Occupying authorities are imposing imperial myths on students instead of history, – FIS. PHOTOS
Russia is systematically imposing its own version of history on students in the temporarily occupied territories. According to the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service, teaching materials for students in the occupied Kherson region present Kyivan Rus’ and its legacy in the context of the formation of Russian statehood, whilst downplaying Ukraine’s role as a distinct historical and political entity.
This was reported by Censor.NET, citing the Foreign Intelligence Service’s press centre.
The Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine has obtained teaching materials for the course ‘History of Russia’, introduced for second-year students at the so-called ‘Kherson State Pedagogical University’ (located in Skadovsk) and ‘Kherson Technical University’ (located in Henichesk). The intelligence service has at its disposal presentations on the feudal fragmentation of Rus’ in the 11th–13th centuries and events of the early 20th century.
Kyiv Rus’ is linked in the materials to the formation of Russia
The materials are structured according to a simple principle: the Russian past is expanded, whilst the Ukrainian past is omitted. The Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal is described as a "classic example of a Rus’ principality", and its development is presented as the foundation of the future centralised Russian state. According to this version, the title of Grand Prince passed from Kyiv to the north-east as early as the mid-12th century.
The materials date the end of the history of Kyivan Rus’ to 1169 – the year Kyiv was ravaged by the army of Andrei Bogolyubsky. From there, the narrative favoured by Moscow unfolds: Kyiv – Volodymyr – Moscow. This is precisely how Russian historiography explains the shift of Rus’s centre to the north-east and creates the appearance of direct continuity between Kyivan Rus’ and the Russian state.
Ukrainians and Belarusians are reduced to "future" peoples
In this narrative, Ukrainians and Belarusians are pushed into the background. The Polans, Drevlians and other East Slavic tribes are effectively reduced to "future Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians". Instead, maps and diagrams are dominated by ‘Rus’ land’ and ‘Rus’ people’ – terms that blur the distinctions between medieval Rus’ and modern Russia.
Even Prince Vladimir is portrayed in the materials as a figure convenient for Russian propaganda. Following the baptism of Rus’, he is portrayed as a ‘gentle and benevolent ruler’ who allegedly refrained from imposing the death penalty. The violent spread of Christianity is effectively glossed over. Novgorod is mentioned only in passing – with the phrase that it was ‘baptised by fire’.
Particular emphasis is placed on the inevitability of Moscow’s rise to power. Of the fifteen Old Russian lands, only three are examined in detail. Wars, conquests and the forcible subjugation of other territories are pushed into the background. Instead, Moscow’s annexation of these lands is presented as a natural stage in historical development.
The Russian Empire is portrayed without any emphasis on social problems or failures.
The history of the Russian Empire is similarly rewritten. The authors of the presentations draw on the works of the Russian historian Boris Mironov to paint a picture of a supposedly successful empire without widespread impoverishment of the population. Revolutions and protests are explained as a result of growing public demands following reforms. Responsibility for the crisis is shifted onto the workers, who are supposedly ‘unaccustomed to working’. The actions of Nicholas II and the ruling elite are thus excluded from the explanation of the causes of the revolution.
Military defeats are presented in the same way. The focus is on the heroism of the soldiers and the occasional successful decisions made by commanders. The Brusilov Offensive of 1916 is explained by ‘well-organised supplies’, whilst the scale of Russian losses remains outside the main narrative. The Russian Empire’s involvement in the First World War is reduced to the struggle for Constantinople and the straits, whilst the imperial objectives of the Russian leadership are left out of the picture.
