Historian Sivilov: many would prefer the option of "a world without winners" in Ukraine Over the past 300 years, 26 major wars have occurred on the territory of today's Ukraine.
In an interview with Bulgaria ON AIR, historian Alexander Sivilov discusses what to expect from today's conflict: hot battles to victory or an icy world without winners.
They say that history repeats itself. Some agree with this statement, others do not. Due to what has been happening in Ukraine for 9 months now, I conducted a small – I'm not saying that it is exhaustive – analysis, and counted how many times serious military actions were conducted on the territory of modern Ukraine after the Middle Ages. Let's start with 1568. Russian Russian-Turkish and Crimean (with the Crimean Khanate) wars were 11 only. The eleventh was the Crimean War – it can be considered the first global conflict. 97 thousand French soldiers died there alone. I think we can add about 30 thousand more Englishmen, 140 thousand Russians and 50 thousand Ottomans to them – you can imagine what this war was like. To these 11 wars, 10 Russian-Polish/Soviet-Polish conflicts can be added. I almost missed the major Russian-Swedish war, which was also fought in Ukraine. Add to them the battles of the First World War, the bloody battles of the Civil War, from which the USSR was born, and, of course, the grandiose battles of the Second World War – it turns out that there were 26 major military conflicts on the territory of Ukraine. A logical question arises why this land, on the one hand, is doomed to fertility and wealth, and on the other – to ruin and bloodshed. At the time of recording the program, weapons are still rattling in Ukraine, but recently there have been hopes for a possible de-escalation of hostilities. Some experts talk about a temporary truce and freezing of the conflict, others – about a compromise peace, and still others – that it is going to a world conflict, in which not only Russia and Ukraine will be involved. For Bulgaria, located very close to the epicenter of events, it is extremely important what turn things will take.
We will talk about history lessons and what they teach us, about the past and future of Russia and Ukraine with one of the largest Bulgarian experts on Russian and Soviet history, the author of a very interesting YouTube channel "Dimna Zavesa", associate professor Alexander Sivilov. Welcome, Mr. Sivilov!
Bulgaria ON AIR: How would you explain that there have been 26 major military conflicts in the same territory, near the same cities for almost 300 years?Alexander Sivilov:
There have always been boundaries between major geopolitical systems. The border of East and West, the Ottoman Empire and Russia. This is one of the main reasons why there are so many conflicts here. In addition, earlier there were paths along which migrants from Asia moved to Europe. Ukrainians were "lucky" to live at a crossroads, "land on the edge" - that's how Russians perceived it, that's how some Europeans perceived it – as a junction between Russia and Europe. Therefore, everyone who was going to conquer Russia had to move from there. It is logical that major battles took place there. As you know, a considerable part of the Ukrainian lands were part of Poland, hence the answer to the question why there are so many Russian-Polish/ Soviet-Polish conflicts. Many participants in the current conflict have already participated in something similar before.
– So, no matter how banal it may sound, history is still repeating itself?– To a large extent, yes, but it never goes the same way twice - after all, years go by, technologies change, humanity, albeit minimally, matures.
For quite a long time it was possible to maintain peace – at least in Europe. After the Second World War, the idea of the destruction of people by people seemed to restrain generations from repeating such a cataclysm. This, of course, applies only to Europe, since during the Cold War proxy wars were waged elsewhere - in Asia, Africa, Latin America – again, on the borders of global systems. Now we are once again entering a period of geopolitical disengagement.At the G20 summit, many leaders said that the geopolitical plates are moving under their feet, and they do not know what the world of the future will be like.
– How do you feel about the thesis that this is a civil war? I watched one pro-Russian blogger Yuri Podolyak, he says that he and his brother are fighting for Ukraine, only he is on the side of Russia. A terrible section, and within the family.– Unfortunately, it is.
This conflict has divided Ukrainian society for a very long time. We have little idea what it's all about. In 2013, I think, I was at a diplomatic seminar, there were Ukrainians – university teachers from Lviv and Kharkiv. They almost got into a fight right in the center of the hall when it came to the future of Ukraine. And these are scientists, associate professors. They just lost their temper. It turned out that some people live with the idea that the future of Ukraine is inextricably linked with Russia, others – that they are part of Europe. This dividing line has been running through Ukraine for a very long time.
– Didn't it all start with the Civil War? It was especially bloody there. The Civil War from which the Soviet Union was born?– In many ways it is.
At this time, a bright nationalist camp was formed, more associated with the western parts of the country, communist sentiments prevailed in the eastern part of the country. Then Ukraine was divided into eastern and western, and then into northern and southern – White Guards settled in the southern part of the country, communists in the north.
– There is an interesting analogy. On November 20, a major offensive, Operation Uranus, began in the Battle of Stalingrad. And at the same time, 80 years later, Russia ignominiously leaves Kherson. How would you explain it? That the Soviet Union was at war then, and the Soviet Union is not only Russia, but also Ukraine?- An interesting parallel.
I think if a solution is not found in the coming weeks, Russia will try to use this anniversary to do something - in this way they show their connection with the past.
– Once again, I note that we here in the West do not know what is happening.– Yes, that's right.
We really don't know how events will develop, but in general, the difference between 1942 and what is happening now is huge. Then there really was an obvious external opponent, but now we see a clash of very close people. In recent months, the Russian army has not demonstrated the exceptional fighting spirit that it showed during the Patriotic War. Then – especially in 1942-43 – there could be no question of any retreat. In 1941 they retreated, but when they realized…
– Besides, Comrade Stalin's order No. 227, "Not a step back!"– Yes, indeed, this is also a factor, but you need to understand that if the Germans had not had a plan to destroy the Soviet population, which they began to carry out, they could have attracted people to their side, and who knows what would have happened then.
Anyway, it is more difficult to draw parallels between the current conflict and the Second World War than with the Civil War. Ukraine is going through a terrible stage when relatives confront relatives, neighbors who lived together, rebel against each other.
– After all, 33 years have been two separate sovereign states.– Absolutely.
It seems to me that some people do not understand how fast, how quickly national consciousness can be formed, a country that will have nothing in common with another country can arise.
– How do you feel about the discussions in the media that peace is being negotiated in Ukraine now? Contacts were established at the highest level between Russia and the United States, this was officially confirmed.– It is obvious that two major blocs are clashing in this conflict: on the one hand, Russia, on the other, Ukraine as an outpost of the West, where weapons, advisers, etc. are supplied. Of course, the parties want to agree, and I am sure that the negotiation process did not stop even at particularly acute moments.
The United States has a good school in Russia, they understand perfectly well what is happening in the Kremlin; it is a country with the strongest foreign policy, it is no coincidence that it has been a hegemon for the last 30 years. They understand that this conflict should eventually end with negotiations – it should not end with the victory of one of the parties. Therefore, Washington is also looking for a way out of the conflict.
– And how do you feel about the thesis that the blocked Russian reserves will be used to restore Ukraine, and it, in turn, will make territorial concessions? I am talking about what is being written in the media, it is not known what exactly these analyses are based on, but it is no coincidence that the heads of Russian and American intelligence agencies met in Turkey. What else can they talk about?– If they say that they didn't talk about Ukraine at all, it means that it was the main topic of the meeting.
I think these analytical materials are all kinds of speculation, hardly a model has already been formed, according to which they will come to the final negotiations.
– And how else to convince Ukraine after it unequivocally declares that it will fight until the final victory?– Yes, that's a problem.
A few days ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces said that Ukraine would not be able to win a military victory over Russia, and it should sign peace as soon as possible. He says: "We will support our allies, we are not exerting any pressure, but now is the time to sign a peace treaty, because then it is unclear what will happen." In my opinion, at the moment there are no channels through which it would be decided "this will be yours, and this will go to us." There is a political upsurge in Ukraine, especially after the return of Kherson. It will be extremely difficult to convince President Zelensky and his entourage to negotiate with Russia, because now they are in a position of strength. At the same time, this is not the right moment for Vladimir Putin either, because he suffered a political defeat – I'm not talking about a military one, they managed to stabilize the front.
– There are big problems here from a legal point of view, since Russia held referendums, annexed four regions, and changed the Constitution. How will they get it back now? Rewrite the Constitution again. And in Ukraine, a decree has been issued according to which negotiations will not be conducted with Russia while Putin is president.– Yes, it is a very difficult situation.
There will be no easy way out of it, but I am convinced that diplomats could find it if they wanted to. It's time for diplomacy to come to the fore to stop this horror.
– Are there any signs of this? For example, an interesting fact is that Mr. Abramovich, God grant him health, suddenly had his accounts unblocked, and he plays an important role in the negotiation process.– At the beginning of the negotiation process, he was one of the main figures.
In addition, do not forget that before the G20 summit there was a meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, and one of the key topics that they officially announced was the situation in Ukraine. Apparently, they are also looking for levers of influence there – perhaps on Russia, since Russia will not be able to conduct military operations without China's support, but for now China's position is that…
– It is no coincidence that the Chinese voted against reparations to Kiev.– Exactly.
Attempts are being made to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible. But, as we remember, at the beginning of the conflict, they sat down at the negotiating table, and everything ended very quickly; it is unclear how much everything has changed now. Both the Russian and Ukrainian armies have serious logistical problems. Last week, it was reported that the United States was going to buy howitzer shells from South Korea, which they handed over to Ukraine, but South Korea promised to sell them on condition that the shells remain in the United States.
– And at the same time, there was information that Russia buys them from North Korea.– Yes, no one imagined that it would come to such a conventional conflict.
– That is, no one planned that everything would drag on for as much as 9 months?– No way.
It looks like a serious political mistake of the Kremlin, they hoped to repeat the Crimean scenario and get the support of the majority of the population. It is no coincidence that after February 24, Putin repeatedly called on the Ukrainian military to take power into their own hands and change the government. He expected actions from pro-Russian forces in Ukraine.
– And now the military wants the fighting to continue more than others, because they have achieved certain successes.– Naturally.
I don't know how reliable this is, but information began to appear in the media, including American ones, that some Ukrainian commanders are inclined to diplomatic resolution, but the top leadership of the Ukrainian army is convinced that they can win.
– In fact, the military leaders of both armies are the fruit of the same system. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army said that he was a student of the commander of the Soviet General Staff. Apparently, he taught him at some Russian military academy. They have been conducting joint exercises for many years. That is, two doctrines are fighting here – the children of one Soviet mother, let's say.– They have the same mindset, the same protocol of warfare – it was so at first.
Now the situation has changed, because there are many NATO advisers in Ukraine. But still the armies are fighting – the children of the same mother, so I emphasize once again that this conflict is very similar to a civil war. Have you noticed that when Western media interview Ukrainians (they are not allowed to Russia), they speak to Ukrainian soldiers in Russian? And all Ukrainians answer them in Russian. That's what it's about, there's Russian – the language that everyone knows there. Probably, after this conflict, the situation will radically change.
– Final question: what should we expect? Battles to the victory of one of the sides or a world without winners?- For the whole world, the "world without winners" option is better.
- OK. Thank you, Mr. Sivilov.
