If through the prism of the historical development of each individual nation close look at the structures of national States, one cannot fail to notice an interesting pattern. As if due to various wars, cataclysms or revolutionary upheavals changed the outer shell of the state, in fact, always played the same once elected to form the relationship between the people and the government, if you want a certain archetype of statehood.
What do you mean? At a certain stage in its development and formation of every separate nation, the nation creates the most acceptable and understandable for the image of the state. Produces a kind of unwritten set of rules, requirements, expectations and ultimately the rights and responsibilities that characterize their state of relationship.
Let’s take a concrete example. In Russia people tend to personify responsibility for everything that happens in the country in the first person of the state. Faith in the good Tsar and the evil boyars zipped through all of the great century of wars and revolutions. We even historical epochs divided by the time of the reign of a leader, and it is absolutely not important, officially called as the occupied “position”: Grand Duke, king, Emperor, General Secretary or the President.
Our people live and not die in the great Patriotic war, the First world war, the great Patriotic war, perestroika or Russia after the collapse of the Union, while Alexander I, Nicholas II, Stalin, Gorbachev or Yeltsin…
Now we live under Putin, and the responsibility for everything that happens to us, we passed on him. For all the good — thanks to Putin, and if something goes wrong — blame Putin, even if nor that of any other case specific Mr Putin nothing to do with it.
We thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Empire, and call you Putin at least three times President, he is still in the minds of the people, the king, and “king-father” or “bloody tyrant” is appropriate. This stereotype is inherent in equal measure and the simple hard worker and always frondiruyuschie Professor some Economics.
Suppose our example is not significant? Well then take a look at Western Europe, for example Germany. Once “stakanov” their own state on the level of the individual and, in General, very free in matters of social, religious, and even foreign policy of small German principalities Kurfurst and the period of the “Holy Roman Empire of the German nation”, Germans reproduce the medieval federated model to this day.
Or look at Albion. Do you think that the constitutional monarchy in Britain ― a consequence of the events of the bourgeois revolution of 1640? Well then, read “the Great Charter” signed in 1215, the Prince John, cunning younger brother of Richard the Lionheart of chivalry by sir Walter Scott.
Move your eyes on even more familiar and even the once fraternal peoples of Central, or, as now allow to talk political correctness, Central Asia. My peers and older people, with gusto at the time, watched the broadcast of the Congress of people’s deputies of the USSR, well I remember “representatives of the people” of these republics, who, in obedience to the age-old archetype of “the Bai is always right”, unanimously voted for a resolution, voiced from the face of the then leadership of the country. Gained its independence in 1991, they did not invent, and could not, in fact, to think of nothing better than to play in the state structure of their new countries of medieval archetype, mixed with cronyism, personal loyalty, Eastern treachery and subservience to the Sultan. Even though the Sultan now called President.
Ukraine — a country without citizens
Well now turn their attention to the territory of modern Ukraine.
What kind of archetype the national state dreams of the people here? Surprisingly, about any. There is no national state to those who call themselves Ukrainians, they would have recognized her, because never in the history of such has not been the archetype of the just was not to be.
Ukrainian, let’s call it so, an ethnic group is highly heterogeneous, at least we can distinguish three large groups: the Russians, new Russia and Galicia. Names are conventional, and each of these groups can still be divided into subgroups, but the essence of our question it will change nothing.
With all the multi-vector views of these three groups they have one, of course, in common: they all see themselves as a part of a large, but, in fact, another state, a state built other people.
Galicians and Novorossia quite specific and predictable in their choice. The first traditionally drawn to the West, Poland, and even better in Austro-Hungary, in vain, that it is no more. The second can not imagine itself without Russia, which integral part they are, in fact, are only the will of fate and of the Bolshevik leaders appearing in the borders of modern Ukraine. And the Russians, the most numerous group of the population makes a choice in historical perspective, situational, but it is quite prosaic: where “sweeter”, and to prislonica. Moreover, none of the choices does not provide for the construction of a genuinely independent Ukraine. Its citizens it is simply not needed…
In a sense, this here is readiness at any time to defect to a stronger, to give someone else worries about state-building and yourself at the same time to reduce on the level, nothing wants to decide and take responsibility, but forever dissatisfied and forever hurt the “little Ukrainians” and Ukrainian state has a national archetype, the archetype of worthlessness.
The Ukrainian independence. The fight, which was not
Remember the girl from Maidan, who did not want the Customs Union, and wanted to lace panties and the EU? She is a graphic illustration of this archetype.
What was Maidan for freedom, for social equality, for human rights? Nonsense! Maidan stood for salaries and pensions in the EU, which should appear just because “we will take back and begin to pay.” For the opportunity for free to receive benefits for which Western countries people hard and work hard. For life, “how is it”, which none of the horses on the Maidan did not really know. And in the end, just for the opportunity “to leave the country”.
The idea of the inability of the Russians to build their own national state could be attributed to the manifestation of great Russian chauvinism and reactionary, but what do you say about this idea here:
“South Russian tribe in past history has proven its inability to public life. It is true it was to cede to great, to join him as a common task of Russian history was the development of the state“.
It was written by Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov, Ukrainian historian, educator and active member of the Cyril and Methodius society, whose work became the basis for a new course of history of Ukraine, which entered the history departments of all Ukrainian universities immediately after the events of the end of August 1991. Hardly anyone will dare to call Kostomarov great Russian chauvinist.
Now very few people remembers, how in Ukraine “vyborola” their “Nezalezhnist”. And the time is very revealing.
Events, as we all remember, started in Moscow on 19 August 1991, but by the end of 20 August, it became clear that the putsch did not succeed, and the 21st Yeltsin “on a tank” is already celebrating a victory. All this time, the leadership of Ukraine and deputies of the Supreme Council of the Republic sat quiet as mice, even the 22nd, when Gorbachev had returned from foros and any danger that the tanks with goncharovskiy landfill will go to Kiev, are long gone. Only the brave August 24 Ukrainian deputies got out from under the bench, and “boldly” declared the independence of Ukraine.
This attitude of Ukrainians to the struggle for independence appeared, alas, not yesterday. Fatal events for the Ukrainian/little Russian/southern Russian state-building happened after 1240. Two important events happened that year: Batu took and destroyed Kiev, and Prince Alexander Yaroslavich, on the Neva defeated the Swedes, and two years later lake Peipus ― Teutonic knights.
Unlike the rulers of the North-Eastern lands, the boyars of the southern Russian principalities were not on the path of struggle against foreign aggression, and was chosen to join more powerful then the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This happened not once, but by the middle of the XIV century, the historic land of Rus, which later formed the South Russian nation, became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The result is known. Direct descendants of Alexander Nevsky, joined the Russian principalities into a single country with its centre in Moscow, threw off the yoke of the Tartar yoke, and, ultimately, created the only Slavic state to be reckoned with in the world. None of the other Slavic peoples were not capable of it. And the residents of the southern Russian lands forever lost the opportunity of gaining their own archetype of the nation state.
And it has not changed the Bohdan Khmelnytsky uprising, which is the entire period of hostilities offered the territory under its control alternately the Crimean Khan, the Wallachian ruler, the Tsar of Muscovy, any other Cossack rebellions or peasant uprising in right-Bank Ukraine.
None of them, even the traitor Mazeppa, did not think of really independent state. They chose only country which was ready to give everything, if only it protected them from the hated former “owners” and took care of other problems…
Through the ages of war and misery, the harsh Ukrainian Cossacks, alas, has degraded to silly girls from Maidan, but the whole point of the “struggle” has been reduced to lace panties and American cookies.
More sad ending hard to imagine.
What gets cheap, is valued little
Today, having received, in fact, effortlessly the nation-state, Ukrainians just don’t know what to do with it.
When the idea of the country and the world is reduced only to the view from behind the fence of the kitchen garden, clearly shares the attitude of each Ukrainian for “me” and “somewhere”; when the events in the neighboring village or town equidistant and do not cause any feelings and emotions as if they happened in another country or even on another planet, should we expect that such an archetype in the minds of its citizens, the existence of this state will last from a historical perspective, any long?
The question is rhetorical.