Kind: captions
Language: en
what happened during World War II was
that once the Germans started to run out
of of
Manpower they created Foreign Legion
groups but because those people were not
Arians they couldn't be trusted so they
were put under the command of Henry
himler under command of ss and became
known as assess Waffen
units and uh one of such units was
created in
Ukraine the following is a conversation
with Siri ploi a historian at Harvard
University and the director of the
Ukrainian Research Institute also at
Harvard as a historian he specializes in
the history of Eastern Europe with an
emphasis on Ukraine he wrote a lot of
great books on Ukraine and Russia the
Soviet Union on Slavic peoples in
general across centuries on Chernobyl
and nuclear dister disasters and on the
current war in Ukraine a book titled the
rousa Ukrainian War The Return of
History this is the Le stre podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's
sirii what are the major explanations
for the collapse of the Soviet Union
maybe ones you agree with and ones you
disagree with very often people confuse
three different processes that were
taken place in the late 80s and early
90s and the one was the collapse of
Communism as ideology another was the
end of the Cold War and the third one
was the end of the Soviet
Union uh all of these processes were
interrelated interconnected but when
people provide ideology as the
explanation for all of these processes
that's why I
disagree because ideological collapse
happened on the territory of the Soviet
Union in general the Soviet Union lost
the Cold War whether we are talking
about Moscow Leningrad or St Petersburg
now ofas St but the fall of the Soviet
Union is about a story in which Vaso and
St Petersburg ended up in one country
and K of me andan ended in different
countries so the theories and EXP
explanations about how did that happen
for me this are really very helpful
theories for understanding the Soviet
collapse so the mobilization from below
the collapse of the
center against the background of
economic collapse against the background
of ideological uh ideological
implosion that's that's how I look at
the at the fall of the Soviet Union and
that's how I
look at the theories that explain that
collapse so it's a story of geography
ideology
economics which are the most important
to understand of what made the collapse
of the Soviet Union happen the Soviet
collapse was unique but not more unique
than collapse of any other Empire so
what we really witnessed or the the
world witnessed back in 1991 and we
continue to witness today with the
Russian aggression against Ukraine is a
collapse of one of the largest world
Empires we talk about talked about the
Soviet Union and now talk about Russia
as possessing plus minus one six of the
surface of the Earth you don't get in
possession of one six of the Earth by
being a nation state you get that sort
of size as an Empire and the Soviet
collapses continuation of the
disintegration of the Russian Empire
that started back in
1917 that was arrested for some period
of time by the Bolsheviks by the
communist ideology which which was
internationalist ideology and then came
back in full force in the late 80s and
early 90s so the most important story
for me this is the story of the
continuing collapse of the Russian
Empire and the rise of uh not just local
nationalism but also rise of Russian
nationalism that turned out to be as a
destructive force for the Imperial or
multi- multiethnic multinational State
as was Ukrainian nationalism or Georgian
or or Estonian for that matter oh you
said a lot of interesting stuff there in
1917 Bolsheviks
internationalists how that plays with
the idea of Russian Empire and so on but
first let me ask about us influence on
this so so one of the ideas is that you
know through the cold war that mechanism
us had major interest to weaken the
Soviet Union and therefore it the
collapse could be attributed to pressure
manipulation from the United States is
there truth to that the pressure from
the United States this is part of the
Cold War and Cold War part of that story
but it's it it doesn't it doesn't
explain the Soviet collapse and uh the
reason is quite simple the United States
of America didn't want the Soviet Union
to collapse and disintegrate they didn't
want that at the start of the Cold War
in 1948 we now have the Strategic
documents they were concerned about that
they didn't want to do that and
certainly they didn't want to do that in
the year
19991 as late as August of 1991 the day
of C the the month of the K in Moscow
President Bush George HW Bush travels
from Moscow to C and gives famous or INF
famous speech called chicken cave speech
basically warning ukrainians against
going for
Independence the Soviet collapse was a
huge headache for the administration in
the white house for a number of reasons
they liked to work with gorbachov the
Soviet Union was emerging as a junior
partner of the United States on the
international Arena collapse was
destroying all of that and on the top of
that there was a question of the nuclear
weapons unaccounted nuclear weapons so
the United States was doing everything
humanly possible to keep the Soviet
Union together in one piece until really
late November of 1991 when it became
clear that it was it was a loss cause
and they had had to say goodbye to to
gorbachov and to the project that he he
introduced uh a few months later or year
later there was a presidential campaign
and Bush was running for the second term
and was looking for for achievements and
there were many achievements I I I
basically treat him with great respect
uh but destruction of destruction of the
Soviet Union was not one of those
achievements he was on the on the other
side of the of that divide but the the
the the politics the political campaign
of course have their own rules and they
produce and give birth to
mythology with which we we still at
least in this country we live till now
till today so gorbachov is an
interesting figure in all of this is
there possible a history where the
Soviet Union did not collapse and some
of the ideas a gorbachov had for the
future of the Soviet Union came to
life of course history on the one hand
there is a statement it it doesn't allow
for what ifs on the other hand in my
opinion history is full of what if
that's what history is about and
certainly certainly there there are
scenarios how the Soviet Union would
would uh continue uh would continue
beyond let's say gorbachov's tenure mhm
and the argument has been made that the
reforms that he introduced that they
were mismanaged and they could be
managed differently or there could be no
reforms and there could be continuing
stagnation so that is all possible what
I think would happen one way or another
is the Soviet collapse in a different
form on on somebody else's watch at some
later period in time because we we
dealing with not just processes that
were happening in the Soviet Union we're
dealing with global processes and the
20th century turned out to be the
century of the disintegration of the
empires you look at the globe at the map
of the world in 1914 and you compare it
to to the map at the end of the 20th
century in 1991 1992 and suddenly you
realize that there are many candidates
for being the most important event the
most important process in the 20th
century but the biggest the biggest
Global thing that happened was redrawing
the map of the world world and
producing dozens if not hundreds of new
States that's the outcome of the
different processes of the 20th century
look Yugoslavia is falling apart around
the same time
Czechoslovakia goes through what can be
called a civilized divorce a very very
rare occurrence in in the fall of multi-
multinational States so yeah the writing
was on the wall whether it would happen
under gorbach of or later whether it
would happen as the result of reforms or
as the result of no reforms but I I I I
think that sooner or later that's that
that would happen yeah it's very
possible hundreds of years from now the
way the 20th century is written
about as the century defined by the
collapse of Empires you call the Soviet
Union the last empire the book is called
the last empire so is there something
fundamental about the way the world is
that means it's not conducive to the
formation of Empires the meaning that I
was putting in the term the Soviet Union
as the last empire was that that was the
Soviet collapse was the collapse of the
last major European Empires traditional
Empires that was there in the 18th
century 19th century and through most of
the 20th century uh the the Austria
Hungary died uh in in the midst of World
War I the Ottoman Empire disintegrated
the Brits were gone and and left India
and there was the the the successor to
the Russian Empire called the Soviet
Union was still hanging hanging on there
and then came 1991 and what we see even
with today's Russia it's it's a very
different it's a very different sort of
policies the the uh Russia uh or Russian
leadership tried to learn a lesson from
1991 so there is no National republics
uh in the in the Russian Federation that
would have more rights than uh the the
Russian administrative units uh so that
the structure is different the uh
nationality policies are different the
the level of russification is much
higher so it is it is in many ways
already a post po Imperial formation
and you're right about the that moment
1991 the role that Ukraine played in
that seems to be a very critical role he
describe just that what role Ukraine
played in the collapse of the Soviet
Union history is many
things but it started uh in a very
simple way of making notes about on the
yearly basis what happened this year at
that so it's about
chronology chronology in the history of
the collapse of the Soviet Union is very
important you have Ukrainian referendum
on December 1st
1991 and you have dissolution of the
Soviet Union by the leaders of Russia
Ukraine and Belarus one week later MH
and the question is
why uh Ukrainian referendum is is the
answer but ukrainians didn't didn't
answer their referendum question whether
they want the Soviet Union to be
dissolved or not they answered very
limited in terms of uh it's it's it's
been in question whether you support the
decision of vov Nar of your
Parliament for Ukraine to go independent
and the rest was not was not on the
ballot so why then one week later the
Soviet Union is gone and uh president
yelson explained to President Bush
around that time the reason why why
Ukraine was so important he said that
well if Ukraine is gone Russia is not
interested in this Soviet project
because Russia would be outnumbered and
outvoted by the Muslim republics so
there was there was a cultural element
but there was also another one Ukraine
happened to be the second largest Soviet
Republic and then post-soviet state in
terms of population in terms of the
economy economic potential and so on and
so forth and as yelon suggested Clos
culturally linguistically and otherwise
to Russia so with the second uh largest
Republic gone Russia didn't think that
it was in Russia's interest to continue
with with the Soviet Union and around
that time yor gar who was a chief
economic advisor of yelson was telling
him well we just don't have money
anymore to support other republics we
have to focus on Russia we have to use
oil and gas money within the Russian
Federation so the the state was
bankrupt uh Imperial projects at least
in the context of the late 20th century
they costed money it it wasn't a
money-making machine as it was back in
the 18 or 19th century and uh um the
combination of all these factors led to
the to the processes in which Ukraine's
decision to go independent spelled the
end to the Soviet Union and if today
anybody wants to restore not the Soviet
Union but some form of Russian control
over the post-soviet space Ukraine is as
important today as it was back in
December of
1991 let me ask you
about Vladimir
Putin's statement that the collapse of
the Soviet Union is one of the great
tragedies of History to what degree does
he have a point to what degree is wrong
his formulation was that this is the
greatest the greatest geopolitical
catastrophe or tragedy of the 20th
century and I specifically went and
looked at the text and and put it in in
specific time when it was happening and
it was interesting that the statement
was made a few weeks before the uh May 9
parade and and celebrations of the of
the uh Victory a key part part of of the
mythology of the current of the current
Russian state so why say things about
the U Soviet collapse being the the
largest geopolitical strategy and not in
that particular context the Second World
War uh my explanation at least is that
the World War II the price was enormous
but the Soviet Union emerged as a great
Victor and captured half of
Europe 199
one the the the in terms of the of the
lives lost at that point the price was
was actually very very low but for Putin
what was important that the state was
lost and he in particular was concerned
about the division of the Russian of the
Russian people which he understood back
then like he understands now in a very
very broad terms so for him for him the
biggest tragedy is not the loss of life
the biggest strategy is the loss of the
great power status or or the unity of
Those whom he considered to be Russian
Russian Nation so at least this is my
reading this is my understanding of what
what what what is there what is on on on
the paper and what is between the lines
so both the unity of the sort of quote
Russian Empire and the status of the
superpower that's how I read it you
wrote a book
the origins of the Slavic Nations so
let's go back into history what is the
origin of uh Slavic Nations we can look
at that at that from different
perspectives and we are now making uh
major breakthroughs in in answering this
question with the uh very interesting
Innovative linguistic analysis the study
of DNA so that's that's that's really
the New Frontier we are getting into uh
prehistorical period where there is no
historical sources and from what we can
understand today and that can of course
change tomorrow with all these
breakthroughs um in in Sciences is that
the the slaves came into existence
somewhere in the area of um marshes
prepet marshes Northwestern part of
Ukraine uh southwestern part of Belarus
eastern part of Poland and and that's is
considered to be a historical homeland
of slaves and then and then they spread
and they spread all the way to the
Adriatic so we have croats we have
Russians spreading all the way to the
Pacific we have ukrainians we have
Bellar Russians poles once we had
czechoslovaks now we have we have Czechs
and slovaks so that's the story of
starting with the eth and 9th century we
can even a little bit earlier we can
already follow that story with the help
of of the of the written sources mostly
from Byzantine then then then later from
Western from Western Europe but what uh
I was trying to do not being a scientist
not being an expert in in linguistics or
not being an expert in in in DNA
analysis I was trying to see what was
happening in the minds of those peoples
and the Elites in
particular whom we call today not slaves
but Eastern slaves which means Russians
ukrainians and B Russians how they
imagin themselves how they imagin their
world and eventually I look at the
so-called nation building projects so
trying to answer the question of how we
arrived uh to the situation in which we
are today where there are not just three
East Slavic Nations but there are also
three East Slavic States Uh Russian
Ukrainian and belarussian so this is
this is the focus of my of my book I end
admittedly in that particular book I end
on the 18th century before the era of
nationalism but then there are other
books like lost lost kingdom that where
I I bring the story all the way up to
today so what aspect of the 8th and 9th
century uh the East Slavic states perier
to to today that we should understand
well the the most important one is that
the existence of the state of caveen
Roush back during the medieval period
created a foundations uh for historical
mythology common historical mythology
and there are just Wars and battles over
who has the right more right for kaven
Rus uh the legal code that was created
at that time existed for a long period
of time the acceptance of Christianity
from Byzantium that became a big issue
that separated then Eastern slaves from
their Western neighbors including checks
and and and and and
poles but uh United in that way to let's
say bulgarians or serbs and uh the
beginning of the written literature uh
beginning beginning in C so all of that
is uh considered to be part of Heritage
all of that is being
contested uh and uh this this debates
that were academic for a long period of
time what we see now tragically are
being being continued on the on the
battlefield what is K what is Roose that
you mentioned what's the importance of
these you mentioned them as the sort of
defining places and uh terms labels at
the beginning of all this so what is KV
uh K uh became a capital uh of or the
The Outpost of the Vikings who were try
trying to establish control over the um
trade route between um what what is
today's uh Western Russia and and and
bellus and Northern Ukraine so the
forest areas and the biggest and the
richest Market in the world that existed
at that time which was in Constantinople
in Byzantium so the idea it was the idea
was to get whatever Goods you can get in
that part of Eastern Europe and most of
those goods were
slaves local population put them on the
ships uh in cave because cave was on the
border with the step zones stab zones
were controlled by other PE other groups
uh cians
oratian
pans Pags and so on and you you name it
and then
staying on the on the river being
protected from attacks of the nads to
come to the Black Sea and and sell this
products in Constantinople that was that
was the idea that was the model uh
Vikings Vikings tried to practice that
sort of of of uh um business model also
in other parts of Europe and like in
other parts of Europe they turned out to
be by by default creators of new politic
of new state
and that was that was the story of the
first of the first caveen dynasty and
Cave as the capital of that huge Empire
that was going from the baltics to
today's Central Ukraine and then was
trying to get through the southern
Ukraine to to the Black Sea that was a
major major European State Kingdom if
you if you want to call it of medieval
Europe with a lot creating a lot of
tradition in terms of Dynasty in terms
of language in terms of religion in
terms of again historical mythology so
cave is central for uh for the uh
Nation nation building myth of a number
a number of groups in the
region so in one perspective and
narrative Kev is at the center of this
Russian Empire
at which point does Moscow become come
to prominence as the center of the
Russian Empire but the Russian Empire is
a term and really creation of the 18th
century uh what we what we have for the
Caven we call it caveen rose again this
is a term of the 19th century they call
themselves Rus R and there was
Metropolitan of Rus and there was Rous
principalities so very important
important to keep in mind that Rus is
not Russia because that was a selfname
for all multiple groups on that on that
territory and U Moscow doesn't exist at
the time when cave emerges as as the
capital uh the first the first reference
to Moscow comes from the 12th century
when it was founded by one of the Caven
one of the Caven
princes and Moscow comes to prominence
really in a very different context and
with a very different Empire running the
show in the region the story of Moscow
and the rise of Moscow this is the story
of the Mongol rule over over former Ru
lands and former R
territories um the the part of the
former R eventually overthrows the the
Mongol control with the help of the
small group of people called
lithuanians which which had a yan yan
State and Yan Dynasty and and United
this lands which were mostly in today's
terms Ukrainian and belarussian so they
separate early and what is today is
Russia mostly Western Russia Central
Russia stays under the Mongol control up
until late 15th century and that was the
story when Moscow Moscow Rises as the
new capital of that real replacing the
city of
Vladimir uh as as that Capital uh for
those who ever went to Russia they they
familiar with the with of course
Vladimir as the place of the oldest uh
uh architectural
monuments uh the so-called the golden
reain of Russia and so on and so forth
lir is Central and there was so many
architectural monuments there because
before there was Moscow there was
Vladimir eventually in this in this
struggle over over control of the
territory struggle for favors uh from
from the Mongols and and the TT horde
Moscow emerges as as the center of that
particular real under Mongols after the
Mongol rule is uh removed Moscow embarks
on the project that historians Russian
historians of the 19th century called
the Gathering of the Russian
lands
uh using Russian now for Rus and and and
and trying to to uh bring back the the
the lands of of former cave and Rus but
also the lands of the former Mongol
Empire uh the Russians get to the uh
Pacific before they get to
Cave uh historically uh and really the
the
the quote unquote Gathering of the uh
uh quote unquote Russian lands ends only
in 1945 when uh the Soviet Union uh
bullies the czechoslovak government into
turning what is today's trans carpatian
Ukraine to the Soviet Union it is
included in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic so that's that's the
moment when that Destiny the way how it
was imagined by the 19th century Russian
historian was eventually fulfilled
Moscow was in control of all this l so
to what degree are the Slavic people one
people and this is a theme that will
continue throughout I think versus a
collection of multiple peoples whether
we're talking about the Kevan Roose or
we're talking about the 19th century
Russian Empire
conception well a number of ways to look
at that one the most obvious the most
clear is
language and um
there is no question that um polls speak
a separate language and their
slaves and there is no question for
anyone um going to Ukraine and hear in
Ukrainian realizing that this is not
Russian the level of comprehension can
be different you can understand certain
words and you you you don't understand
others and the same would be with with
Polish and the same would be with Czech
so there is this linguistic uh
linguistic uh history that is in common
but languages very clearly indicate that
you're deal you're dealing with
different with different
peoples um uh we we know that language
is not everything Americans speak a
particular way of English Australians
speak a particular variant of English uh
but for reasons of geography history we
we pretty much believe that despite
linguistic Unity these are different
nations and different peoples and and
there are there are some parts of
political tradition are in common others
others are quite different so the same
when it comes to language the same when
it comes to political tradition to the
loyalty to the political institution
applies to
Slavic uh Nations so that's that's again
there is nothing particular unique about
the slaves in that regard you wrote the
book The KAC myth history and nationhood
in the Age of Empires it tells the story
of an an anonymous manuscript called the
history of the Roose it started being
circulated in
1820s I I would love it if you can tell
the story of this um this is supposedly
one of the most impactful texts in
history modern history so what's the
importance of this text what did it
contain how did it Define the future of
the region in the first first decads of
the 19th century after Napoleonic
Wars a mysterious text emerged that was
attributed to a Orthodox Archbishop that
was La
dead which was claiming that the kazaks
of Ukraine were in fact the uh original
Rus
people and that they they uh had the
right for a particular place for central
place in in the Russian
Empire and it tells the history of the
kxs full it's it's the year of
Romanticism full of all sorts of drama
there are heroes there are
villains and the text captivates the
attention of uh some key figures in the
in the Russian intellectual Elite in St
Petersburg um um people uh like Krav who
was was executed for his participation
in 1825
Uprising uh rights rights poetry on the
basis of this text Pushkin pays
attention to it as well and then comes
along the the key figure in Ukrainian
national um uh Revival of the uh 19th
century Ukrainian national project Tas
shenko and and reads it as well and they
all read them it very
differently uh eventually by the by the
beginning of the uh and mid 20th century
some of the Russian um mostly
nationalist writers call this text the
Quran of Ukrainian
nationalism so what is what is there the
story it's it's it's very important in a
sense that what the authors and that's
what I claim in the book what the
authors of the text were trying to say
they were trying to say that the kazak
elite should have the same rights as the
Russian
nobility and brings the long historical
record to prove how cool the kaks were
over the period of time but in at the
beginning of the 19th century they put
this claim already they use new new
arguments and this arguments are about
nation and Nation ISM and they're saying
that the kaks are a separate
nation and that's that's a big big big
claim uh the Russian Empire and this is
a very very good argument uh in
historiography that Russian empire grew
and acquired this one six of the Earth
by using one very specific way of
integrating those lands it integrated
Elites it was making deals with the
elites whether the elites were Muslim or
the elites were Roman Catholic as the
case with the polls they would be Elites
would be integrated and the empire was B
based on that
estate uh uh the estate loyalty and the
state
integration but once you bring in the
factor of nation and nationalism and
language then once in a sudden the whole
model of the integration of the elites
irrespective of their language religion
and culture starts falling apart and the
polls were the first who really uh
produced produced this this sort of a
challenge to the Russian Empire by
apprising two Uprising in the 19th
century and ukrainians Then followed in
their uh footsteps so the text the
importance of the text is that it was
making claim on on the part of a
particular
estate the kazak officer class which was
that Empire could survive but it turned
it given the conditions of the time into
the claim for the special role h of uh
KX as a nation creating that this is a
separate nation a r Ru nation and that
is the challenge of nationalism that no
Empire really survived and and the
Russian EMP was not an exception so
that's a turning point when the
discourse switches from loyalty based on
the integration of the elites to the
Loyalty based on attachment to your
nation to your language and to your
culture and to your history so that was
like the initial spark the
flame that led to nationalist movements
that was the beginning and the beginning
that was building a bridge between the
existence of of the kazak state in the
17th and 18th century that was used as a
foundation for the kak mythology
Ukrainian national mythology went into
the Ukrainian national
anthem and the new age and the new stage
where the kaks were not there anymore
where there were professors
intellectuals students members of the of
the uh uh National and and organizations
and it started of course with romantic
poetry it was started with collecting
folklore and then later goes to the to
the political stage and eventually the
stage of mass politics so to you even
throughout the 20th century under Stalin
there was always a force within Ukraine
that wants it to be independent there
were five attempts uh for Ukraine to
declare its independence and to to
maintain it in the in the 20th century
only one succeeded in in 1991 but there
were four four different attempts
attempts before and you see the
Ukrainian uh national identity
manifesting itself in two different in
two different ways in the form of
national
communism uh after after the bolik
victory u in the in uh bolik controlled
Ukraine and in the form of radical
nationalism in the parts of Ukraine that
were controlled by Poland U and and
Romania and part of that was also
controlled by Czechoslovakia and later
Hungary so in those parts outside of the
of the Soviet Union the the form of the
national mobilization the key form of
national mobilization became radical
nationalism in in um Soviet Ukraine it
was National communism that came back in
the 1960s and
1970s and then in the 1991 the the the
majority of the members of the Ukrainian
Parliament who voted for independence of
members of the Communist party so that
that Spirit on on on certain level never
died so there's National communism and
radical
nationalism well let me ask you about
the radical nationalism because that is
a topic that comes up in the discussion
of the war in Ukraine today uh can you
tell me about stepan Bandera who was he
this controversial fire right Ukrainian
revolutionary there were at least two
stepan
Banderas one is the real person and
another is mythology that really comes
comes with this name and uh the real
person was um young student
nationalistically oriented student in
the late 1920s and early 1930s in the
part of Ukraine that was controlled by
Poland
who belonged to the generation who
regretted that they were not born in
time for the big struggles of the of the
um World War I and and Revolution at
that time they believed that their
fathers lost opportunity for Ukraine to
become
independent and that uh a new ideology
was needed and that ideology was uh
radical
nationalism and new tactics were needed
so
Bandera becomes the leader of the uh
organization of Ukrainian nationalists
in Ukraine at the young age and
organizes a number of assassinations of
the Polish
officials or members of the Ukrainian
Community who this young people in their
17 18 19 considered to be to be
collaborators he is
arrested put on trial and that's that's
where the myth of Pandera starts starts
to emerge because he uses the trial to
uh make statement about about the um
Ukrainian nationalism radical
nationalism and its goals and suddenly
becomes becomes a hero among the and the
youth Ukrainian youth at that time he is
uh sentenced for uh for uh execution for
death so when delivers his speech he he
knows that he he probably would would
die soon and then it was the sentence
was commuted to life to to life in
prison then World War I happens the
Polish state collapses under the the
pressure coming of course from from Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union uh Bandera
walks walks away and presides over the
act of the split of the organization of
Ukrainian nationalists into two groups
the most radical one you used call
revolutionary they call themselves
revolutionary is led by by
Banda they worked together with the Nazi
Germany at that time with the hope that
Nazi Germany would deliver them
independent
Ukraine uh first days of the German
attack Nazi attack on the Soviet
Union the um units formed on the basis
of organization of Ukrainian nationalist
March into the city of L and declare
Ukrainian
Independence that was not sanctioned by
the German authorities that was not in
German plans so they arrest bandara
members of his family his brothers me
members of the leaders leaders of the
organization so his two brothers go to
aitz di there he was sent to zon Housen
for most duration of the of the war
until
1944 refusing to
revoke Declaration of Ukrainian
Independence which again contributes
contributes further to his
mythology after the war he never comes
back to Ukraine he lives in Exile in
Munich uh so between 1930 and his death
uh in 1959 he spent in Ukraine
maybe up to 2
years maybe a little bit more but most
of the time was either in the Polish
prison or in the in the German
concentration camp or in
Exile but the myth of Bandera lived and
all the members of the organization of
Ukrainian Nationalist and then the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army that fought
against the Soviets all the way into the
early 1950s they were called Bandai
they were called band rides by the
Soviet authorities they were known also
in that way to the local population so
there was a far away leader that barely
was there on the on the spot but who who
whose name was attached to this to this
movement for really liberation of
Ukraine at that time again the battle
that failed the fact that he
collaborated with the Nazis sticks for
one perspective he's considered by man
to be a hero of Ukraine for fighting for
the independence of Ukraine from another
perspective uh coupled with the fact
that there's this radical revolutionary
extremist flavor to the way he sees the
world that label just stays that he's a
fascist he's a Nazi uh to what degree is
it's true to what degree is it not uh
this label is certainly promoted by the
first by the Soviet propaganda and then
by Russia prop Russian propaganda it's
it's it works very nicely um if you if
you focus on the on the years of
collaboration uh those were the same
years when Joseph Stalin collaborated
with Hitler right so we we have we have
the same the same reason to call um
Stalin Stalin Nazi collaborator as we
have uh the reason to call bandara Nazi
collaborator we we look at the at the
situation in the Pacific
in Indonesia in other places uh the
leaders who worked together with
Japanese with the idea of promoting
independence of their countries after
the Japanese collapse be become leaders
of the Empire so the difference with
Bandera is that he never becomes the
leader the leader of Empire and and and
Immunity that comes with that with that
position certainly doesn't apply to
him but there are other part parts of
his life which certainly certainly put
this whole thing in in question the fate
of his family his own time in the German
concentration camp uh certainly Don't
Fit Don't Fit the the propaganda one
one-sided image of Bandera in terms of
him being a hero that's that's a very
very interesting question because he is
perceived in Ukraine today by not
by by by all and probably not by the
majority but by many people in Ukraine
as a symbol of fighting against against
the the Soviet Union and by extension
against Russia and Russian occupation so
his popularity grew after February 24th
2022 as a symbol of that resistance
again we are talking here about myth and
mythology because Bandera was not
leading the fight against the Soviet U
the the the Soviet occupation in uh in
Ukraine because at that time he was just
simply not in Ukraine he was in Germany
and you can imagine that geography
mattered at that time much more than it
matters today uh there's a million
questions to ask here I think it's an
important topic because it is at the
center of the claimed reason that the
war continues in Ukraine so I would like
to explore that from from different
angles but just to clarify was there a
moment where Bandera chose
Nazi Germany over the Red Army When The
War already began so in the list of uh
allegiances is Ukraine's Independence
more important than fighting Nazi
Germany
essentially the Ukrainian Independence
was the their goal and they were there
to to work with anybody who would who
would support and and in one way or at
least allow the Ukrainian Independence
so the there is no question that uh they
they are just classic nationalists so
the the goal is uh nationalism is the
principle According to which the at
least one definitions is According to
which the cultural boundaries coincide
with political boundaries so their goal
was to create political boundaries that
would coincide with the geographic
boundaries in the conditions of the
World War II and certainly making making
deals with with whoever would would
uh would either support as I said or
tolerate that that project of theirs so
I would love to find the line between
nationalism even extreme nationalism and
Fascism and
Nazism so for bander the myth and B the
person to what degree let's look at some
of the ideology of naism to which degree
did he hate Jews was he
anti-semitic uh we uh know that
basically in his Circle there were
people who
were anti-semites in a sense that okay
we have the texts right we know that we
don't have that that information about
about or that that sort of tax or that
sort of evidence with regard to to
Bandera
himself um in terms of fascist
there is very clear and there is
research done that in particular Italian
fascist fascism had influence uh on the
on the thinking of people in that
organization including people at the top
but it is also very important to um keep
in
mind that they call themselves
nationalists and
revolutionaries and despite the fact
that in 1939 in 1940 1941 it was very
beneficial for them to declare
themselves to be Ukrainian
fascists and establish this bond with
not just with with Italy but with uh uh
Nazi Germany they refused to do that and
then they refused to recall their
independence so uh influences yes but
but clearly it's it's it's it's a
different it's it's a type of a
political uh political project so let me
fast forward into the future and see to
which degree the myth permeates uh does
Ukraine have a Neo-Nazi problem my
understanding is there are Nazis in
Ukraine and uh there are there are
supporters of uh um white supremacy
theories uh but also my understanding is
that um they are extremely
marginal and they're more marginal than
the same sort of groups are in Central
Europe maybe in the US as
well and for me the question is not
whether the Ukraine has
it but why even in the conditions of the
war the radical nationalism
and extremism and and and white
supremacist is such a marginal Force
when in the countries that are not at
the war this is this you look you look
at France you look at again it's not
exactly Nazism but really right radical
right is is becoming so
important um why why Ukraine in the
conditions of the war is the country
that manages relations between different
ethnic groups and
languages uh in the way that strengthens
political Nation so for me as a scholar
and a researcher what I see is that uh
in Ukraine the the influence of the far
right in different in different
variations is much lower than it is
among among some of Ukraine's neighbors
and in Europe in general and the
question is why I I don't know I have
I I I I don't know answer but that's
that's that that's the question that I
think is interesting to answer how how
Ukraine ended up to be the only country
in the world outside of Israel who has a
Jewish president who is my at least
understanding
is the the most popular president in
history in terms of how long his
popularity goes after the election so
this this the the really from my my
point of view interesting interesting
questions and again we we can we can
certainly debate that so uh just for
context the the the most popular far
right party won 2.15% of the vote in
2019 this is before the war so that's
where things stood it's unclear where
they stand now it'd be an interesting
question whether it escalated and how
much what you're saying is that war in
general can serve as a catalyst for
expansion of extremist groups
of extremist nationalistic groups
especially like the far right and it's
interesting to see to what degree they
have or have not risen to power in the
sort of in the shadows so no nationalist
or nationalistic party actually crossed
the the barrier to get into the
parliament so Ukraine is the country
where there is no
right of far right in the parliament we
can't say that about Germany we can't
say that about France so that's that's
just uh
um one more way to to to stress this
unique unique place of Ukraine in that
in that sense and the year 2019 is the
year already of the war the war started
in
2014 with the annexation of the Crimea
the the the front line was near donbas
all these groups were fighting there so
Ukraine maybe not to a degree that it is
now was already on the on the war
footing and yet and yet the the the the
the right party couldn't couldn't get
more than 2% so that's that's the
question that I have in mind and yes the
war historically historically of course
puts forward and and makes from uh uh
the the more nationalist views and
forces turn them from marginal forces
into more Central ones we talked about
bandara and we talked about organization
of Ukrainian nationalists they were the
most marginal group in the political
Spectrum in Ukraine in uh the 1930s that
one can only
imagine but World War II comes and they
become the most Central group because
they also were from the start go they
knew that they had the organization the
the the violence was basically one of
their means they knew how to fight so
historically historically Wars indeed
produce those results so we we are
looking at Ukraine we we are trying to
see what is happening there so Vladimir
Putin in his interview with talker
Carlson but many times before said that
the current goal for the war in
Ukraine is
densification that the purpose of the
war is
densification can you explain this
concept of densification as Putin sees
it densification is the
trop that is accepted quite well by the
by the former Soviet population and
Russian population in particular the the
most powerful mythology Soviet mythology
that then was basically passed as as
part of Heritage to the to the Russian
Federation was World War II was fighting
against fascism so once you use terms
Fascism and Nazi and nazification
suddenly suddenly people not just start
listening they just stop
analyzing and as a as a propaganda tool
this is this is of course Very very
powerful tool um in terms of to what
degree this is this this is the real
goal or not we discussed the the
importance of the far right in in in
Europe and and in Ukraine so if that's
the real goal of the war probably the
war would have to start not against
Ukraine but probably against France or
some other country if you take this at
face failure well there's something
really interesting here as you mentioned
I spoken to a lot of people in
Russia and uh you said analysis
stops in the west people look at the
word denotification and look at the
things we've just discussed and kind
of almost think this this is absurd when
you talk to people in Russia maybe it's
deep in there somewhere the history of
World War II still reverberates through
the maybe the fears uh maybe the pride
whatever the Deep emotion
uh history is there it seems that the
goal of
denazification appears to be reasonable
for people in Russia they don't seem to
see the absurdity or the complexity or
the even the need for analysis I guess
in this kind of statement word of
gasification uh I would say this is
broader this is broader um the the war
that started under the banner that
Russians and ukrainians were one and the
same people and produces that sort of
casualty uh really goes against
also some any sort of logical of logical
thinking but the uh Russia is a place
where the Free Press doesn't exist
already for a long period of time Russia
is the place where there is
U an aamber to degree and as War started
first in 2014 and then all out war in
2022 I came across a lot of people on
the personal level but also in the media
reporting that they really can't find
common language with their close
relatives in in Russia people who
visited Ukraine who know that it is not
taken over by by nationalists and is not
taken over by Nazism uh but the the
media around them the neighbors around
them the people at their work basically
say one and the same thing and we as
humans in general what whatever our
background we are very very uh our mind
is is
really it's relatively easy to
manipulate it and uh um to a degree that
even even family connections and even
Family Ties don't sometimes help to to
to maintain that that uh ability to to
think and and to analyze on your own to
look at at the
facts so Putin has alluded to the yurav
Hanka incident in the Canadian
Parliament September
2023 this man is a uh veteran of World
War II on the Ukrainian side and he got
two standing ovations in the Canadian
Parliament but they later found out that
he was part of the
SS so can you explain on this what are
your thoughts on this this had a very
big effect on the narrative I guess
propagated throughout the
region yes uh What uh what happened
during World War II was that uh once the
Germans started to run out of uh of
Manpower uh they created uh sort of
Foreign Legion groups but because those
people were not Arians
um they they were created for fighting
on the on the on the
Battleground because they were not
Arians they couldn't be trusted so they
were put under the command of Henry
himler under command of ss and became
known as assess Waffen
units and uh one of such units was
created in
Ukraine with great difficulties because
Nazis didn't consider Slavs to be
generally
worthy of even even that sort of Foreign
Legion
formations uh but they made an exception
because those people were coming from
galtia which was part of Austria Hungary
which means part of Austria which means
somehow were open to the benevolent
influence of the of the Germanic of the
Germanic race and called called the the
division giten or
galtia
uh part of of Ukrainian youth join the
gal the
division the one of the explanations was
that they were looking at the experience
of World War
I and uh seeing that the units the
Ukrainian units in the Austrian Army
then played a very important role in the
fight for independence so that is one of
the explanations you can't just use one
explanation to to to describe
motivations of everyone and every single
person who who was joining there so they
were sent to the
front they were defeated within a few
few short days by the uh by the by the
Red Army and then were were uh
retreating through through Slovakia
where they were used to fight with the
partisan movement there and eventually
surrendered to the British so that's
that's the
story you can personally maybe
understand what what what the the good
motiv ations were of this person or that
person but uh that is one of the at the
best one of the very tragic and and
unfortunate pages in in in in Ukrainian
history you you can't you can't justify
that as as as as as a phenomenon so from
that point of view the the um
celebration of that experience as
opposed to looking at that okay that
that happened
and we wish that th those young men who
were idealistic or joined the division
for idealistic purposes had had had
better understanding of things or made
other choices but you can't you can't
certainly certainly celebrate that and
and once that happened that of course
became a big a big
propaganda propaganda item in in in in
the current War uh we are talking about
about 10 to 20,000 people in the
division
and we are talking about 2 to 3 million
ukrainians fighting in the Red
Army and again it's it's not like Red
Army is is is is is completely blameless
in the way how it behaved in in Prussia
or in Germany and so on and so forth but
it's basically it's it's again we are
going back to the story of bandara so
there is a period of collaboration and
that's that's what propaganda tries to
Define him by or there is a division
giten by 20 th000 people and somehow it
makes irrelevant the experience of two
to three million people I mean just to
clarify I think there is just a blunder
on the Canadian Parliament side the
Canadian side of not doing research of
maybe correct me if I'm wrong but from
my understanding they were just doing
stupid shallow political stuff let's
applaud you know when zalinsky shows up
let's have a Ukrainian veteran let's
applaud a veteran a World War too and
then all of a sudden you realize well
there's actually complexities to Wars we
can talk about for example a lot of dark
aspects on all sides of World War II the
mass rape at the end of World War II by
the the Red Army when they say martial
German there's a lot of really dark
complexity and on all sides so you know
that could be an opportunity to explore
the dark complexity that some of the
ukrainians were in the SS uh or Bandera
the the complexities there but I think
they were doing not a complex thing they
were doing a very shallow applaud and we
should applaud Veterans of course but in
that case they were doing it for show
for zilinski and so on so we should
clarify that the Applause
wasn't knowing it wasn't for the S it
was for a Ukrainian it was for World War
II veterans but the propaganda or at
least uh an interpretation from the
Russian
side from whatever side is that they
were applauding the full person standing
before them which wasn't just a
Ukrainian veteran but Ukrainian veteran
that fought for the SS I don't have any
particular insights but I would be very
much surprised if even one person in the
parliament I mean the members of the
parliament actually knew the whole story
I would be very surprised yeah the whole
story of this person and frankly the
whole story of
um Ukraine and Russia in World War II
period yes yes uh nevertheless it had a
lot of power and really reverberated in
support of the narrative that there is a
Neo-Nazi a Nazi problem in Ukraine this
is the The Narrative that is out there
um and it's it's especially powerful in
Russia it's especially powerful in
Russia given that there are um really
the the the the uh
[Music]
the the atmosphere that that has created
really is not conducive to any to any
independent analysis well I wonder what
is the most effective way to respond to
that
particular
claim because there could be a
discussion about nationalism and extreme
nati