Few have noted the existence of this monograph by Dmitry Medvedev published in the Russian journal International Affairs on 13 December 2024, “On National Identity and Political Choice: The Experience of Russia and China.” It’s a formal, academic-type essay complete with footnotes and additional commentary by Medvedev. The essay’s important because it explains how Russia and China are being attacked by the Outlaw US Empire and how such methods were used in the past. As we’ve seen in the last few days, president-elect Trump has outlined new belligerence his administration might undertake using its economic hegemony as the main lever since its defeat by Russia in Ukraine has proven its lack of suitable military power. Very little is being said by the nations under attack as to how they’ll repel the belligerence. How that might be done provides a topic for another article. One note before the essay: Other new nations have used the techniques of language and manipulation of the historical past to manufacture their national bonafides when none previously existed. This was most apparent in the creation of Azerbaijan during and after WW1, which was made clear to me during my research on Anatolia. Now for Mr. Medvedev:

On National Identity and Political Choice: The Experience of Russia and China

In fact, it is impossible to beat off the letter “I” in the word “homeopathic” and think that thanks to this the pharmacy will turn from Russian to Ukrainian. M.A.Bulgakov[1]

The party-state visit to the People’s Republic of China, which took place on December 11-12, 2024 at the invitation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, once again demonstrated the unprecedentedly high level of bilateral relations between Russia and China. We have no taboo topics for discussion. During the talks with our Chinese partners, they touched upon the Ukrainian problem, the Syrian crisis, and issues of countering unilateral economic restrictions adopted in circumvention of the UN Security Council.

The reason for such a trusting dialogue is obvious. The Russian and Chinese peoples are linked by friendship and good-neighbourliness, which are based on deep historical traditions. In 2024, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations and the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Despite the fundamental changes taking place in the world due to the formation of a multipolar world, there are also constants that have remained unchanged for decades. Russia and China continue to bear responsibility for the present and future of mankind. We will continue to carry out this difficult mission together, solving the problems left over from the past, which I would like to dwell on in more detail.

“Divide and rule”: two dimensions of one pernicious policy

At all times, Western civilization has sought to impose its will on external actors. And she considered the most effective way to do this not to inflict a direct military defeat on them, which is rarely possible due to the constant lack of material and human resources among Europeans. The strategy was much simpler and boiled down to the destruction of existing power structures from within by someone else’s hands. The Western world tried to prevent people from uniting so that they could not repel the enemy, provoke rivalry and disagreements among them. He put at the forefront the task of creating or turning to his advantage objective ethnic, linguistic, cultural, tribal or religious differences.

We can recall many cases when certain segments of the population or groups of people fell for this deadly bait. They allowed themselves to be drawn into bloody and protracted ethno-social and ethno-confessional conflicts. The quintessence of such a policy can be considered the principle of divide et impera – “divide and rule”. The term itself began to be used in Britain only in the XVII century, but this policy was held in high esteem even in the Roman Empire, and was most common among the colonial empires of Europe. It played a decisive role in ensuring the viability of almost all major colonial systems and became an integral part of the activities of the metropolises. And it is still the main way to implement Western management practices.

History knows many examples of deliberate incitement or intensification of interethnic conflicts. Not a single metropolis was interested in the prosperity of dependent territories. The easiest way was to pit peoples against each other and draw artificial borders on political maps of the world, dividing entire ethnic groups according to life. This fits well into the combination that was described at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries by the outstanding German sociologist G. Simmel. According to him, “the third element deliberately generates a conflict in order to gain a dominant position, in which two warring elements weaken each other to such an extent that neither of them is able to resist the superiority of the main interest”[2].

The policy of “divide and rule” itself had two dimensions – horizontal and vertical. In the former, colonizers divided the local population into separate communities, usually along religious, racial, or linguistic lines. Vertical projection arose when foreign rule separated society along class lines, thus separating the elite from the masses. These two methods usually complemented each other synergistically.

One of the key ways to implement the “divide” component was the deliberate implantation of religious and ethnic contradictions in the colonies. The United Nations is still dealing with their acute consequences.

Thus, a significant “achievement” of London’s imperial policy was the creation and further strengthening of Hindu-Muslim antagonism. For example, the British colonialists brought cheap labor from Muslim Bengal to Burma for agricultural work. This process was especially intensified after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, when the demand for rice supplies in Europe increased, and colonial Burma turned into a “rice granary”. [3] This led to the formation of a Muslim Bengali community in the country, isolated from the Burmese Buddhist majority. Its representatives (“Rohingya”) compactly lived in areas in the north of Rakhine State (Arakan). They have developed a special self-consciousness based on radical approaches. Mutual distrust and the struggle for limited resources (the right to own land) of the indigenous population with the descendants of labor migrants led to the bloody events of 1942-1943, which were called the “Arakan massacre” in British historiography. Their consequence was the death of tens of thousands of people[4]. In the future, inter-ethnic, religious and social contradictions only grew steadily. This led to a mass exodus of Rohingya to neighboring countries in 2017, recognized as the largest migration of peoples in Southeast Asia since the Indochina crisis of the 1970s[5].

Britain made the same “ethnic gift” to the Cypriots, working hard to deepen the centuries-old conflict between the Greeks and Turks living on the island.

Another favorite “pastime” of Western civilizations was the spread of myths about the superiority of some peoples over others. Taking advantage of the stereotypical inequality of the Arab and Kabyle peoples, the French colonists in Algeria skillfully turned the quarrels that arose between them to their advantage. They were based on the prejudices nurtured by Paris that the Kabyle people were allegedly more predisposed than the Arabs to assimilate into “French civilization”.

Taiwan’s Experience: Linguistics as a Weapon of Militant Separatism

Today, the Anglo-Saxons have prepared separation schemes for all those who “disagree” with their aggressive interference in the internal affairs of states around the world.

Thus, in addition to the unrestrained pumping of weapons into Taiwan, they deliberately “turn a blind eye” to the efforts of the Taiwanese administration to “de-sinify” and “Taiwanize” the island by implementing a policy of cultivating the so-called “Taiwanese identity” (“Taiwanese identity”) – the self-identification of its inhabitants “as some ‘Taiwanese’ cut off from their roots, and not Chinese. The idea is purposefully implanted in the collective consciousness of the island’s inhabitants that as a result of long historical processes, when the entire island or its parts were under the rule of different forces: tribes of aborigines, Spaniards, Dutch, various pirates and Japanese, a new nation was formed, different from the dominant Chinese ethnos – the Han^[6]. The political quintessence of this kind of action was a series of resonant statements by Taipei: “until now, all those who ruled Taiwan have been foreign regimes” and “let’s turn Taiwan into a new Middle Plain!”^[7] Various “Taiwan-centric” scientific concepts, such as the concepts of the “Taiwan nation” put forward in the early 2000s and its variations in the form of the theory of “Taiwan nation by blood”, “Taiwan nation by culture”, “political and economic Taiwan nation”, “rising nation”, and “community by destiny” are adapted to such ideological attitudes.^[8] The authors of these artificial theories seek to take the collective consciousness of the Taiwanese beyond the framework of traditional “Chineseness” and impose on them a kind of “non-Chineseness” as a new national and civil identity. At the same time, they present Chinese culture as only one of the many cultures of the island, allegedly not forming the core of Taiwanese cultural identity.

To implement them, such tools as manipulative linguistic separation, the cultivation of parochial nationalism, and the promotion of pro-Western values and ideological attitudes alien to Chinese traditional national culture are used. For this purpose, the island champions of separatism, incited by American senators, congressmen, as well as retired officials under the supervision of numerous overseas NGOs, zealously defend the thesis that only the existence of a “national identity” is the only basis for the formation of a nation and the existence of a state.

In order to sow the most pernicious discord, strategic enemies go out of their way to invent far-fetched distinctions. They pay serious attention to linguoconflictological levers, attempts to reinterpret the “living soul of the people” in their own way. Washington, London and Brussels are well aware that language is not only, as the outstanding Soviet linguist Sergei Ozhegov put it, “the main means of communication, an instrument for the exchange of thoughts and mutual understanding between people in society.” This is an important tool for maintaining centuries-old traditions that cement the connection between generations, as well as a special socio-cultural component and marker of political preferences. That is why the West is dealing an ideological blow to language as an element of civic solidarity. The goals are obvious: to provoke a crisis of self-identification and the loss of historical memory from the outside, to undermine the values inherent in our civilizations – justice, kindness, mercy, compassion, love. And most importantly, replace them with a surrogate for the neoliberal agenda.

This is based on a persistent desire to destroy the thousand-year-old algorithms of human life. In order to artificially promote the topic of the so-called “Taiwanese language”, Western forces are ready to cling to differences in the spelling of hieroglyphs, minor changes in some lexemes, and features of the Southern Min dialect. For example, Taiwanese separatists are trying to exaggerate the importance of insignificant differences between the official language used throughout China (including Taiwan), which in republican China was called “guoyu” (state language), and in the PRC in 1955 was renamed “Putonghua” (ordinary language).

It is symbolic that the island authorities have to get out of it and put the language at the service of politics. The emphasis of the current Taiwanese authorities on the difference between the local and continental linguistic situation looks like an integral part of the efforts to create a “Taiwanese identity.” In practical terms, the publication of books emphasizing the existing insignificant phonetic differences of the Chinese language on the two sides of the Taiwan Straits is encouraged. And in the school and university educational programs, it is emphasized in every possible way (of course, with political overtones) how much Guoyu differs from mainland Chinese, and its alleged superiority.

From the point of view of the objective logic of historical, cultural and linguistic processes, the linguistic balance between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese resembles to a certain extent the relations between dialects of German. Few people, from scientists to laymen, would argue that there is no Bundesdeutsch, Austrian (South German) and Swiss national version of German. However, all of them are part of a common continuum for Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the “gold standard” for which is the German literary language – Hochdeutsch. Just as it is extremely rare in modern linguistics to recognize the relative independence of British and American English. Centuries-old traditions of separate development, which resulted in the formation of a number of phonetic, orthographic and grammatical features, are not a stumbling block for communication and understanding of the citizens of these two countries.

A special destructive role in containing the development of China is played by the National Endowment for Democracy (NFSD, whose activities have been recognized as undesirable in Russia), using issues related to Taiwan, Hong Kong <… > to provoke a split and confrontation within the PRC[11]. This dubious structure has long been engaged in subversive cognitive operations around the globe at the request of founders from the US Congress and is often referred to as the “second CIA”.

After 1945, the island’s authorities actively resorted to forced “de-Japanization” and “Sinicization” (the introduction of Guoyu instead of Taiyu) in the field of language policy, and since 2000 they have been trying, albeit without much success, to conduct a policy of reversing the official guoyu with “Taiwanese language” (taiyu). All this is painfully reminiscent of the language policy in Ukraine of various Kravchuks, Kuchmas, Yushchenkos and Poroshenkos after 1991. to support Ukrainian NGOs and promote “civil society”. During the 2013-2014 Euromaidan, he funded the Institute of Mass Communications to spread false narratives, and also spent tens of millions of dollars. The U.S. was asked to stir up ethnic divisions in Ukraine through the social networks Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram[12].

Beijing, in turn, does not need to prove anything to anyone. Mandarin is a common language for all citizens of the PRC, a powerful source of wisdom and inspiration. The language of modern, progressive and prosperous China.

Taiwan’s “original” language traditions are far from the only clue for Western neocolonialists. The issue of historical memory is not left aside either. Contrary to the official historiography of the PRC, which proceeds from the historical existence of Taiwan as one of the provinces of Fujian Province, and since 1887 as a separate province of the Qing state (which indicates that Taiwan belongs to “one China”),[13] Taiwanese “experts” put the Qing Empire on a par with other foreign powers that carried out colonial control of the island. They act, of course, according to the well-tested Anglo-Saxon patterns of falsifying history.

From the same biased positions, supporters of an independent Taiwan are trying to exaggerate the positive manifestations of the island’s economic modernization under Japanese control. They contrast it with the actions of the Chinese authorities in the first decades after the end of the war, ignoring the opinions of moderate political forces in relation to the PRC, which point to the negative manifestations of the colonial management of the island during the years of Japanese occupation (1895-1945)[14].

In the same vein, the Lai Qingde administration is building its falsification line with regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971, according to which it was the Government of the People’s Republic of China that was recognized as the only legitimate representative of China in the UN instead of the so-called “Republic of China” of Chiang Kai-shek. However, supporters of separatism point out that the resolution does not contain any mention of the island and its political status. This means that it cannot be considered a basis for restricting the international legal personality of Taiwan, which, in turn, has the right to claim a seat in the UN and other intergovernmental structures. And in the future, to become part of the Western “democratic family”.

Taipei’s course, as usual, finds understanding and support from the Anglo-Saxon states, which are quite slyly approaching the interpretation of the “one China” principle. On the one hand, they recognize the exclusive authority of the PRC government to ensure that this state is represented in the UN system. On the other hand, they encourage Taipei’s efforts to obtain the right to participate in the activities of intergovernmental mechanisms such as the WHO and ICAO. The latest example is in November 2024, the Canadian Parliament, which closely coordinates approaches with allies within the framework of the inter-parliamentary alliance on China (uniting lawmakers of the “collective West” who sympathize with Taiwan), unanimously adopted a provocative resolution calling for Taipei’s participation in UN special agencies and other international organizations.

Such false and tendentious planting is a fairly frequent occurrence. Among them are the groundless “wishes” of Ukraine to deprive Russia of a seat in the UN Security Council. It is worth remembering, however, the international legal consequences of World War II. The issue of the return of the Chinese territories occupied by Japan, including Taiwan, was settled and fixed in a number of international legal acts, including the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, and as a result of the formation of the PRC on October 1, 1949, it received sovereign rights over the entire internationally recognized territory of the country, including Taiwan. Therefore, the ownership of the island could not be the subject of consideration by the above-mentioned resolution No 2758. At the same time, the document itself enshrined the principle of “one China”.

In the long term, the Anglo-Saxons set themselves a specific political goal – to comprehensively reformat the “island identity”. This will make it possible to erode the “one China” principle, declare Taiwan’s independence according to the Kosovo scenario, and undermine the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. And in the future, to form an outpost formally dependent on the United States in East Asia. It is quite in line with Washington’s aspirations to draw the Asia-Pacific region into NATO’s orbit and pit states against each other.

The British and Americans are also resorting to the principle of “divide and rule” in the case of Hong Kong, which reunited with China in 1997, after being dependent on Great Britain for more than a century and a half. The false content of the “Hong Kong guidelines” seems to be a carbon copy of the “Taiwan issue”. This is both empty chatter about “Hong Kong (non-Han) identity“[15] and the brazen imposition of the thesis that Hong Kong residents should follow a “special path”, that is, look into the mouths of the Anglo-Saxon elites. For this purpose, various projects aimed at destabilizing Hong Kong are being financed (in particular, in 2020, the aforementioned National Endowment for Democracy allocated $310,000 for this purpose)[16]. And they also receive support for the “correct” research of well-fed scientists, who in every possible way contribute to the neo-colonialist habits of London and Washington. As well as any other actions aimed at undermining the unity of the Chinese nation[17].

In the history of the 20th century, there are other examples when external forces tried to reformat national identity for their geopolitical purposes. The Japanese interventionists purposefully tried to eradicate the Han language in the puppet state of Manchukuo. At the same time, they imposed the Manchu language, which was almost not used at that time. These linguistic experiments had a quite obvious political goal – to destroy the single fabric of all-Chinese ideological and value orientations and subject the population to total mankurtization. This inhumane practice was put to an end in 1945 by the Red Army and the Chinese patriots of the Communist Party of China.

Ukraine: New Exercises of the West in Social Vivisection

Such a social “life section” is persistently carried out by the occupiers – this time Western – in our days in Ukraine. They seek to destroy the Russian language, erase from historical memory the common glorious pages of the past, create “Ivanovs who do not remember their kinship.” Ukraine became an analogue of the puppet entity of Manchukuo, formed by the Japanese military administration in the 1930s. Modern Kyiv, on the other hand, is fed by the countries of the “collective West”, which, in addition to pumping it with weapons, controls it with the help of political technologies of “soft power”. For this purpose, the entire necessary network of NGOs has been created, controlled by American and European intelligence services.

Western forces are acting against us according to the same hypocritical principle of “divide and rule”. Their establishment and Ukrainian ideologists are persistently trying to use the “Taiwanese”, “Hong Kong” and other experience (including Manchukuo) in Ukraine. Their task is to prove that Russians and Ukrainians are as far apart as can be imagined. To tear Ukraine away from Russia, sow discord and arrange ethnic division.

The Kiev junta is being helped to openly feed this alleged uniqueness. Outwardly decent scientific and analytical centers and respectable publications on both sides of the ocean, including the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Wilson International Research Center, the Washington Post, Politico, etc., also help to breed fakes. For many years, all of them have been purposefully replicating Euro-Atlantic propaganda clichés, multiplying articles and reports with the same type of simple titles: “checking the factual accuracy of the Kremlin’s version of Ukrainian history” [18], “Ukraine and Russia are not one country” [19], “Ukrainians and Russians are not one people”, etc.[20] [21]

In reality, Western “experts” and Soros adepts from various Ukrainian NGOs ingratiating themselves with them cannot win a dispute against the historical truth. And yet they stubbornly twist a set of banal ideas into the public consciousness, leading reasoning in the wrong direction. On the one hand, these wretched theoreticians recognize the spiritual closeness of the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, their belonging to a single cultural space (sic!). On the other hand, they believe that our ideological guidelines are supposedly radically different. Appealing to the fact that a number of territories for several centuries[22] were under the rule of Poland[23] and Lithuania[24] (and then, from 1569, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth),[25] they seek to provide a scientific basis for the concept of the gradual development by the Orthodox population of these lands of their own identity (of course, “free”), fundamentally different from the identity of the East Slavic population (of course, “slave”). The language issue is no less tendentious: when the lands were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Ukrainian language developed in them, they say, in relative isolation from Russian.

Is this true? It is a gross mistake to proceed from the unconditional difference between the peoples living in Russia and Ukraine, as well as to classify all its inhabitants as Ukrainians. Until the middle of the 19th century, the word “Ukrainians” itself did not have a modern ethnic meaning, but was rather a geographical concept – the place of origin or residence of a person. The explanation is quite simple: no independent state formations on the territory of the modern “Square” existed either during the creation of the modern system of national states immediately after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, or in the XIX century, when new and independent Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, and Bulgaria appeared in Europe. It is pointless to look at the genesis of Ukraine through the classical prism of “state – nation”. The history of Ukraine is inseparable from the history of events on its territories, which at different times were part of other countries. In the same way, it is more correct to talk not about the cultural and ethnic dichotomy “Ukrainians – Russians”, but about “outlying Russians – Russians”.

The ideologeme about a certain “Rus-Ukraine”, which came into circulation at the instigation of the Russophobe M.S. Hrushevsky and the chauvinists and xenophobes V.B. Antonovich, D.I. Doroshenko, and M.I. Mikhnovsky who supported him at the beginning of the 20th century, is also delusional. To extend the history of the “Square” as much as possible into the depths of centuries, to privatize the past of Russia, to form a special anti-Russian self-consciousness among the population. This simulacrum would not have arisen without the participation of interested external forces. The only successor of the ancient Russian state is Russia, and Russians and Ukrainians are not just fraternal peoples, but one people.

The language issue is no less important. Just as in the case of Taiwan and the local linguistic exercises along the line of “Putonghua” – “Guoyu” – “Taiyu”, the enemies sing not even the beauty and melody of the Ukrainian language itself, but its antagonism to Russian, deliberately tearing apart the fabric of centuries-old traditions. The authentic Little Russian dialect, which has roots in Church Slavonic literature, was much closer to the Russian language (then not yet a modern literary language) until the 18th century. A lot of Little Russian and Galician historical sources of that time have been preserved, including Cossack orders for the Zaporozhye army, Lviv chronicles, etc. The more obvious is the emasculation of the theory of the current language, which is based on the “Poltava dialect” of T. Shevchenko[26]. And also the flawedness of the opinion that the real Ukrainian language, which exists “somewhere out there” in Western Ukraine, should be as different from Russian as possible.

Were the Little Russians a discriminated group of the population during the Russian Empire? Of course not. In Russia, the inhabitants of Little Russia were recognized as an integral part of the titular nation, the Russian people[27]. The degree of their integration into the general imperial reality was very significant. From a legal point of view, in political, cultural, and religious relations, their position and status were no worse than that of the Great Russians. The fact that they had all the opportunities for professional self-realization and career growth is confirmed by the textbook names of outstanding dignitaries: A.G. Razumovsky and K.G. Razumovsky, V.P. Kochubey, A.A. Bezborodko, field marshals and generals – I.V. Gudovich and his sons K.I. Gudovich and A.I. Gudovich, M.I. Dragomirov, I.F. Paskevich (in the Patriotic War of 1812, 29% of the officers of the Russian army were natives of the Ukrainian provinces)[28], artists and scientists – I.K. Karpenko-Kary, N.I. Kostomarov, I.K. Kropivnitsky, P.K. Saksagansky, M.S. Shchepkin.

For all 300 years of being part of the Russian state, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an “enslaved nationality”[29]. At the same time, for various groups of foreigners living on the territory of the Russian Empire (in terms of those times), who had a bright national identity in comparison with the titular ethnic group, identification as Russian Germans, Russian Poles, Russian Swedes, Russian Jews, Russian Georgians is a normal figure of speech. At the same time, the phrase “Russian Ukrainians” objectively sounds like absolute absurdity.

Was it possible to imagine such a thing in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Austria-Hungary? There, on the contrary, the Russian population – in the broadest context – has always been a deliberately discriminated minority. Galicia and Volyn today are a stronghold of orthodox Russophobia, which is associated with Bandera, Melnyk, Shukhevych, as well as torchlight processions in honor of Hitler’s henchmen. However, these regions have not always been like this. During the period when they were part of Austria (since 1867 – Austria-Hungary), after the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the end of the XVIII century, there was a powerful Russophile movement of Galician-Russian (Ruthenian) public figures (A.I. Dobryansky-Sachurov, A.V. Dukhnovich, D.I. Zubritsky and others). They were determined to achieve all-Russian unity, to combine efforts with Moscow to form a pan-Slavic world as much as possible. Vienna, which at first sought to prevent the growth of Russia’s influence in Galicia and Volhynia in the middle of the 19th century, gradually realized that it could use Ukrainian political ferments in the region to fight the Galician Russophiles themselves on the principle of divide et impera. Without the help of the Austrian administration, the Ukrainophile group in Galicia and Volhynia did not have a single chance to defeat the forces oriented towards Moscow.

At the same time, preparing for the First World War, Vienna decided to legalize as soon as possible the idea of the Polish ethnographer F. Dukhinski about the non-Slavic – Finno-Ugric – origin of the Russian people (which exists to this day in the minds of the leadership of the “Square”). To launch the virus of independence and ukro-separatism in the neighboring Russian provinces in order to provoke the separation of the outlying regions from Russia. The court of Franz Joseph hoped that as a result of the victory, they would retreat to the zone of influence of Austria-Hungary. Whether these areas turned into a satellite state of Vienna or became a kind of extended autonomy did not matter much. The main task of the Ukrainian nationalists was to “frighten” the pro-Moscow party in the region and throw the idea of the difference between Little Russians and Great Russians as far as possible to the East, thereby causing maximum damage to Russia.

It is no coincidence that in August 1914, with the financial support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Austria-Hungary, nationalist polyemigrants in Lviv (and after the liberation of the city by Russian troops, in Vienna) began to operate the so-called Union for the Liberation of Ukraine, which carried out small agent assignments of the intelligence services of the Central Powers. There was little practical benefit from it, but Austrian funds made it possible to “feed” patented zoological Russophobes and social Darwinists who dreamed of secession of Ukraine from Russia. Such as D. Dontsov, Y. Melenevsky, M. Zheleznyak. This is a direct historical reference to the meetings of various “Smerdyakovs” under the roof of the “forums of free peoples of post-Russia” (recognized as terrorist by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation), as well as to the pseudo-democratic protests in Hong Kong in 2019. Their methods of dividing the camp of their opponents have not changed for centuries.

The Austrian terror during the First World War became a real nightmare for the Galician-Russian population. Repressions included death sentences handed down by military courts-martials, reprisals by Ukrainian nationalists at the instigation of the Vienna administration, and deportations to remote areas of Austria-Hungary. A significant part of the Russophile residents, arrested for their views, were deported to the notorious concentration camps of Terezín and Talerhof. Approximately the same thing would be experienced by the Slavic and Jewish population of the territories of the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War.

While the Holocaust and the genocide of the peoples of the Soviet Union have been officially recognized and condemned from an international legal and historical point of view, the ethnocide of the Galician-Russian population has not yet been recognized. However, such an assessment is still very appropriate today. This would be true of the memory of the innocent victims of the Austrian terror. Some of them, for example, Priest Maxim Gorlitsky, who was executed in 1914, were canonized by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as a hieromartyr. Independent nationalism and its spiritual heirs should not feel their impunity anywhere. Neither at the front, nor in the silence of libraries and archives, nor at pseudo-scientific gatherings organized by all sorts of “world congresses of Ukrainians”, which are teeming with the descendants of collaborators and Nazi war criminals.

Russia and China: Experience of Returning Lands to Their Historical Homeland

Russians and Ukrainians can be compared to the Han Chinese inhabiting different regions and provinces of China. On the territory of modern Chinain different historical eras, including the Warring States period from the 5th century BC to the unification of China by Emperor Qin Shi Huang in 221 BC, and the period of five dynasties and ten kingdoms in the 10th century, there were separate states (sometimes there were dozens of them) that waged bloody internecine wars. Including at the behest of external forces. The period of gathering lands in China in the Song Empire in the X-XII centuries was marked by an unprecedented upsurge in all spheres of life. It meant a real revolution of that time, which determined the appearance of Asia up to the XVII century. And only by historical accident it was temporarily divided into semi-independent state formations.

Russian historiography approaches the understanding of the Russian past in a very similar way – the initial presence of the principalities as part of the Old Russian state, the period of feudal fragmentation, and then the process of uniting Russia into a centralized state headed by Moscow. It was these stages that gave impetus to the entire civilizational development of our country up to the present day.

For both Russia and China, such historical continuity, a centuries-old single ethno-national line, serves as an inexhaustible source of the richness of cultural heritage and traditions. It makes an important contribution to the formation of the social identity of each country.

It is noteworthy that, despite the completely different nature of the Ukrainian and Taiwanese issues, for Westerners they have merged into one[30]. This once again proves their artificial origin with the participation of foreign destructive forces, primarily the United States and the European Union. However, unrealistic adventures sooner or later end in military failures, and rebellious provinces are once again at home.

The return of our lands to their historical homeland, territories that were lost due to a political misunderstanding during the historical cataclysms of the late 1980s and early 1990s, is no more “criminal” than the Anschluss of the GDR by the FRG in 1990. But in fact, there was no “unification” of Germany. No referendums were held, no common constitution was drafted, no single army or common currency was created. East Germany was absorbed by a neighboring state. Did anyone then condemn this case of irredentism, contrary to the principle of the inviolability of borders enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975? The world only applauded in response. However, the question of whether they wanted this unity themselves or whether they were manipulated into “wanting” remains open today. The economic realities, mentality and even language of East and West Germans in the 45 years after the end of World War II began to differ almost more than today the same indicators for the Chinese and the population of Taiwan or residents of the Smolensk region and the Dnieper region. However, this did not bother anyone – that difference was “who needs the difference”.

Against this background, it is worth mentioning that Russians differ from people living on the territory of Ukraine no more than residents of the Greater Poland Voivodeship differ from the inhabitants of the Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland, than the inhabitants of North Rhine-Westphalia differ from the inhabitants of Thuringia. At the same time, there are much more serious differences between the population of Schleswig-Holstein and Bavaria in Germany, Normandy and Occitania in France, not to mention the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain, England and Northern Ireland in Great Britain – in terms of everyday life, language, ethno-cultural – than between the inhabitants of the Pskov and Kharkov regions.

A few important takeaways

The above allows us to draw certain conclusions about the relationship between national identity and political choice. They are quite obvious.

1. The classic principle of Western civilizers “divide et impera” brings incalculable suffering and trouble to the whole world, serves as a source of numerous ethnic and socio-cultural conflicts, as well as total economic inequality. This was the case earlier in history, and it continues today.
2. Today, the incitement of ethnic or racial hatred is reduced to the construction of a national pseudo-identity of an ethnic group in order to break away from the state-forming people. This is what Washington and its satellites do with Russia, this is what they do with China and many other states. Taiwan is an organic and integral part of the pan-Chinese space, an administrative unit of the People’s Republic of China. Attempts to invent a Taiwanese statehood, nation or language instigated from overseas are artificial and, as a result, unviable.
3. Today, Ukraine faces a choice – to be with Russia or to disappear from the map of the world altogether. At the same time, Ukrainians are not required to lay down “neither soul nor body” for their freedom. They should pacify the pride of “otherness”, abandon opposing themselves to the all-Russian project and exorcise the demons of political Ukrainianism. Our task is to help the residents of Little Russia and Novorossiya build Ukraine without the hassle of “Ukrainianism”. To consolidate in the public consciousness that Russia is irreplaceable for Ukraine neither culturally, nor linguistically, nor politically. If the so-called Ukraine continues to follow an aggressive Russophobic course, it will disappear forever from the world map, just as the once puppet entity of Manchukuo, artificially created by militaristic Japan as a proxy force on Chinese territory, evaporated.
4. In Galicia and Volhynia – today’s “fodder base” of political Ukrainianism – at one time there were powerful social forces oriented towards Russia. During the First World War, they were subjected to genocide. In the context of the Russophobia that is observed in these regions today, the events of the historical period of the early 20th century should be given an impartial assessment.
5. Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Attempts to drive a wedge between us from a historical point of view are absolutely untenable and criminal. The Vygovskys, Mazepa, Skoropadskys and Banders in different years smashed their heads against the all-Russian wall. So it will be now. 

___________________

[1] M.A. Bulgakov. Collected works in 10 volumes. T. 1. – Moscow: Golos, 1995.- 464 p., p.302

[2] Simmel, G. (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, (translated, edited and with an introduction by Kurth H. Wolf), Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. p.163

[3] A.A. Simonia. Mass exodus of Rohingya Bengalis from Myanmar: Who is to blame and what to do? Southeast Asia: Actual Development Issues, 2017, No36, p.125

[4] K.A. Efremova. Crisis around the Rohingya: National, Regional and Global Aspects // Southeast Asia: Actual Development Problems. Volume 1, No1(38), 2018

[5] A.A. Simonia. On the Fifth Anniversary of the Mass Exodus of the Rohingya from Myanmar // RAS, INION, Institute of Oriental Studies // Russia and the Muslim World. 2022-4(326), p.96

[6] A.D. Dikarev, A.V. Lukin. The “Taiwanese Nation”: From Myth to Reality? Comparative policy. 2021. T.21. No 1, p. 123

[7] V.Ts. Golovachev. “An Island Named After Fromoz”. Ethnopolitical History of Taiwan in the XVII-XXI centuries, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2024, p.208

[8] V.Ts. Golovachev. “An Island Named After Fromoz”. Ethnopolitical History of Taiwan in the XVII-XXI Centuries, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2024, p.211

[9] V.Ts. Golovachev. “An Island Named After Fromoz”. Ethnopolitical History of Taiwan of the XVII-XXI Centuries, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2024, pp.224-225

[10] A.S. Kaimova. Problems of Interpretation of the Concept of “Taiwanese Identity” // Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 13. Oriental studies. 2013. No 2, p.32

[11] Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui published an article in the Russian newspaper Argumenty i Fakty entitled “Is the US National Endowment for Democracy Really Democratic?” 02.10.2024. URL: https://ru.china-embassy.gov.cn/rus/sghd/202410/t20241001_11501824.htm?ysclid=m3orlrbqbe232108590

[12] The National Endowment for Democracy: What It Is and What It Does // Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The People’s Republic of China. 09.08.2024. URL: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/wjbxw/202408/t20240809_11468618.html

[13] A.S. Kaimova, I.E. Denisov. The Status of Taiwan and the Evolution of Taiwanese Identity. 2022. T.13. No 1-2, p.123

[14] V.A. Perminova. Historical Memory in Taiwan and Its Impact on Tokyo-Taipei Relations under President Ma Ying-Ju (2008–2016) // Japanese Studies. 2020. № 3. pp. 107-122, pp. 119

[15] Almost nobody in Hong Kong under 30 identifies as “Chinese” // The Economist. 26.08.2019. URL: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-nobody-in-hong-kong-under-30-identifies-as-chinese

[16] The National Endowment for Democracy: What It Is and What It Does // Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The People’s Republic of China. 09.08.2024. URL: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/wjbxw/202408/t20240809_11468618.html

[17] Matthew Daly. House backs 3 bills to support protests in Hong Kong // Associated Press News. 16.10.2019. URL: https://apnews.com/article/4d6d913d37ef44e4ad83dd4f32c14cf7

[18] Björn Alexander Düben. “There is no Ukraine”: Fact-Checking the Kremlin’s Version of Ukrainian History // The LSE International History Blog. 01.07.2020. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/putin-likes-talk-about-russians-ukrainians-one-people-heres-deeper-history/

[19] Serhy Yekelchyk. Sorry, Mr. Putin. Ukraine and Russia are Not the Same Country // Politico. 02.06.2022. URL: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/06/ukraine-russia-not-same-country-putin-ussr-00005461

[20] Nancy Popson. Ukrainian National Identity: The “Other Ukraine”. URL: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/ukrainian-national-identity-the-other-ukraine

[21] Jeffrey Mankoff. Putin likes to talk about Russians and Ukrainians as ‘one people.’ Here’s the deeper history // The Washington Post. 10.02.2022. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/putin-likes-talk-about-russians-ukrainians-one-people-heres-deeper-history/

[22] After the death in 1340 of the last influential prince of Galicia-Volhynia, Yuri-Bolesław II, the Polish king Casimir III added the royal domain “Prince of Rus” to his title (M.S. Grigoriev et al. History of Ukraine: Monograph. – Moscow: International Relations, 2022. – 648 p., p.219)

[23] The conquest of Red (Galicia) Russia by the Polish king Casimir the Great and the calling of Jogaila to the Polish throne led to a union with the Poles under one supreme power. (P.A. Kulish, The Fall of Little Russia from Poland (1340-1654), Volume One, Moscow, University Printing House, Passion Boulevard, 1888, p.4)

[24] In 1349-1352, Casimir III managed to seize Galician Rus, and Volhynia was captured by Lithuania at the same time. A long struggle for the Galicia-Volhynia lands began between Poland and Lithuania. The struggle for Volhynia ended only in 1366, Volhynia remained with the Lithuanians, except for Kholm and Belz, who went to Poland (History of Poland in 3 volumes. Vol. 1. / Redkol.: V.D. Korolyuk, I.S. Miller, P.N. Tretyakov. – Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1954. – 584 p., p. 105)

[25] According to the second partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1793, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine went to Russia, according to the third partition (1795) – the western part of Volhynia. At the same time, Russia did not seize anything from ethnographically Polish lands. In general, the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth led to the reunification of most of the Ukrainian lands within the framework of the Russian Empire, which objectively corresponded to the interests of the Ukrainian people (History of Poland in 3 volumes. Vol. 1. / Redkol.: V.D. Korolyuk, I.S. Miller, P.N. Tretyakov. – Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1954. – 584 p., p. 10341, p. 354)

[26] The author of the lines “Moskali alien people, it’s hard to live with them, it’s hard to cry, don’t talk” (Shevchenko T.G. Povne zibrannya tvoriv u 12-i tomakh. – Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 2003, vol. 6, pp. 300-301) is considered by a number of researchers to be a Ukrainian nationalist and xenophobic (S.S. Belyakov, Taras Shevchenko as a Ukrainian nationalist // Issues of Nationalism 2014 No 2 (18), p. 102)

[27] M.S. Grigoriev et al. History of Ukraine: Monograph. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ., 2022. – 648 p., p.219

[28] A.A. Smirnov. The call of the state. Rodina – Federal Issue. – 2019. – № 4 (419).

[29] N.I. Ulyanov. The origin of Ukrainian separatism. New York, 1966, – 286 p., p.3

[30] Afghanistan 2001-2021: Evaluating the Withdrawal and U.S. Policies – Part I. Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. House of Representatives. One hundred seventeenth Congress. Second session. September 13, 2021. Serial no. 117–73. p.56 URL: https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117hhrg45496/CHRG-117hhrg45496.pdf

Yet another forceful paper arguing convincingly that there is only one Russian people and only one Chinese people both of which consist of multiple ethnicities united by language and culture. The paper provides many examples of how the West as represented by the British and Americans use chaos to create the rifts they then use to create wedges between peoples so they can be exploited and used against their interests. Russia was weakened and forced to backpeddle until it finally was forced to come up with and implement a plan B. China has learned from Russia’s experience and is now formulating what it must do. The rest of the Global Majority must now look at what Trump’s new imperialism is and how not to become a victim. And that also includes the European nations who were recently colonized and are now being confronted with their new chains.

*