The Khazar Khaganate was a state based around modern day Ukraine from the 7th to 10th centuries AD. The state was formed from a Turkic tribe, but it had one very unique aspect – it adopted Judaism. Here, David Matsievich tells us the background to the Khazars, how the European Jewish state came into being, and how it ended.

Khazar "Moses coin" found in the Spillings Hoard. The coin is dated from circa 800 AD. Source: W.Carter, available here.

Khazar "Moses coin" found in the Spillings Hoard. The coin is dated from circa 800 AD. Source: W.Carter, available here.

The Khazars were a telling and powerful yet very unsung Turkic tribe in modern Ukraine, originating from Asia. Their notoriety stems from their capability at thwarting Islamic groups from extending their reach past the Northern Caucasus, acting as a mediator of goods between the Silk Road and Europe, and as a counterbalance between the Byzantium and the Islamic empires. But perhaps there is one thing in particular that attracts and holds others rapt about this tribe: its state religion — Judaism.

 

Khazar Origins

Once there existed a Turkic tribe that, at their height in the beginning of the medieval period, controlled a huge chunk of southern Russia, all the way from Astrakhan to western Ukraine. Their presence carved a significant mark in history, being the mediator of goods between Europe and the Silk Road, and possessing a military so strong that their power was tantamount to that of the Byzantine and Islamic empires. Their strong forces stopped the Muslims from expanding their influence further north of the Caucasus, just as the Franks had done in northern Spain, so preventing the expansion of Islam into Europe. But above all, what marks this group out from all other nations is their alarming and almost unbelievable conversion to Judaism. They are known as the Khazars.

The Khazars’ origin is debated and very complicated: it’s unknown what specific Turkic group they had previously come from; even the Khazarian language is a mystery, as what is left of it is mostly names and titles that don’t exactly pinpoint what type of Turkic tongue was spoken. Upon becoming a polity, it was very diverse, composed of Turks, Slavs, Iranians, Finno-Ugrians, and a myriad of other ethnicities.

It is believed that the Khazars came to be from a varied constellation of Turkic tribes, perhaps originating from Central Asia, the Urals, or even the northern Caucasus. They were indeed very ethnically disparate, retaining different skin tones and physiognomy, which would be evident throughout Khazar history.

Khazaria was under the occupation of the Western Turkic Empire, an empire stretching from Astrakhan to contemporary East Turkestan, until it was reinstated by the son of Tong Yagbhu in the 630s. Yagbhu was a Buddhist Khagan of the Western Turkic Empire and was usurped and killed by his uncle in an insurgency against his rule. This led to a civil war that collapsed and dissolved the Western Turkic Empire, spewing out Khazaria as one of its breakaway lands in the chaos. This was probably the first time Khazaria was recreated as a polity rather than a semi-organized tribal chiefdom. 

 

Khazarian Life, Culture, and Trade

The khaganate had a unique way of coronating their khagan, the ruler of the Khazars: the nobles of the realm would tie a silk cord around the soon-to-be khagan’s throat, choking him, and would ask him how long he expected to rule. Since the khagancouldn’t make out a clear message, the nobles had to interpret what he was choking out. Once they thought they understood how many years the khagan uttered through his strangled neck, that would be the maximum duration the khagan could rule until he either had to abdicate to his heir or risk being murdered by his own nobles.

However, an Arab scholar at the time avers that the Khazars had already a predefined set of time — 40 years — that the khagan was permitted to rule for. After this set amount of time, the khagan was no longer considered fit to reign because of old age, so he had to be quickly removed and replaced with a younger khagan for the good of the khaganate. This odd tradition came from the Western Turks, Khazaria’s former occupier.

Khazaria was located at the crossroads between the rich Asian lands of the Silk Road, and the resource-filled lands of the steppes. This made it a very important player in Euro-Asian trade. A Jewish merchant company, controlled by the Radanites, had a big role in the trade between Asia and Europe, going through Khazaria on their way to the Silk Road to deliver raw material and agricultural goods. Reportedly, the Khazars took 10 percent of the goods of merchants travelling through their lands, in return for protection of the vulnerable traders.

They procured prominence among the steppe people from their remarkable resistance against a series of Muslim military incursions in the Caucasus, seemingly gaining the Khazars respect of their neighboring tribes, which offered to become their tributaries for protection and periodical gifts. One historian estimated there to be between 25 to 28 tributaries of the khagan. He allegedly had 25 to 28 wives, each the daughter of a respective tributary. But other historians think that the 25, or 28, “wives” refer to the diverse plurality of the ethnicities of the Khazar khaganate, not to literal married women.

Although this is all fairly mundane and nothing extraordinary of a kingdom, or khaganate, at the time, what is unique and uncharacteristic about this tribe is their unprecedented proselytization to Judaism.

 

Emergence of the Jewish Khazars

Some authors fancifully speculate that the Jewish Khazars were actually part of one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel, however far-fetched that conclusion might be. Evidence of the first Khazarian Jews can be traced in early medieval legends: it’s possible that in medieval German stories about the “Red Jews” (Jews with ginger hair), were in fact referring to the Khazars. However, this has been met with shakiness from historian Hakon Stang. Still, into the later years, Khazaria was a major destination for Jews who wished to escape their prosecutors in Byzantium and the Islamic caliphate. Yet it wasn’t only Jews who fled to Khazaria; undesirable Christian sects, mainly the iconodules, in the Byzantium Empire also hurried into the Khazar lands for safe harbor. As a result of the Jewish emigration, the Jews expanded their influence onto Khazaria.

The khagan was obligated to choose from the three Abrahamic religions that populated the area — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism — owing to the fact that the native Khazar religion of Tengri had become a tiny minority in their empire. Kingdoms and empires who settled in Europe, the Middle East, or northern Africa tended to adopt one of the dominant religions of the area to enable flexible diplomacy, relations, royal marriages, trade, and above all to choose who was an ally and who was an enemy. So anyway, how did a western steppe tribe make its decision to accept this belief over Islam and Christianity, which were the dominant beliefs of the land near where the Khazars settled?

One of the khagan’s “wise” predecessors had organized a congregation between religious figures of the three Abrahamic faiths in order to choose one of them to become the official religion of Khazaria. This meeting was held at Atil, the capital and largest city of the Khazars (the location of this great trading city is unknown to this day, but it is proven to have been situated somewhere along the Volga river). The three envoys argued, debated, and preached each of their theological views. Even the historically venerated Cyril, creator of the Cyrillic alphabet, was sent as a delegate to Khazaria by Byzantium in the hope of evangelizing them to the Christian faith. On his way there, he “stopped… to spend the winter learning Hebrew and familiarizing himself with the Torah in order to debate with Jewish scholars also heading to the khagan’s court” (Francopan P., p. 107). Despite Cyril’s brilliance and words that no doubt appealed to the khagan, the latter did not espouse Christianity, as we already know. But why?

In a letter sent by the khagan to Hasdai b. Shaprut, an Andalusian scholar and personal physician of a Spanish caliph, he describes the determining incentive for such an unprecedented choice: a wise inquiry. Once the khagan had listened to the three groups, he organized all the facts and decided on validating them. He had an idea. He asked the Christians whether they considered Judaism or Islam more tolerable than the other; the Christians, who hated the Muslims, evidently said the Jews were the lesser despicable infidels of the two. When he asked the Muslims, who despised the Christians, whether Christianity or Judaism were preferable, they replied that Judaism was the better of the two heathen beliefs. And so, hearing that both preferred Judaism over the other, he declared his conversion to Judaism and encouraged his people to follow suit.

Despite this interesting and endearing story, it’s also plausible to believe that this strange conversion to Judaism was mainly to avoid kneeling down politically to the Byzantine emperor, the leader of the Christian world, or to the Islamic caliphate, the guardian of the Islamic world. State religions were not chosen by interesting stories, inspirational ethics and achievements, or genuine and passionate belief, but rather by which could reward and benefit the state with riches and protection.

News of this unique turn of events astonished Jews all over Europe and Asia; many couldn’t bring themselves to believe that this wasn’t blatant hearsay. Hasdai b. Shaprut himself refused to take this miracle seriously until much later.

From now on to become a khagan, one must profess the Jewish faith and it only. Nobles of the court consequently also adopted Judaism. Although the religions of the Khazarian peoples remained very diverse, a significant number of Khazars did indeed subsequently also embrace this new belief.

 

Fall of the Jewish Khazars

Khazaria retained a worthy degree of sovereignty until the khaganate’s destruction by the Kievan Rus’ in the year 965 with the sacking and utter demolition of Atil. Although it didn’t immediately cease to exist, the khaganate was pillaged to the very brim. One observer reported, “not a grape, not a raisin remains [in the Khazar khaganate]” (Frankopan P., p. 120). The mighty Khazars were defeated on the battlefield by Svyatoslav of the Rus’. Although the Khazars were famed for their performance on land, a combination of a lack of naval power, lack of natural geographical defenses, and lack of self-dependency on resources countered what the Khazars could benefit from.

They never recovered from this defeat, and some time after the war, the khagan was forced to adopt Islam in exchange for support from Khwarizm, a Muslim kingdom. Khwarezmian soldiers subsequently occupied Khazar cities and villages where their Jewish populaces refused to convert to Islam. Georgius Tzul, allegedly a Christian and the last Khazaraian khagan, collapsed along with his khaganate to the knees of a combined Byzantine and Rus’ian force in January 1016. Some scholars may claim that Khazaria survived in small remnants for two more centuries, but either way the khaganate had fallen and there was no return to the days of the unique and powerful Jewish nation of the steppes.    

 

What happened to the Jews?

For the Jews this was a disaster: no longer was there a Jewish nation that they could call home — and be protected by — until the establishment of Israel almost a millennia later in 1948. Many fled to different lands: to Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, the Kievan Rus’, the Caucasus, Egypt, Bulgaria, Spain, and the Byzantine Empire. As a matter of fact, the Schechter Letter, a manuscript that includes a considerable amount of useful and invaluable information about the Khazars, was written by an unknown author in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, a.k.a modern-day Istanbul.

These Jewish refugees espoused the cultures of their new homes and became integrated with their respective societies. Some stuck with chiefly Jewish communities while others mingled in with Christian and Muslim populations. Khazarian culture soon died out.

Today some hypothesize that a considerable proportion of Jews are descended from the Khazars, and others even believe the Ashkenazi Jews to be mainly descendent from them, but these claims are widely dismissed and retorted by modern historians and scholars.

Nonetheless, Khazaria continues to bear the epitaph of the last and only Jewish state in Europe, once a beacon of hope and elatedness to the Jews that God had truly not abandoned them. Seldom do we see such an event occurring. It’s unlikely we’ll ever again witness such a peculiar and extraordinary event where a kingdom willingly — and without precedent — embraces Judaism as its true faith in a world where doing so was once considered to be impossible except in whimsical tales and dreams.

 

 

What do you think of the Jewish Khazars? Let us know below.

Now, read about the man who proposed a Jewish state in the 19th century here.

References

Peter Frankopan. The Silk Roads: A New History of the World. Vintage Books, 2015.

Brook, Kevin Alan. The Jews of Khazaria. Second ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. 

Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 227-232

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
7 CommentsPost a comment

The TV series Chernobyl has been the subject of acclaim by many people. Here, Shannon Bent returns and gives us her generally positive take on the series. However, she also considers the inaccuracies in the show and some of the negative impacts, including the vandalization of the Chernobyl area.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here), the UK’s Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker (here), and the definition of a museum (here).

A 2013 photo of a ferris wheel in Pripyat, the town in which the Chernobyl power plant was. Source: Tiia Monto, available here.

A 2013 photo of a ferris wheel in Pripyat, the town in which the Chernobyl power plant was. Source: Tiia Monto, available here.

We all love a good war film, or period drama TV show. History carries its own drama and intrigue that we can capitalize on and use for entertainment value. And yes, it is okay to say that you are interested in a movie about the darkest moments for the human race; arguably it is part of the human condition to have interest in ‘horrible’ subjects. And then big film companies have a fantastic ability to take these already amazing, impressive, unbelievable historical subjects and add even more drama, explosions and death to it. Sometimes to the point of impertinence. 

As a historian, historical accuracy is the most important thing in not only my work, but in my own time when enjoying TV, books and films. I enjoy action, drama, suspense. But all this cannot be at the expense of historical accuracy. There’s just no need for it! There are so many war films that take drama and action over the heroic stories of those that actually fought and it is a huge shame. 

 

Moving away from war

I’m going to move away from war for a moment. I know, shock. In my defense, when you have a degree in something, it tends to occupy your mind more than other subjects. But the first piece of popular culture (using a term harping back to my Sociology class) I want to speak about is the recent HBO series ‘Chernobyl’. I don’t wish to use the word ‘masterpiece’ more than once in this series of articles so let’s get it out of the way first off. This series was a masterpiece. I have never been more gripped, more hooked, more moved, by a piece of cinematography than I was by this mini-series. I was skeptical at first. While the writers, producers and cast list was enough to make anyone impressed, it was the topic that concerned me. We have a tendency to wait a few decades before we begin to encompass historical events like this into popular culture. That, or we begin fairly soon after the event so that it is fresh in everyone’s mind and people that were apart of it can be involved if they wish. The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986, and not only that but during the most secretive period in the world’s history, the Cold War. (Okay, I lied. I said there was no war in this one. There is. Sorry.) This makes accurately commenting on the subject tricky to say the least. For a start, of course 1986 is within many people’s lifetimes. However, to be crude and obvious about it, not many people that were there have survived to be able to tell their story today. Furthermore, anything that happened within the Soviet Union was kept under tight lock and key, and even with the downfall of the regime in 1991 that supposedly made archives and records accessible to governments, journalists and historians, knowledge on everything that occurred is sketchy at best. Let alone knowledge on a subject as damming as this. 

So, I was skeptical. I was worried if it was going to be handled sympathetically, accurately, and without too much political correctness when it came to ‘pointing the finger’ so to speak. There were many things that could have gone horribly wrong. But we were all in for a positive shock.

 

The Bridge of Death

The series begins a mere few hours before the disaster occurs yet does a fantastic job at setting the scene in communist Ukraine. It presents Pripyat as the purpose-built town it was intended to be – all existing purely to house workers for the power plant. Filmed in previously communist Lithuania, the architecture is perfectly Soviet. The reactor room was reconstructed on the set with minute accuracy, but we have photos to help us with that. This means costumes etc. can be fairly accurate too. These things should be correct; however, like I say, photos and, lets be honest, logic, should lead to these things being accurate. It’s the smaller matters that may be an issue. 

I’ve just spent the last half an hour annoying my parents who are trying to read the newspaper by reading out lines from various articles I have found online about the accuracy of this series. There seemed to be a consistent item that was cited in these articles – ‘The Bridge of Death’. In the first episode, it is shown that many residents of the town went to stand on a bridge that directly faced the power plant to watch the fire, and this eerie blue glow that sat above it. The episode also depicts a type of ‘ash rain’ falling onto the skin of the onlookers, adults and children alike, presumably radioactive ash. At the end of the episode, in a manner that a lot of historical dramas like to adopt, the producers add in comments about what has been more accurate or extra information about scenes shown before. The comments at the end of this episode claim ‘of the people who watched from the railway bridge, it has been reported that none survived. It is now known as ‘The Bridge of Death’’. This has been highly disputed by just about everyone. A BBC article containing the comments from Mr Breus, an engineer at the power plant and eyewitness of the disaster just hours after it happened, says that many people would have slept through the night and would have only been aware of the explosion the following morning. I am inclined to agree. Depending on how loud the explosion was (and I know that sounds potentially stupid, it is an explosion. It’ll be damn loud. But what I mean is, taking into account proximity to the town, surrounding terrain etc., it may not have been loud enough to wake some people) many people may have continued to sleep unaware. The series practically implies that half the town took a picnic up to the bridge to go and watch. Also, I do not wish to insult the intelligence of the people of Pripyat by implying that an explosion or fire at a nuclear power plant is something to go and watch like one would a firework display. It is more likely that even if residents were aware, most would have done the smart thing of staying in their homes until morning and awaiting official information.

Google this concept and you will find forum after forum, website after website, thread after thread, about how there is no evidence of this being true. Keep in mind this is one of the most highly researched events in history, and I don’t just mean by historians. Every sector of science has taken this one under its wing; environmental scientists, human scientists, biologists, chemists, physicists, sociologists, anthropologists. You name it, they have studied it. Not to mention historians, journalists and writers collecting eyewitness accounts and numerous stories from just about every element of society in Pripyat. If there was a notable amount of people collecting on a bridge to watch the biggest nuclear disaster in history, someone would have noticed the pattern and commented on it. Perhaps this is a case of drama for drama’s sake. People are pretty annoyed about this point. It’s a fairly large misleading point, and furthermore to claim that everyone depicted died is even more misleading.

 

Chernobyl Tourism

There are various other historical inaccuracies that people have pointed out, and a few accounts of drama for drama’s sake. Overall though, the consensus is that the series was done sympathetically, mostly accurately and with fantastic self-awareness of the enormity of what they were commenting on. Even I, who believe that historical inaccuracy is the worst thing people could grace TV and cinema with, can overlook these elements in favor of overall understanding better the hell that these people went through in dealing with this disaster. But more to the point, very much more to the point than my last 1,000 words have been, far worse and sinister things have come out of this series than just a few historical inaccuracies or dramatization of the facts.

I will forever maintain that the human race is its own greatest vice. We are an incredible species; we develop and research and discover. We advance at the speed of light to make our lives better. Yet we are still infinitely stupid. Within a month of the series airing on its various platforms, visitors to the exclusion zone rocketed in numbers. I guess to be expected, to an extent. If you draw attention to any historical site or event in popular culture, you are, by definition, making it popular. This is very much the point of this series; making history popular and how we react to it. I will also admit my guilt in jumping onto this bandwagon. Many times I have seen a site on TV or read about it in a book or article and insisted on going to see visit it. After all, standing in the place in which history has occurred brings it to life, as I have said before. However, I must say, not many of these places I have been eager to visit contain the most radioactive areas of land on the planet. I considered it, once, when I was looking for interesting trip destinations. While it was cheap to visit (it has considerably risen in price now as I’m sure you can imagine), it was a fleeting consideration and it was short-lived. 

However, unfortunately, many people aren’t flocking to the site to pay their respect to history, to the people that lost their lives because of the tragedy. No, instead they are going there to take selfies and graffiti the buildings. And it is not just the visitors that are capitalizing on ‘dark tourism’. Online and at the site there are gift shops selling souvenirs such as t-shirts with the radioactive symbols on, ‘radioactive glow’ mugs and key rings, fridge magnets and hats. But perhaps more disturbingly than all of this, the official souvenir vendors at the checkpoint entering the exclusion zone are selling bottled ‘radioactive air’ and ‘Chernobyl ice cream’, supposedly made from the contaminated milk of local cows. The amount of times I have used inverted commas in this article to do with this topic is disturbing to me. These elements of gifts and souvenirs are fairly alarming when you consider that they are supposed to be a thing which would give the user radiation poisoning. Apart from being totally stupid, it is the most appalling, unethical, amoral thing I have ever read in my life. 

Reading up on what these tours off, how these tour companies bring bus after bus of people in, making their guests spend longer at these souvenir stands than at the actual site, and then allow these visitors to pick things up, climb into buildings, vandalize the area and litter the now reclaimed wildlife-filled forest is utterly disgusting. Both parties are to blame here. Yes, the people should know better; have some basic humility. But these tour companies shouldn’t be allowing such vile behavior in such a dangerous place. Ultimately, the bottom line is that while living history is amazing, and the concept of standing in the very place that history happened is very important to many including me, this should not be happening. Who is to blame is to be debated, of course, and is hotly contested. To me, everyone is. Everyone from the tour companies to the people behaving badly on the tours are all throwing their hat into this ring of destruction and in some manner competing to see who is worse.

 

The importance of the media in popularizing history

The question is, seeing as this has all stemmed from the HBO series as the popularity of the site rose along with the viewing figures of the show, how much is the entertainment industry to blame? And I’m referring to more general concepts too, not just Chernobyl; World War battlefield sites and movies, areas of natural beauty that appear in the media, these are all places that have been affected by the emergence of media popularity through TV and film. 

Ultimately, I feel the question is should we have to miss out on educational and entertainment opportunities of TV and movies so that idiots don’t know where to go to defile and destroy an area of great importance to humanity.?

This seems harsh maybe. But if you’ve read anything else I’ve written you may know by now I pull no punches in these articles. I’m fed up with people thinking that their stupid actions should take priority over the preservation of a place in which people lost their lives to try and save others. Not many things can make my blood boil like this topic does. I was beside myself with anger when I began reading the articles I have mentioned and quoted in this piece. I do not believe we should stop creating fantastic pieces such as the series Chernobyl just in case someone decides that they want to graffiti a radioactive building or somebody decides to capitalize on a very real deadly concept of radioactive material and uses it to sell some kind of ‘quirky’ and ‘individual’ gift. However, I feel ultimately this is the price we pay if we wish to encompass sites such as Chernobyl into popular culture. It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, how historically accurate you make your show, you always run a risk of being misconstrued or misinterpreted or simply people missing the point that this area is a) dangerous, b) should be protected, and c) is sacred to the people that once lived there and witnessed this disaster. Even if you can beautifully articulate this point in your work, as I feel Chernobyldid, capitalism will continue to roam free in the area and people will continue to not understand why taking smiling selfies in a reactor room where people lost their lives is in poor taste, to put it mildly. 

Creating series like this are so important for everyone, and I cannot express how vital it is for everyone to understand this topic, no matter how little of it they understand. And if we remove the tour guides, the souvenir shops and the memorabilia, the Chernobylseries has achieved its main goal: one thing is for sure, the disaster of Chernobyl on the April, 26 1986 will never be forgotten. 

 

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.


In this article Stevan Bozanich provides us with some of the historical context to the current problems in Ukraine by looking at three ages in Ukrainian history: the Middle Ages, the Great War, and the very recent past.

 

Quite often it is helpful to view current events within their historical context in order to understand ‘why’ and ‘how’ things have come about. The events occurring in Ukraine at the moment are no different. Many media reports speak of an East-West divide, with Russian and Western interests vying for control within Ukraine. While this is partially true, this only tells a part of the story. There are a number of other factors involved, but to understand them all a little better, the wider context needs to be seen.

Maidan protests in Kiev. January 2014. Picture: Mikola Vacelychko

Maidan protests in Kiev. January 2014. Picture: Mikola Vacelychko


Ukraine: Middle Ages to Imperial Russia

Russian and Ukrainian historical and religious identity is traced through a Slavic identity. To Russia the unity of this identity is important and an inseparable element of this identity is Ukraine. In the Middle Ages a confederacy known as the Kievan Rus, an Christian Orthodox group of Slavs, emerged roughly within the modern-day borders of Ukraine. This group was overrun by the Mongols in the 13th century and forced to disperse. Some of them ended up in modern-day Russia, others remained within modern-day Ukraine and made up other parts of other nations such as Belarus. From the 14th to the 16th centuries the people in modern-day Ukraine were controlled by Polish and Lithuanian principalities, and then overrun by Cossacks in the 17th century. With the rise of Russia as an imperial power, a thirty year struggle ensued between Russia, Poland, Turkey, and the Cossacks for control of fertile Ukrainian land. In this struggle everything west of the Dnieper River, which runs through Kiev, went to Poland while everything east went to Russia. By the end of the 18th century Poland itself would be partitioned and the Polish territories of Ukraine would be further divided between Austria and Russia. The Austrian lands became “Ruthenia” and the Russian lands became “Little Russia”; the term “Ukraine” was outlawed within the Russian territories.

 

First World War

Through the period of Imperial Russia, the idea of Ukraine as a ‘nation’ was non-existent. It was not until the twentieth century, and more specifically around the Great War, that Ukrainian national identity began to be discussed among literate peoples. This urban literate class pushed for the Ukrainian language in schools, newspapers, and books. They also pushed for land reforms and civil rights tied to Ukrainian language-usage. With these social reforms, the people of Ukraine were granted access to schools, courts, and political representation. In 1917, during the First World War, these reforms faced opposition from Russians within these territories and the Russian government. The Ukrainian nationalist movement looked to Russia’s enemies in the Great War, Germany and Austria, for help. This led Germany and Austria to offer assistance to Ukrainian nationalists. Soon enough though, Russia capitulated to Germany with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, effectively removing the country from the war.

With Russia’s defeat Germany granted Ukraine independence through a puppet government that was subordinate to Germany and obligated to supply Germany food from its rich land. Then, as Germany itself faced defeat at the hands of Great Britain and the United States, it was forced to withdraw from Ukrainian lands. As a power vacuum ensued, Polish troops moved in along with Western-backed White Army troops and Russian-backed Red Army troops. This tripartite annexation was important for the ongoing Russian Civil War. The Ukrainian nationalist cause had the smallest slice of the pie, so to speak. By 1921 the Bolsheviks had won the civil war and at the Soviet-Polish Treaty in Riga, Ukrainian territory was once again partitioned. Within Russian-held lands, the Ukrainian nationalists who had sided with Germany and Austria were punished. Josef Stalin, for example, starved the people of Ukraine for their push for independence in what many nations recognize to be a genocide.

 

In a Modern Context

Ukrainians lived under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for the majority of the 20th century. Upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine was granted independence and its borders drawn using its republic status within the USSR. Because of this, the country is divided amongst Ukrainians, Russians, Tartars, and other ethnic groups. For example, in a recent census, 77% of the population claims Ukrainian ethnicity and 17% Russian ethnicity. In areas closer to the Russian border, the number of Russian speakers becomes the majority. Certainly this is part of the division within Ukraine and many media outlets have picked up on this East-West divide.

However, the problems in Ukraine are deeper than merely East-West. In Donetsk, the former pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich stronghold in the far east of Ukraine, approximately 5,000 people participated in the protests in Kiev against the new, pro-Western government. Certainly this is proof of matters being deeper than an arbitrary geopolitical divide. Another region within Ukraine, and one that has been in the news a lot lately as well, is Crimea. In the north of Crimea many people claim to be ethnic Ukrainians, are bilingual and have some Ukrainian loyalty. In the center and south of the peninsula, Tartars make up 15-20% of the population, speak Russian, oppose Russian annexation, and support the Ukrainian revolution. These statistics speak against suggestions of partition along east-west boundaries. No partition would be acceptable to any portion of the population.

With Ukraine caught in the middle of an east-west push and pull, through several annexations and partitions, and a muddled ethno-linguistic population, the current events in Ukraine are convoluted and confusing. While no answers can be found as yet, putting the events occurring in Ukraine within their correct historical context helps us to understand how and why these events are unfolding. History can sometimes offer us an answer to today’s problems, but not always. What history can always do, however, is offer us answers to how we got there.

 

What do you think about events in Ukraine? How does history help us explain the situation? Comments below.

 

This article is by Stevan Bozanich. You can read more about Russian history by clicking here to read about the fall and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

 

Selected References

  • Rodric Braithwaite, “Ukraine Crisis: No wonder Vladimir Putin says Crimea is Russian,” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukraine-crisis-no-wonder-vladimir-putin-says-crimea-is-russian-9162734.html
  • Glen Kates, “The Conflict in Ukraine: More Complex Than You Might Think,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/the-conflict-in-ukraine-more-complex-than-you-might-think/284118/
  • Walter G. Moss, <em>A History of Russia, Volume I: To 1917</em>, (London: Anthem Press, 2005).
  • Alexander Motyl, “A House United,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/22/a_house_united
  • Brian Whitmore, “Is it Time for Ukraine to Split Up?” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/is-it-time-for-ukraine-to-split-up/283967/

 

 

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones