles and bourgeoisie directly. So, provisional government said no to Ukrainian autonomy in very moderate cultural form education, you know. That was one of the reasons of one of crisis, the July crisis of provisional government. But that also forced Ukrainian socialists in more radical way, but much more strong, hawk was october revolution because october revolution i know that with strong marxist

people who pretend to bolshevik tradition we will not find the common language in that question but bolshevik revolution abolished democracy in many ways bolsheviks had majority in two soviets in moscow and petersburg but they were rather small minority in so that's all over the russia and partly in Ukraine. And then, as you know, in November there was elected the Constitutional Assembly where social revolutionaries got majority, and Bolshevik just quota votes. In Ukraine, that proportion was even more inside of socialist revolutionaries, except Eastern

Ukraine were an industrial region where Bolsheviks' influence was really big in Donetsk, exactly. So when Bolsheviks abolished or destroyed the Constitutional Assembly, they forced Ukrainian movement, even the left side of Ukrainian movement, to protests and to eradicate. those demands. If you create dictatorship, you call it proletarian dictatorship, but we see just dictatorship.

Then we have to listen our social base. So, peasantry. And then comes the third most important factor. Bolsheviks subscribe

breast treaty. So separate treaty with Germany and all revolutionaries both half of bolshevik party and of course assets and especially left asserts the party splited from socialist revolutioners and participate in the first Soviet government under the winter 1718 they call bolsheviks to the revolutionary war and german communists call bolsheviks to the revolutionary world. But Bolshevik subscribed imperialistic peace in order to keep the island of socialism, the base for world revolution. One of results was that for Ukrainian leaders, who were national leaders, but at the same time they were socialists, for them appears a new reality.

German imperial army coming and it's the only force and Bolsheviks got away so that was the strongest factor which forced Ukrainian revolution

to the right side they declared independence and Germany and Austria Ershend prison accepted Accepted, recognized, as Russia now recognized Donetsk, so they recognized Ukrainian People's Republic. But strange socialist in the leadership was too much for Kaiser Wilhelm.

And they helped to make coup, governmental coup in Kiev, to Russian officers, right-win-wing Russian officers. right-win Russian officers who were not representatives of nobody, who represented just Russian nobility. The brilliant Soviet and Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov wrote in fantastically interesting books about that, The White Guard, read it, how Russian patriots, white officers of the Tsar army, the real patriots of Great Russia from sea to sea,

and they have to serve to, they have to work on Gettman Skarapatsky. His surname could be translated as a soon fall down, Skarapatsky. Quick falling. Quick falling. So, but they tried to do all they can to conquer loyalty of population. They could not do it with social reforms, so they start to do it with inventing the national tradition in totally different way as it was done before by great writers, great poets and great heroes of revolution and terrorists. in my eyes also heroes they made

they start they established the right wing understanding of Ukrainian statehood and all leaders who came from that so all leaders

who came from that side of history they are the first Atze Osnawati founding fathers of contemporary current Ukrainian nationalism one of nationalistic leaders Petlura who indeed was a national threat he sold

Ukrainian territory to all he could to Polish nationalists to Germans before. He is the founding father of contemporary Ukrainian nationalistic statehood. And that is probably a tragedy of Ukraine.

Its ruling class and its leaders choose the worst ununderstandable people who are responsible for bloody ethnic clings. for national threat, for collaboration with the foreign enemies, for all possible shit to make them like same fathers of the nation.

And that type of legend could not be accepted in the most part of the country. In the eastern Ukraine, where people speak not Ukrainians, speak Zurich or Russian. In the southern Ukraine, it was the same. In the big cities where people could not live in, you know, romantic nationalism in a hard interpretation of the 20th, 1920s. So that was what had happened during, then we should not forget that there was another side of Ukrainian national movement, which was. still left. For example, strongest legend of our anarchist comrades, Nester Mahno. He was Ukrainian patriot, Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriot. And he said, if comrades Bolsheviks are coming to Ukraine with open heart and internationalistic

help, we would welcome them. But if they want to make detership against our peasantry, then we would fight. He fight it. And all that, unfortunately, the tragedy of Russian Revolution was that winning party destroyed and quite brutally and repressively destroyed all who could be allies, who was keepers of the real national revolutionary tradition. Then they repeat the same tragedy. Very important question we left out of that discussion. Lenin's national politics and then Stalin period, but I won't jump to what was done in 30s. After Russian Revolution and all imperialistic interventions, especially particularly in

after Soviet-Polish war of 1920s, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus became part of for nationalistic Poland. And they was under huge discrimination and national pressure in Pilsutsky, Poland. That to quite big territories, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus was joined Soviet Union after Molot of Rebentrop Pact in the end of 1939. In this territories, was actually,

Communist movement, communist parties of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. And they were also keepers of the national tradition of internationalistic, humanistic, in very brutal, Bolshevistic way, but humanistic, emancipative form of national culture and national ideology. They were fight in the justifiable fight for national dignity, for education, for modernization of the people. And almost all members of Communist Party of West Ukraine, West Belarus was shot at in Stalin's camps or southern camps. that's why all forms of progressive national Ukrainian movement and statehood was destroyed. Soviet comrades have huge responsibility for that. Then we have to say that in 20s, Bolshevik politics in Ukraine was called Ukrainianization.

Vladimir Putin called it the hugest. under the Russian statehood. But indeed it was quite progressive, quite progressive movement, which put the national education all over the country. People got opportunity to learn those own language and not to live in, you know, pressure assimilation. Of course, that process geek over.

we could say that was the phenomenon of positive discrimination. So, people in eastern Ukraine, in industrial regions of Donetsk and Krivo Rock, never spoke Ukrainian. And they were all

over the areas, was opened also Ukrainian schools. But people are still prefer Russian in usual life. Or subject sometimes in the northern parts. So it was quite progressive. And then in 30s, Stalin just organized in a quite authoritarian, brutal, bureaucratic

way. So all cultural preferences were still there. But, you know, all culture, all literature, Ukrainian culture and literature became just only one form. He is a union of writers, painters, architectors, they are responsible for what is progressive today. It was bureaucratization and that connected the communist ideology, Soviet power, together with official bureaucratism and more and more tired and de-diologized bureaucraties. and make anti-communist reaction much easier, especially with the same former communist bureaucrats in the top. I'm going to stick with this time period of the Soviet Union for a kind of a two-part

question because Adnan also had a question in the same time period, but unfortunately had to leave to go to another meeting. So I'll ask my question and his question in tandem, since they are kind of related. So what I was wondering is that, I'm not really wondering, but I'm wondering if you can clarify it for some listeners, is that in the United States and in the West more broadly, a lot of people in this rough time period of the Soviet Union have a very, very simplistic view on the status of Ukraine in the Soviet Union. the right wing, as well as much of the center and even the liberal, you know, center left

have this view that Ukraine was basically a staging ground for genocide. And that was basically at, you know, they harvested the grain, they took it away. And then they, you know, they wanted to genocide the people in the culture. I mean, this is something that the right wing always says about Ukraine during the Soviet period. But there's also some people on the left who also have a very simplistic view of Ukraine during the Soviet period. And in particular, they over-emphasized the word autonomous within the title, Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. And I know I've seen at least some people on what we would actually consider to be the left, think that Ukraine was really like this totally autonomous part within this federation of, you know, of republics, which

also is very overly simplistic and frankly just wrong. So the first part of this question is can you kind of explain what the role and the status of Ukraine within the Soviet Union was, what the relations between the Russian socialist republic as well as the Ukrainian socialist republic? And then to turn to Adnan's question, which is in the same time period, in the World War II era specifically, a lot of current commentators, they cite conflicts that took place between Ukrainians and Russians during the World War II period. And I'm thinking, again, this is an honest question, but just me extrapolating. I'm thinking particularly of like Nazi collaborators, which of course there was far less of than Ukrainians in the Red Army. And that's

something that listeners should always keep in mind when people call Ukrainians, Nazi collaborators. that was a totally different questions right right different questions same time period so i'm just going to give them to you both so you can uh you know play around with them how you want um but uh so yeah i think that what adnan's asking here is how the the relations between those countries and the conflicts between uh ukrainians and russians in the the soviet period and around the world war two period have led or how have impacted current tensions First question is quite easy to answer. Formerly, Soviet Union was almost confederation.

But unfortunately, Soviet power does not exist in Soviet Union. All statehood organs was totally under control of the Communist Party. And Communist Party was very centralized. The real power owns by communist nomenclature, by communist bureaucrats. And they, those career, depends from the center. And the same with the economy. Russian Soviet economy was very centralized. Everything decided as an effector in one center.

And in Gozplan, state plan. organ and comes to each factory, to each calhos, to each village, the concrete order. This much tons of bread, this much tons of iron, this much number of clothes, you have to produce under that period. This much you will get resources, so it was very centralized. So in that way, as economy decisions was made in Moscow, in central. And it was part of the rules of the game, accepted by everybody in Soviet Union, by Soviet communist nomenclature. But in cultural sphere, yes, I agree there was quite huge.

quite huge autonomy. So it was communist bureaucrats in Kiev who decide how historical books should look like. And which books should be published, I don't know. And no one government in Ukraine had published this much books on Ukrainian as Soviet government. It was very authoritarian, but they published many good books. And, you know, to compare current time, now that ethnic Ukrainian closes is a symbolic of extremely idiots. It is as a guy who is in Capitoli last year, you know.

But in Soviet time, it was symbol of, it was very, just fashion items and it symbolized the friendship of people people in moscow and tashkent and middle asia also use that closes and ukraine was the source of leaders of soviet union both brezhnev and hhrushov came from ukraine and war ukrainians partly all one can find ukrainians and russian or separate them in such ethnic way So, no, there was no autonomy for economy and political or external politics. Yes, there was economy of cultural policies everywhere. And it was a centralized decision.

We have to make all everywhere in Tatarstan and Ukraine national culture. And in one very centralized way. Of course, the right wind. legend about Ukrainian-Henodzid in 1932, it's of course legend. So that was a terrible catastrophe. I can remind that it was a time of a big depression, the Great Depression. People were starving, even in the richest countries of the world in US and Sweden and France. Of course, Soviet Union, 1932, was quite barbarian country from technical and economical point of view.

So it was a traditional archaic peasantry, which were collectivized during the last two years. And it's true that Soviet plan organs had no real effective apparatus to transform. agriculture in such extreme fast way. There was neurajai. Lack of good harvest. Very bad harvest. Very bad harvest. And that's not effective. Very sorry, miserile.

Raw and ripe. Plan organism. didn't work well. So we can say that mass starvation, that Soviet power, that Stalin regime, responsible partly for bad economic ruling, but that they made collectivization in such extreme form. But it was, of course, not planned starvation.

of and organs of Soviet power did all they could in such conditions to fight against starvation and Western democracy was also responsible for part of that tragedy because that time was for example golden blockade to not buy gold from Soviet Union to isolate Soviet Union to not let communist modernize the economy and built industry. So there are many forces who are really responsible for that tragedy, but there was not

force who planned and organized it. And last one, starvation was not only in Ukraine. It was also in very Russian regions of low Volga in Kuban, in Kamban. Kazakhstan and there people died and there was examples of cannibalism and all that terrible things also happened. So it could be qualified as a criminal consequences of collectivization, how it was done, but it totally could not be classified as henocit. That is the answer. About war, so when Ukrainian nationalists are speaking about Russian-Ukrainians' contradictions and those Western public, when they speak about Russian-Ukrainian contradictions in Second World War,

they forget a very important thing that for Ukrainians then we have to, I mean, in the picture, Ukrainians is extreme right movement, which have some base just in the quarter of the country, only in Western Ukraine. And not all Western Ukraine is one body. There are many supporters in Western Ukraine, but not all of them. And I'm not sure about majority. Difficult question. But in three quarters of Ukraine, there was not such Ukrainians. Millions of Ukrainians was killed just because of their ethnic origin and because of

they resist. And Ukrainian patriotic songs is the songs of anti-Nazi, anti-German resistance. Zazemly Rodnoi Batskivshin puttso, Ukrainian people. You know, for the motherlands of

of native Ukraine, stand-up Ukrainian people. And Ukrainian partisans, there was in my mind, even before Maidan, one left Trotsky's group tried to vote some grant from some Western Foundation. And to be very nice, they published kind of leaflet with a portrait of Che Guevara. and in Ukrainian quotation from him, we learned to fight in Upa, in Ukrainian rebel army of far-right nationalist. Che Guevara in one of his speeches said

that we studied how to be partisans from Ukrainian partisan, and he meant Kaupak, those who fight under Rovna and killed thousands of German soldiers and Ukrainian collaborators and policemen who burn villages. And after Belarus, Ukraine is the second most affected, victimized countries in the world by number of people killed by Nazis and those collaborators. There was quite complicated relations between collaboration, between, you know,

Ukrainian nationalists and Nazis, it's a separate problem. But when Ukrainian nationists and those Western liberal audience would say, you know that Bandera was sitting in the camp, just remember how he got in his camp and how he got out, remind them. And then remind that all, for Spomagetina Police Auxiliary police

responsible for Babi Yar and for millions of killed people they were also part of that complicated contradictory movement

we can discuss it separately but I mean there was not if you would say to millions of you If you would ask them in 1943, what is Russian Ukrainians contradictions, there would be, I don't know, maximum 50% on the Western quarter, who would understand your question? 90% or 99% in all other parts of the country and probably 50% of population in the Western Ukraine. they would recognize you as one of occupants, people's enemies, and the enemies of the Ukrainian people.

Yeah, well, thank you for that. That was, again, another amazing answer. Kind of catching up to today, because we want to be respectful of your time. I kind of want to focus a little bit on the coup in 2014 and how that has exacerbated tensions within Ukraine. and between Ukraine and Russia and NATO, et cetera. Many Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, for example, have been struggling for autonomy from the government, the Ukrainian government. So what are the reasons for this? Can you kind of talk about the coup and how all of this led up to this recent recognition

on the part of Russia of the independence of the Naxk and Lujanksk regions? It's a complicated question, especially today, when Russian tanks. are going into Ukraine. But let's let's let I formulate some tests. First of all, Putin's Russia made all to lose imperialistic competition with West. 20 years when Western foundations invent in soft power in NGOs and foundations and cultural events, Russians inventing corruptional

bureaucrats and oligars. Even though there was environment, you know what does it mean Russian world? Now it's an ideological stamp of Russian propaganda, hardest and one of stupidest. stupid. But originally Russian world was an informal environment of pro-Russian angels in Ukraine in late 90s and early 2000s. Most

part of them never got no one rubble from Russian. It was just, you know, pro-Russian parties, Soviet patriots, local idiots, I don't know, those who like Russian national songs

So it was all possible forms People who felt huge sentiments to Russia and Russian national history. Many of them was Russian nationalist. Some of them was not. Some of them was Ukrainian moderate patriots. Just Ukraine is two language countries, you know, normal people.

Russia and then oligarchs in the eastern Ukraine which were deeply included in modern Russian so-called economy, that oligarchic system of agrabliener, robbing of our peoples. They asked Putin to stop, to, like, destroy all that Russian world. Because they, as a civil activist, they, interrupt in those bloody corruptional and criminal doings. And Putin destroyed even those parties and groups who were oriented on Russian,

like Vittrenka's party, which was a parliamentary party 20 years ago. So even pro-Russian, those who oriented on nationalistic Russian narrative in moderate form, they were threatened by Russia. Communists, they bureaucratized, and there are many questions to official Ukrainian communists as far as to Russian one, but Kremlin do nothing to, they also had many pro-Soviet nostalgia.

They got no support. Then, Ukrainian intelligence and middle class was included in quite influenced environment where all cultural events, all narratives, all journalism, all education, all in media sphere, oriented on the West. And then we have to remember that West since 1991 is a monopolist on the narrative.

only one side which have real values, universal. Sometimes I, personally me, I think they're looking strange sometimes. But they're universal, it's ideology, it's a form of domination in Gramsci sense. And Russia can propose just, you know, sentimental nationalism in 19th century's style. So, Russia lose competition for middle class and for elite. As a Russian one, Ukrainian, even more than Russian one, Ukrainian oligars, kept those bank accounts in New York, not in Moscow, you know. London, not in St. Petersburg. So, and they buy, no, they buy, in Russia they buy also.

But more they buy real estate in London and Paris and the Mediterranean coast. So Russia lose the biggest part of Ukrainian ruling class and middle class. And then 2014 was already later than 2008. And 2008 started the hugest reason of all that bloody shit which is going on right now. World capitalism crisis, the global economic crisis, which throughout all economical growth and create so many contradictions between weak countries on the periphery and between them and rich countries in the center of the world system. So this process of destroying of the world, Washington consensus, and already started.

There were many levels why Western governments decide to make what they made. And the role of Western embassies and Western politicians was a huge. It was really cool. With big assistance of the street movements, but organized those as well. So, for example, as you remember, it's all in 1914, 1913, began from that Yanukovych administration did not subscribe that economical document about integration of Ukraine to European economy, association. Two years before, Ukrainian left fight against that document. It was forced by Yonukovych regime, by Yonukovych administration. All countries who subscribe such documents, Tunisia, for example,

they got Arabian, Spring, and all social disasters they could because it means that you open your weak market, your weak industry, for strong German one. And then MOS will open, but in some fake, They will open under limitation. And every year, quotes would be like between one and three percent you need. So for Germany, the price of integration of Ukrainian economy was 50,000 of worker places. Is it big or not?

If Angela Merkel would know which fucking shit would it bring to agenda, She would say, fuck you Germans, you are fired. Oh, goodbye, no. But they didn't knew. They were totally sure that they are part of the gygimony. And they decide. So they supported United States under Obama and Biden administration between other goals had a fanatic goal to restore and defend American global domination.

America is unique and Russia is specific but not unique. Obama's Obama's Psyki Jan Psi, the secretary I guess. I guess she said. So that ambition

was too high. Economic contradiction was too high and one of the reasons, probably one of the biggest reason, was really plan to change power in Russia, to take Russia in accordance of pro-Western countries which create extreme pressure along the border, and especially in that time, not military, but political pressure, was for people, but mostly for elite.

And it was a threat for Putin, both for Russia in general, because NATO is a threat, but for Putin as a dynasty as well. So they had to react. Before many years, they react just by blah, blah, blah. That time, the question was too serious, you know, Crimea. If not came to Crimea, or even if Ukraine abolished that there was a deal between Russia and Ukraine, that Russia rented places for black sea fleet. So if Ukraine geek out from that treatment and leaders of Maidan, who, they openly called to that and said, that would be first we made, then Russian black sea fleet should go downstairs.

on the Black Sea floor. Because in the Caucasus, there is no places and the opportunities, technical opportunities, to, I lose all words in English, but, you know, to make place for a fleet. Yeah, to make a port. To make a port. Then Ukrainian economy is quite important market for Russian economy. They are incorporated. That is also reason. Russian investments in Ukraine are quite Russian capital export in Ukraine are quite big one.

So it's typical imperialistic contradictions. They answer and they were, they're brave, those braveness, ex-mailist. Yeah, they're brave. The brave was warned by the huge pro-Russian sympathies in the all-eastern and southern Ukraine. They knew that if they would nemiknutt, hint at... If they would hint, thousands of people would fight for them with different hope. Someone with hope to join Russia. Someone with hope to rebuke Ukraine on the fundament of friendship with Russia.

Someone against corruption in Ukraine. Someone against nationalists and extremists on the top. So with many reasons, half of Ukraine cried and asked 2014, please Russia help. No, because Russian leaders still believed in dialogue and bloody compromises back on the spinoo from behind the back of the people without letting them know. That's why they made all. all what they made. That's why eight years there was really small war in Danbath.

And 15,000 people were killed for nothing. And then they appeared. You know, Dunbass was also surprised for Kremlin. They planned to just blackmail Kiev, but Russian nationalists make a real rebel. So when real big war, began, then Russia had to come from blackmailing to support. And what they done?

They did not support leftists, communists, pro-Soviet, local patriots in Odessa. They supported the last of the last idiots, who was freaks. Nobody from nowhere, current president of Danesk People's Republic, he was ambassador of the financial pyramid sold him, you know, fake financial papers on the square. He was a small machinnik.

Fraudster. Small frockster. So they gave weapon to idiots. And then they destroyed and partly killed enthusiasts who supported and helped them.

Not only left partisan leader Alexei Mosgavoy but many of all them nationalistic commanders in Donbass was killed and most part of them was killed

not by Ukrainian diversants just because Moscow bureaucracy in long historical tradition of golden horde does not have no need in enthusiasm and self, you know, initiative. What should be done would be, would come as an order from Tsaren.

So, and now the most important thing, why all people left people in the world, all just normal, clever and normal people in the world will not. agree with Joe Biden and was totally sure that Russia will not attack. Why all Russians not left? All Russians. You know, Russian liberals, Russian liberals, 20 years was on the side of West. Every idiot, propagandistic shit coming from the West, they repeated. It was the first time when Russian liberals in mainstream media, Medusa, Dost, Nović, Nović, No by Gazeta, the Nobel Prize of 21, they criticized West. Stop with that alarmistic military propaganda.

You just make war near Russian liberals. It was a rebel of Russian liberals. I wrote an article for Yakubin about that. Then war suddenly happened. I mean that what that logic is draw of smith. This is the logic of common sense. of common sense. Common sense.

The logic of common sense was used by Kremlin just for common flesh. You know? So they just repeat common sense things were not attack.

It's not in our interest. It's true. And everybody, like, of course, Biden, idiot. All Western media, what are they doing? It's just propaganda. And then they attack. But the same time, what does it mean?

It means that they did not nothing to mobilize people's support. For Russians, journalists call from the West, from Sweden, I live in Sweden, Norway. They call what is going on. They are thinking that people here is more understandable here. No, it's less understandable here because no common sense. It's dynasty sense. It's common sense of dynasty politics. by mass politics, of the modern politics, from a totally different world.

It's endless with those, you know, it's another biological form. But that means that there is no any mobilization. Compare with 1914, what is going on now, nobody wants that war. People are crying. Even if a war would be successful, nobody would support it. if bodies will come, if picture with bodies of our Ukrainian brothers will come, in that place where there was Putin ratings, already now it's empty. But that would be black hole.

Yeah, great, great answer. And you brought up world systems. And I would love to have another conversation with you. sometime solely devoted to Russia's position within the world system. I've seen that you've been working on some material about this. And ironically, Adnan and I had just recorded an intelligence briefing of guerrilla history with Professor Ariel Salzman, who is his colleague at Queen's University, about world systems and how to use world systems theory when looking at history and things like that.

And it was due to come out today. We're bumping it until next week because of the timeliness of this conversation that we're having. So I'm going to rush through it very quickly and edit this thing and get it up there. So listeners, you can look for that conversation next week. But yeah, I would love to have that conversation with you sometime. The final question that I have planned, because you've been more than generous with your time, and I do thank you for that, is the question of Crimea. And I'm asking this because I do have something of a personal connection to Crimea.

A lot of the listeners probably know what that is. and I have more of a view into Crimea than most people in the West. Again, listeners, you may know why. But I think that among listeners of guerrilla history, there's going to be more of an understanding of the history of Crimea than among the broad Western public. I'm just wondering if you can briefly run through, and briefly, because, you know, there's a lot that can be said on the history of Crimea, but briefly run through the history of Crimea and how it fit within this narrative. of Russia, Ukraine, and the relations between the two countries, because I think that there's still a very broad misunderstanding or just lack of knowledge about this history within the West. So as briefly as you want to be on this, just to help the listeners out a little bit.

History of Crimean, until the 18th century was Muslim nomadic Kaganat, with very raw and small population. And the people from that population, native population, Crimea, Tatars. are still like 15% of population in Crimea. In the end of 18th century, it was conquered by imperial Russian and then populated mostly by ethnic Russians. 65 or 70% of Crimeans today population in Crimea is ethnic Russians. Second group is Ukrainians, but Russian-speaking Ukrainian

Ukrainians and it's very difficult to find distance. It's just a line in the passport, of all the form of passport. Crimea was part of Russia, never been part of Ukraine until 1954, when Khrushov took it from Russian Federation and joined to Ukrainian. In Soviet time, the reason was economical, like water comes to Krikan. agriculture from Ukrainian territory, drinking water. So it was economic rationality and nobody thought about national borders between Soviet republics. They did not exist. But nobody asked people, of course.

1991, that question was not actual, but when republics get separately, then in Crimea appears a movement, let's say openly pro-Russian movement, and Crimea was historically connected with a few national, military, heroic things. Conquarian of Crimea, the Crimean war in 19th century, with the heroic and bloody defense of Sevastopol. And then it was repeated in Second World War. And the Crimea, the crime is a home for second Russian fleet. It was a real center of Russian national patriotism. Military glory and all that stuff, especially much more in Sevastopol

than Moscow. Much more. So people there traditionally live in a context of Russian patriotic narrative. Then they tried to the moderate compromise was a Crimean Republic as an afternoon part of Ukraine. And those constitution was abolished by Ukrainian government in quite authoritarian way. And the Crimea, formerly a republic, but without any real autonomy, lived in Ukraine as a very poor region, without any dotations from Kiev, and with quite... Very inferior and, like, being looked down upon. Like, like, just one national... Crimean country was probably one region where absolutely a majority of people can't Ukrainian.

Just can't. They never learned it. They are ethnically Russians. Just can't. Probably in Danyetsk part, also a very mixed population. But in your passport should be, your name should be, my name should be, not Alexei. but all exy and that small humiliation humiliation humiliation

humiliation humiliation small humiliation all the time during 20 years were annoying irritating

irritating people irritating people there was not real the Russian nationalists always been in crime they were never there never been very strong. They were quite

merging. They were forced. They comment to local parliament with 5, 6% or something. Communists was the most popular one of the most popular parties all over the time. With those very pro-Russian rhetoric, especially in crime.

So in that stagnation crime lived on the Ukrainian rule all over these years. And there was no any reasons to be very loyal citizens of Ukraine, especially in Krikan, especially in Sevastopol. And then come in Kup, and new authorities oriented to the hardest form of Ukrainian

nationalism. And they start to speak about abolition of Russian language to forbid Russian language even in like everyday life sometimes. And the police from Crimea was in Kiev, mobilized by Yanukovych government. And those guys was hardly beaten. A few hundreds of them beaten and humiliated. They have to sit on a kna, on the Kalenia. To kneel and sit on the scene of Maidan and ask Omar Shecht, excuse me and ski. So that was too much. And the national minority in crime, Crimean Tatars, they were also victims of Stalin and Russian, they were ethnic deportation.

They returned them in a hush of time, but they traditionally anti-Moscow Aryan, as people used to think. At least those ethnic leaders, which called themselves leaders of parliament, Crimea Tatars people, they start pro-Maidan mobilization, potentially violent, in order to occupy centers of two main cities, Sevastopol and Sinfraopol, and to wait when ultra-rights and new police come from the continental Ukraine. So, that provoke reaction. And they are 15% in

population. And then suddenly appears that Crimean Tatars Nationalists does not represent Crimean Tatars as a nation. Just 20,000 of those alis emigrated to Ukraine. And most part, just usual people, you know, they're not only Tatars. Like, I'm not only Russian. I'm also historian, activist. I don't know. Blah, blah, blah, blah. So they as well, businessmen, workers, pensioners, and they look from that environment, sometimes kind of radical oppositionaries,

even few attempts of terrorist attacks. But 99.99% are loyal citizens. probably for them especially not because of pan-slavistic ideology or Russian patriotism just because of Russian pension as two times or three times more than Ukrainian one just because of social opportunities in Russia is a bit more than in Ukraine in poor region of Ukraine that Russian investments in crime is quite big and they built quite nice road But parts of criminal attacks as well, part of Russian population in Crimea, are disappeared. I'm disappointed, disappointed, not disappeared, disappointed.

Because small business, for example, small bourgeoisie, small business felt themselves very free in Ukrainian house. But in Russian bureaucracy, no. very centralized, corrupted, big corporations, fuck off. So, it's not this encit, just easier. But democratic, if we would make really democratic referendum in crime, with all possible parties and groups and points of view would be represented, that ideal democratic, I would guess that 75% or 85% of population

would ward any case for Russia if they would not be a guy with a gun. For Crimea, it would be 10% of voices, and 5% for some strange versions, for Crimean Kaganat. Yeah, it was really interesting. And just as a brief aside, that group of Crimean Tatar nationalists that you mentioned, this is just maybe something that's

interesting for the listeners. You can find information about them if you look up the medullis of the Crimean Tatar people. The reason that this is interesting is because Adnan's other podcast is called the Mudjilis. They come from the same origin, medjilis, muddhlus, the Crimean Tatar name and the Arabic name. So, yeah, highly recommend listening to Adnan's other podcasts. the muddalous for all things Islamic worlds related. But yeah, the meddalous of the Crimean Tatar people is this like ultra-nationalist Crimean Tatar organization that was banned by Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Actually, I believe it was banned after a couple of years, maybe 2016 or so.

But yeah, very, very interesting. So we're going to wrap up the conversation now. We've been going for a very long time. And Alexei, you've been very, very generous with your time. and very insightful with all of your commentary. So thank you very much. Our guest, again, listeners, was Alexei Sakhin, who is a Russian activist, member of the left front, and a historian. Alexei, it was a pleasure talking to you today.

I hope that you had fun coming on the show. Thank you. Absolutely. And listeners, we'll be back again very soon with more guerrilla history. Until next time, Solidarity. You know what I'm going to be able to be. Thank you.