Are Ukrainians and Russians the same people? What are the main, fundamental differences between Ukraine and Russia? Are there any fundamental differences at all? All these questions are old as the hills and being asked by the brightest minds on both sides of the border in the Eastern Europe on the one hand and by many people not native to this part of the world on the other. Undoubtedly, Ukrainians and Russians, even though often seen as the same people, have been behaving drastically differently throughout their history. Ukrainians valuing personal freedom, disrespecting the authority, and always ready for the next upheaval when their leader is barking up the wrong tree seem to be in contrast to the Russians, who are much more united and typically praising their leader (tzar, the general secretary or president). Let’s dive into some history and see how these differences unveiled themselves throughout the centuries.
XII Century. Kyivan Rus’ Fragmentation
XII-XIIIth centuries are the periods of the, so called, “feudal fragmentation” of the Rus’ when multiple princes were constantly fighting for power. It was a sophisticated society which had multiple institutions having their input into the decision-making process: princes, boyars (the aristocracy of the time) and veches (a popular assembly).
The influential boyars are traditional for this region and they have manifested themselves multiple times later in the history under different names. The influence of boyars is by itself an example of non-totalitarian nature of the local political system. In addition to that, the veches which also had their say and, at times, were game-changers are the example of the direct democracy since these assemblies were making decisions on all kinds of matters (from local questions up to electing the next prince).
At the same time, 1,000 km east of Kyiv, there was so called Vladimir-Suzdal Principality ruled by the same Rurik dynasty as in Kyiv but much more oriented on the eastern trade, diplomatic and military expansion. This principality is regarded as the foundation of the future Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Russian Empire. One of the most remarkable rulers of this land was Andrei the Pious who was the first one to get rid of boyars and veches to concentrate all the power in his hands. That was exactly the reason why he decided to move the capital of his principality from Suzdal and Rostov (which had long traditions of veches and aristocracy) to Vladimir, and that is why he surrounded himself with younger representatives of retinue who had no influence on political landscape of the time and were personally loyal to him.
It is obvious that both medieval formations have chosen fundamentally different political systems. The Kyiv Principality had fundamentally aristocratic/oligarchic and partially democratic society (even though seriously imbalanced) while Vladimir Principality has chosen the politics of the “strong arm”, unrestricted by the independent aristocrats or people and supported by the loyal surrounding of the ruler.
XVII Century: Serfdom
Another stark difference between the two regions lays in the field of serfdom which has been present in Eastern Europe for centuries. However, in 1648 Bohdan Khmelnitskiy starts his famous uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and by 1657, among other achievements, he frees the peasants of the “Ukrainian” region and abandons the serfdom for the next 126 years up until the full occupation of it by the Russian Empire and re-introduction of serfdom by Catherine II.
Ironically, in exactly the same time-period, in 1649, Alexis I The Quietest , quietly (not really) introduces the so-called “Sobornoye Ulozhenie” or the “Council Code”, which widely extends the nature of the serfdom in Russia. First of all, the new law makes the search of escaped serfs unlimited in time (in 1597 there was 5-year limit and in 1642 it was extended to 10-year limit). Secondly, all the peasants who were considered free were losing the right to relocate and change the landowner they were working for, therefore making them serfs.
It’s incredible how opposite these two events were and how they coincided in time. This type of social order persisted in Moscow for centuries (at least for over 500 years until 1861), and is natural for the people of this territory and culture. At the same time in Ukrainian region we can see that the peasants were ready to fight against their oppression and were successful in it, which resulted in at least 126 years of freedom for the vast majority of the population. In fact, even since the 15th century the peasants are starting to escape their landowners and form a new society in the southern steppe, called Cossacks who were free and venturesome man typically armed and democratic in nature. So, the full-scale serfdom has been only forced on these people by Catherine II in 1783 and existed for 80 years.
So, we can see that being founded by the same dynasty the “Moscow phenomena” is fundamentally based on the tyranny of the ruler and the quiet slavery of the majority of oppressed population. In the next article we are going to further compare the history and nature of Ukraine and Russia.
Leave a Reply