So everyone, I'm very pleased to be here.
Many thanks to Lisa Carmichael and her team for organising this brilliant conference and inviting me.
Sometimes my topic is about historical distortions and about new academic dignity and proper academic conditions
in which proper academic works must appear about interfere ference of State government into academic writing.
But the creation of the popular imaginations by government.
So my focus is a medieval history because exactly this history was taken by Putin and not only by him as an origin story of modern Russia.
This story, not only origin story, also inspiring aggression and imperialistic ambitions because Putin is represented as a governor of Russian lands.
Well, how did it appear?
I'd like to start from the one professor to illustrate the case.
In 1942, 1943,
Professor Jim Healthy Shanker completed his historical dictionary of Ukrainian language
in which he gave Ukrainian goods found in various sources from the 11th century.
And for what's interesting, Lee Stalin's government I'm sorry, for my English language,
for my native Stalin's government prohibited him from publishing the goods then the ones from the 14th century.
Professor Timoshenko was allowed to publish only the first volume starting from the 14th century,
and soon after he was arrested and sent to Gulag concentration camp for five years.
She died a few years later. It is an excellent example of how Russian Russia corrected academic writing for her benefit in the 1950s.
The similar fate fell on many all the historians and philologists whose works consumed the medieval history of Ukraine.
So frame them for history of Ukrainian writing a catalogue of Krinsky essays on the history of the Ukrainian language.
So Mikhail Gorbachev, still, though he was not repressed, he died too, in suspect circumstances.
The history of Ukraine, the roots, etc.
So the Ukrainian writing was effectively silenced and unfortunately is still silent for many world,
one world because of the Russian late information folk.
So those silenced those Russian historians who considered north eastern Russia like sieges of Rostov,
whose style was deemed as the home territory of Russian statehood and culture.
Alexandroupolis Nicole Matvey Lebowski was repressed and many other historians, his colleagues in 1929 1941 to show trials in Ukraine, in Russia,
the so-called case of the Ukrainian Liberation Fellowship and the academic case, respectively,
in Russia caused the most imprisonments and the executions of dissent, academicians, including many historians.
So it was not good for any historian and not only, yes.
To write in the Soviet line, which was Russian by fact.
History was a special priority for the government, since it was used to justify the official ideology.
To what extent this government took control?
Well, it seemed from the rules for senior member of the Soviet academic, Dr. Boris Becker, which is that in 1953,
the ideas expressed by Joseph Stalin invoke Marxism in questions of language theology, especially about bias.
And so the substructure compelled historians to think a lot clarified in the revised Iliad in their books.
Historians of the USSR all must revise the question of feudalism genetics.
Some in the USSR, all historical institutions were extremely politicised.
Many Soviet officials and propagandists came to their positions after graduating from historical faculties.
In this Soviet climate, modern Russian historical vision was secured as the only one possibly possible.
However, I would not call the Soviet historical school the cradle or the only cradle of the more than the Russian vision
of history since the Soviet one was just a further development of what had begun in the Russian Empire.
So the basics of the historical image of Russia is the most direct descendant of Kievan Rus was
shaped in the 18th and early 19th centuries by historians hired and controlled by Russian Chrome.
So who were the main figures who began to write this kind of narrative?
Gerhart Friedrich Millet, historiography of the Russian history historian of the Russian historiography of the Russian state.
And like the Royal Court, historiography throughout the 19th century was developed further in the Moscow University and academia,
which were on the control of the government.
I mean, of course, if you are in the court, Sara or Cesar, you want to please him because he hired you and.
Well, you write what he wants, actually.
So Russian propaganda for a long time claimed that Ukraine culture was just the subsequent branch of Russian culture which allegedly appeared.
Do you read directly from Hill in the 14th century when the Polish, Lithuanian and mainly Russian elements mixed in the Ukraine.
But it's not what historically happened. Russia denied the Ukrainian language being direct descendant of the early Slavonic language,
deprived Ukrainians of their medieval history of statehood and represented Ukraine as a comparatively young and secondary culture.
More than Putinism claims that Ukrainian nation appeared only 100 years ago as project of Austrians for Germans or whatever.
However, the ancestors of the Ukrainians never left Ukraine.
And so the modern historical image of Russia as the main descendant of the early Eastern Slav and Slavic state rules was born in highly politicised,
non-academic conditions. So it must be critically revised for the sake of academic dignity and just.
One could see that Russia benefited from this artificially created historical image of the appropriate and the medieval history of the Eastern Slavs.
Russian culture became more attractive to the outer world of the country.
The longer history always has advantages in cultural diplomacy, making this culture more visible to the world.
Unfortunately, before this war, Russia succeeded in any form in this for a long time and did it at the expense of others.
So the Russian historical outlook, this well-known article of Putin on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians,
is set up in line with Russia's imperial and colonialist history justifying the renewal
of the historical cycle just by gathering the all Russian lands or conquering Ukraine,
including cleaning it, cleaning it from Western influence.
It represents Putin as a gatherer of Russian lands.
Unfortunately, Putin's historical speech reflects what has been presented in the Russian literature in academic writing,
of course, corrected by state at the appropriate moments, school textbooks and visual culture for decades.
This commonly accepted history is responsible for the climate of opinions in modern Russia, which favours Putin and his aggressive policy.
So at least one of the Slavic culture originated in Ukraine in the Times,
predating any way we can tradition in this region from the proto into Europeans who would come here
from rivers or dawn and Volga or penthouses and mixed with local cultures existing in Ukraine.
In Poland since the Stone Age.
So there are two main theories of academic in academic writing, each of which includes Ukraine as a homeland of Slavs and any of them includes Russia.
So the homeland was either in Ukraine or more probably in western Ukraine.
In Poland. Between order Vistula and neither there are many things.
Prudent. This of course from opening me to even the answer to a linguistic go deeper and follows the unbroken evolution of archaeological cultures.
All of this. So this. So there is no evidence that Ukrainians once came to their land and as, for example, Hungarians did once.
From the fifth to seventh century of common euro, the slaves moved from their homeland in several directions,
and in the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era, expanded.
Slavic communities began to develop their own early state formations,
one of which eventually became known as given the rules which the Russian official history appropriated in the 18th century.
Russia. History denies Ukraine its medieval statehood and culture.
The Soviet side claims that Ukrainians appeared in the 14th century on the ground of the Kievan Rus remnants.
The state which was Russian by its nature. So the Russian culture was the only direct successor.
Well, as Dr. Robert McGoldrick says in the Russian version of the report about the Russian version of the history, quote,
the political and cultural traditions of living dual entity were subsequently carried almost forcibly, forcefully by the eldest brother.
The Russians forced through the Muscovite state, later through the Russian Empire, and most recently by its Soviet successor state,
that Putin's propaganda claims that Ukrainian nation built only 100 years ago and developed due to the
Bolsheviks decriminalisation policy when the Russian nation was ahead of its launch once solvent.
Yes, history going back to the medieval Kievan Rus, where all people from Baltic to Black Sea spoke the same old Russian language,
which is mythical to the concepts of the common Russian language in the Middle
Ages and the imperial rules as the Russian state are both historically incorrect,
but neither by historical evidence, not logic.
Roughly the same Russian mythology actually filled the early medieval key when the rules with the early,
modern or late medieval Muscovite culture that various habits Imagination's language would have its own.
And it was all in the Soviet hands and the Russian mass culture of the 20th century cinema, pictures, literature and in historical reconstructions,
for example, I guess with the reconstruction of the young for the wise was reconstructed with Russian baths.
Well, there is no evidence at all about such.
But, she said, unfortunately, modern Western cinema just adopted this Russian product.
For example, the Vikings TV show used Russian places to reconstruct medieval Kiev.
Well. What rules have been key in the late 19th century that Russian statehood was a think of a distant
future being initially established in the 12th century by the medieval state centred in Kiev.
Roose penetrated that region and was originally based on non Slavic cultures, subjugated and christianised by elites.
The King Vladimir Multnomah, who ruled in the 12th century from 1114 to 1125,
called the Directorate Vallis, which means terra incognita, literally somewhere beyond the forest.
According to a Russian imperial historian, the first Russian prince was controlled by the state who ruled in 12th century.
In the 1930s, Soviet scholars reconstructed the face of Volkanovski using his skull and discovered that
he had had Mongolian braids because it did not correspond with the official historian.
They began to claim that Boogaloo as a descendent of Vladimir the baptised had a Slavonic cranial shape.
Several years ago, Russian historian Igor Lipski noticed the illogical, dubious conclusion, according to the Primary Chronicle.
Well, not Russian, but Primary chronicles Vladimir and his descendants, though not Slavs,
but had mixed genes from different nations Scandinavians, Germans, Greeks or which Slavic ones were a minority at all.
Of course, Soviet historians knew this very well from the Primary Chronicle.
Its very well known historical source, but there were topics which were not allowed to write in the use of stuff.
The case with Maigret shows again how Soviet scholars will read it to falsify history.
It's union.
It is the ideological and political line of the state which claimed and insisted on that boogaloo whisky was a slope Slavic prince from Slavic,
whose dynasty I mean, all the all the standpoint would provoke persecution.
In reality, Bogoljubov did not consider Kiev his home city or capital.
So in 1169 he sucked in plunder with devastating charges and taken away huge booty and golden goose relics.
Wow. Nevertheless, it did not prevent the Russian Orthodox Church from canonising him in 18th century while they lived in other problems about the
colonisation of saints or in some in some situations they are some people could not be canonised because of the some government.
So that Russian history must have had a radically different historical narrative within the state and put the starting point.
So another question. What was the original language of this loss?
So did the Russian propagandists say the proto Russian and the old Russian spoken only by ancestors of Russians,
Ukrainians and Russians, which is so existing that the stricken role, it was impossible to have such language in conditions.
I mean, one language, you know, in conditions.
Where the territory goes. But first one, 1500 kilometres between even longer and the population also scores scarce with weak communications,
natural barriers and long distances between communities.
And so the Dr. Daniel Linsky also notices this. Also, one should consider the diversity of cultures, including female ones.
Numerous regional delicacies used to be within the homeland, which we can loosely call one language.
And the homeland, as I showed before, did not include more than Russian territory.
The fifth century of common era, the proper Slavic language was integrated into several zones of domains,
at least to the proto German fragmented list.
Sorry. So one can agree with the sometime canonical properties of this area.
We have evidence that that in the sixth century of common era actors in Slovenia who lived in Homeland this early Slavs spoke the same language.
But that language was fragmented, fragmented in dialects, and was not spoken on the territory of modern Russia.
During migrations from the first of seven centuries of Europe, the original Slavic language changed,
absorbing new realities and local languages, thus giving birth to useless the Slavic languages.
The division of Slavic languages is a matter of systematised.
Of course, if you have many things, you need to synthesise them to have some audit knowledge.
The division into Eastern, Southern and Western Slavs is just one of the classifications.
One of the theories which by the way, is based on modern political thought for a logical approach.
Due to the circumstances in which it was formed,
the three or three unit classification was shaped from the early 19th century to the early 20th century.
As Dr. Film chose and was based more on geographical locations than linguistic features.
Since that time, it has provoked much criticism.
Um, I would like to put Dr. Alexander to this approach to not ignores differences with sliding subgroups, for example,
something Slavic peculiarities from the central Slavic dialects or original transitive status of Slovenian language, etc.
This led one studies, especially in mis misled by the identification of the Eastern Slavic language group.
You can one if you are the groups. No Slavic language possesses the status of absolute hagemann in this group.
All this peculiarities from the very origin of the three or the three classification condition until now are represented by only one language Russian.
The main factor is political and what has led to the ruling interpretation.
Superficial understanding of the grammatical system of the Russian language
is enough for understanding the communities of all Eastern Slavic languages.
Well. But the Ukrainian and Russian languages are very different.
Well, according to some according to one standpoint, they have only 50% of common.
Come on, girls. Come on. Vocabulary. It is debateable question.
To what extent Russian is close to Ukrainian? The sector of the Slavonic language reveals a certain distance between them.
In the ninth century of common era.
Cyril and Methodius invented the written language based on one of the conservative dialects of old Bulgarian language.
So it's called the Slavonic Short Slavonic because it was used only in George in
Bruges literature was the Christian version of Rose in the 10th century in 1988.
Well, this language became widespread in reading tradition in Ukraine.
The situation turned out to be a disaster for the spoken language.
The old Ukrainian, which could not develop its literary forms because of the domination of the dead George Slavonic.
Since the spoken language the world dramatically since the fourth century of common era, on the basis of which the choice of when it was created.
So Ukrainian or what that medieval version of Ukrainian language became hardly compatible with the church or old Slavonic in Russia.
The situation went radically opposite Church Slavonic originally and easily mixed
with the local dialects close to it due to the long dissolution of those tribes.
That is why Russian contains more Church Slavonic elements than any other Slavic language in Eastern Europe.
There is even opinion that Russia is no more than involved Church Slavonic and then before Church Slavonic.
Russian tribes did not speak any Slavic language at all, being exclusively keynote speakers.
Well, that is the most extreme opinion I heard.
He made the case to the full medical and lexical impact of church.
Slavonic is one of the factors and may be the strongest one.
Russian and Ukrainian spoken languages became so different in the late 17th century that in the late 17th century,
both nations used interpreters to understand each other.
And even now, after centuries of justification, the Russians hardly understand or don't understand the total Ukrainian language.
Unless those Russians have Ukrainian relatives or lived in Ukraine for some period.
Thank you for your attention.