The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine

I believe John Herbst, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, best characterizes the book with his critique, quote “Serhii Plokhy offers a short yet comprehensive history of Ukraine that contextualizes Mr. Putin's current policies as aggression against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, as well as the order established at the end of the Cold War. A pleasure to read, The Gates of Europe will take those familiar with the Moscow narrative on a mind expanding tour of Ukraine's past."Prof. Serhii Plokhy, the Mykhailo Hrushevsky Professor of Ukrainian History at Harvard and the director of the university's Ukrainian Research Institute, has written a history not to offend. Which is almost impossible as Adoplhe Thiers, in his preface to “Histoire de la Révolution Française” in 1838 wrote…”I intend to write the history of a memorable revolution which profoundly disturbed men, and which still divides them today. I do not conceal from myself the difficulties of the enterprise ... whereas we have the advantage of having heard and observed these old men who, still full of memories, and still aroused by their impressions, reveal to us the spirit and the character of the causes, and teach us to understand them. The moment when the actors are about to expire is perhaps the suitable one to write history: one can glean their evidence without sharing all their passions ... “I have pitied the combatants and I have freely applauded the generous spirits.”… Quoted from “A Savage War of Peace, Algeria 1954-1962” by Alistair Horne.This quote is appropriate for the period of 1890 to 2015 in “The Gates of Europe, from page 175 to page 354. I have spoken with people involved in all of these periods of Ukrainian history. I listened to their experiences with great interest. Many of them, no longer are alive, but their tales are still vividly with me. My grandfather, born in 1881, Dr. Lew Hankewycz experienced this political drama at the age of 14 (1895) when he was expelled from the gymnasium (high school) for comparing the poetry of the Ukrainian Taras Shevchenko to the poetry of the Polish Adam Mickiewicz.Prof. Serhii Plokhy an erudite, careful and discerning researcher of primary sources, has written brilliantly on Eastern European and Eurasian history. This book is somewhat different. It is written for the general reading public, and therefore requires a different approach, a bit more excitement. After all, Ukrainian History is explosively exciting!The publisher writes that prof. Plokhy argues that “we must examine Ukraine’s past in order to understand its present and future.”… In which case you must first read Prof. Plokhy’s “The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus” to understand the Past, and in general Ukraine’s twisted historiography. I would then start reading from part III of this book, from page 131 “Between the Empires” to page 354, which ends the book in the spring of 2015.It is no small matter that his writing always gets good reviews from some of the most respected and prestigious members of his community. He is, after all, the best English writing historian on topics Ukrainian. His admirers, based on the book jacket include:• Andrew Wilson, professor of Ukrainian studies at University College London, author of “ Ukraine Crisis: What it Means for the West”• John Herbst, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, now Director of the National Defense University• Michael Ignatieff, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, author of “Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics”• Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of, “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”• Norman M. Naimark, Stanford University, author of “ Stalin's Genocides: Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity”• Peter Pomerantsev, is a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute in London and author “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible”.I was very surprised that Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of one of the best Stalin studies, “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”, claims Prof. Plokhy’s work is “revisionist”. What Montefiore tells me is he supports the Russian Imperial Historiography. This historiography was crafted for Peter I by Teofan Prokopvych. Prokopvych was first a supporter and sycophant to Hetman Mazepa and after Mazepa’s defeat at Poltava 1709, he became a sycophant and spiritual advisor to Tsar Peter I. This book is based on current knowledge and general agreement that the Russian Imperial Historiography is no longer workable, since it does not reflect today’s geopolitical reality.It is so refreshing to read an American scholar who does not transliterate from Russian. However, I question his consistency. He writes Dnipro as Dnieper. Why is Halychyna Galicia? I am puzzled why in most of the book he writes Moldavia and then near the end of the book he writes Moldova. These are quibbles, although the use of Dnieper is annoying, since historically this river is most important in Ukrainian history. Timothy Snyder in his review of this book uses the name Dnipro for this historic river!!The Spectator: The history of Ukraine — from Herodotus to Hitler by Timothy Snyderhttp://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-history-of-ukraine-from-herodotus-to-hitler/CrimeaProf. Plokhy gives the real reason for why Khrushchev in 1954 transferred Crimea to Ukraine, quote, “Despite the propagandistic effort to represent the transfer of the peninsula as a manifestation of fraternal amity between the two nations the real reasons were more prosaic. The key factor was geography. Cut off from Russia by the Kerch Strait and linked by communication lines to the Ukrainian mainland, the Crimea needed assistance from Ukraine to rebuild its economy, which not only the war and German occupation but also the expulsion of the Crimean Tartars undermined”. The second (1991) President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk in a recent interview, said the same thing about Crimea as Prof. Plokhy.We can see the logic of Khrushchev’s reasoning by the current blockade of Crimea!It should not be forgotten that before 1954 the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR) transferred to the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) its historic territories which bordered on the Smolensk, Kursk, Belgorod (Bilhorod) and Voronezh oblasts (regions). The Rostov region in 1924 was transferred to the city of Taganrog(Tahanrih). In the transferred territories the majority of the population at that time identified themselves as Ukrainian. Ukraine also transferred to Russia the region of Shakhty inDonbas and Starodub in the Chernihiv/Sivershchyna region. It resulted in the transfer to the RSFSR of land from Ukraine equal to the area of Crimea with a Ukrainian population of over 1.2 million people.Painful SubjectsThere are two painful topics covered in the book which need comment. One is the Holodomor. Prof. Plokhy prefers to use the term “Great Ukrainian Famine”! Why is the Holodomor not listed in the Index? What is the reason? The deposed President of Ukraine Yanukovych also delisted the Holodomor from his presidential web site!? The “Great Ukrainian Famine” is discussed on pages 249 to 254.The other is Ukraine’s fight for freedom during the period of 1940 to 1960, discussed on pages 245 to 305.On both subjects, it seems Prof. Plokhy’s early educational experience in the former Soviet Union have had an influence on his emotional historical world view.HolodomorOn the topic of Plokhy’s “Great Ukrainian Famine” he puts his bet on 4 million Holodomor victims, whereas Timothy Snyder puts his bet on 2.4 victims Holodomor victims.What I don’t understand, is why historians ignore Duranty’s, Stalin’s, and Khrushchev's statements on the Holodomor, as well as the confirming census figures for the Soviet Union. In 1926 there were 31,195,000 Ukrainians within the USSR and in 1939 there were 28,111,000. A decrease of 11%! In 1926 there were 77,791,000 Russians within the USSR and in 1939 there were 99,591,000 Russians. An increase of 28%!In 1934 Walter Duranty, a reporter for the New York Times, privately reported to the British embassy in Moscow that as many as 10 million people may have died, directly or indirectly, from the famine in the Soviet Union (predominantly Ukrainian ethnographic regions) in the previous year. One should know that Duranty played a major role in shielding this massive horror from the rest of the world. The terror famine in Ukraine was one of the great crimes of the 20th century.Stalin told Churchill that 10 million starved to death in Ukraine!Khrushchev in his memoirs “Khrushchev Remembers” writes, quote “…I can't give an exact figure because no one was keeping count. All we knew was that people were dying in enormous numbers. ”. Khrushchev knows the numbers. He had intimate dealings with Kaganovich, the Project Manager of the Holodomor Project; they must have discussed it over horilka and salo (vodka and fat back). Khrushchev met Lazar Kaganovich as early as 1917 and when in 1925, Kaganovich became Party head in Ukraine, Khrushchev, fell under his patronage and thereafter rose rapidly through the Party ranks. That is why having close links to Kaganovich, Khrushchev as well as Stalin had reliable Holodomor Famine figures. Kaganovich survived to the age of 97, dying in 1991.Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom (1940 to 1960)Plokhy’s attitude to Ukrainian’s fighting for Independence reminds me of the Soviet attitudes of the Great Patriotic War (WW II).Plokhy’s unfortunate statement on page 284, quote …“securing Ukrainian Independence gave way to realities of Ukrainians wearing Nazi Swastikas and putting down the liberation movements of fellow Slavs”… What he is referring to is the Ukrainian 14th Waffen SS which fought Tito’s Communists. Throughout the War this unit only fought communists!Ukrainians fought in Polish, German and Soviet uniforms. None of them fought for Poland, Germany or Russia. The Ukrainians in the American Army did fight for the United States.The Swastika that Prof. Plokhy overly emphasizes was in a small insignia, of an eagle with a small wreath in its claws, in which you can barely see a swastika! Every German Army uniform had it. It should be noted that all Soviet military formations wore a Hammer and Sickle and under the Hammer and Sickle insignia and banners the Red Army went on to literally Rape “liberated Europe”.Ukrainians had the only military formations in WW II, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), to fight both Totalitarian Empires, German and Russian. In 1970 in Argentina I spoke with a young man from Volyn in Ukraine who told me, that in 1961 he was a witness to a military action by Ukrainian Insurgents in Volyn.All the Ukrainians that I had spoken with, told me that they fought for an Independent Ukraine, and not as Plokhy implies for the Nazis. See Michael O. Logusz “Galicia Division: The Waffen-SS 14th grenadier Division 1943-1945” and {Маців Б. “ У 45 Українська Дивізія << Галичина>> Історія у світлинах від заснування у 1943 р. до звільнення з полону 1949 р.} , ISBN 978-966-1518-19-2.GorbachevThere is also no bibliography, which does not allow me to verify Prof. Plokhy’s claim that Gorbachev’s father was Russian. There is a section called “Further Reading” but it is not a bibliography.In 1991 I met and spoke with a KGB General who came from the same Kuban Cossack Village as the Horbach family. The Russian version of the surname Horbach is Gorbachev. According to him Gorbachev was Ukrainian.Tatiana Lysenko the author of "The Price of Freedom" wrote about the Gorbachevs. She responded to my request for more information, quote..." Both ethnic Ukrainians! It was told to me by the well-known Moscow writer Nina Danhulova (deceased) who personally knew Raisa and Mikhail, and came from the same area as Mikhail Gorbachev. ...Michael's grandfather Andrey Horbach was of Ukrainian origin (Kuban Cossack).... Kuban Cossacks are ethnic Ukrainians, and it (Stavropol territory) was previously Ukrainian Kuban land ... So Michael was pure ethnic Ukrainian …”.Gail Sheehy, a contributing political editor to Vanity Magazine and the author of "The Man Who Changed the World (Gorbachev's biography)", 1990. Quote..."Gorbachev's ancestors were Ukrainian Cossacks...settling in the southernmost wilds of the territory of Stavropol...”.Notwithstanding my critical observations, “The Gates of Europe” is a must read for the informed American reader.

This book is a must read for anyone interested in learning about the roots of the current Russo-Ukrainian war.The Ukraine is situated at the center of the 'Old World' and as such has been invaded over the centuries from every direction and occupied by just about everyone, including the Vikings, Persians, Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, Mongols, Huns, Austrians, Poles, French, British, Germans and most recently, the Russians. I say this to make the point that there is no single strand of DNA that identifies someone as Ukrainian and no country that can claim possession of Ukraine by playing the 'We were here first,' card. What becomes obvious when reading this book is that the people who live there should determine if they want to be independent or to become part of another country. With that in mind, here are a few passages from the book that should enlighten readers. First, in a 1991 referendum on independence,"The turnout reached 84 percent, with more than 90 percent of voters supporting independence. Western Ukraine led the way, with 99 percent in favor in the Ternopil oblast of Galicia. But the center, south, and even the east were not far behind. In Vinnytsia, in central Ukraine, 95 percent voted for independence; in Odesa, in the south, 85 percent; and in the Donetsk region, in the east, 83 percent. Even in the Crimea, more than half the voters supported independence: 57 percent in Sevastopol and 54 percent in the peninsula as a whole. (At that time, Russians constituted 66 percent of the Crimean population."In short, every oblast (state) and region, including Donetsk and the Crimea, voted in favor of independence.Second, Crimea never decided of its own accord to reunite with Russia."According to President Putin, he personally made a decision to “return” the Crimea to Russia at a meeting with his political advisers and military commanders on the night of February 22, 2014.Four days later, on the night of February 26, a band of armed men in unmarked uniforms took control of the Crimean parliament. Under their protection, Russian intelligence services engineered the installment of the leader of a pro-Russian party, which had obtained only 4 percent of the vote in the previous parliamentary elections, as the new prime minister of the Crimea. Then Russian troops, along with mercenaries and Cossack formations brought from the Russian Federation at least a week before the start of the operation, blocked Ukrainian military units at their bases with the assistance of locally recruited militias."In mid-March 2014, the citizens of the Crimea were called to polling stations to vote for reunification with Russia. The results of the Moscow-endorsed referendum were reminiscent of Brezhnev-era polls, when the turnout was reported as 99 percent and the same figure was given for the percentage of voters supporting government candidates. It was now claimed that 97 percent of voters had supported the unification of the Crimea with Russia. In Sevastopol, local officials reported a pro-Russian vote amounting to 123 percent of registered voters. The new Crimean authorities declared the total turnout to be 83 percent, but according to the Human Rights Council attached to the office of the Russian president, less than 40 percent of registered voters had taken part in the referendum."Third, in the eastern Donbas region, which has a higher percentage of ethnic Russians than elsewhere in the country, only 30 percent voted for reunification with Russia, "so Russian intelligence agencies initiated the destabilization of Ukraine from the Donbas in the spring of 2014:"Paramilitary units often trained and financed by the Russian government and close to the Kremlin oligarchs showed up in the Donbas in April 2014. By May, they had taken control of most of the region’s urban centers. The ousted [Ukrainian] President Yanukovych used his remaining political ties and substantial financial resources to help destabilize his home region. Gangs in the pay of the exiled president attacked supporters of the new government in Kyiv, while corrupt policemen helped them by supplying names and addresses of potential victims."What is the source of all of these efforts to destroy Ukrainian independence? Vladimir Putin. Before beginning his second term as president in 2012, he declared that the reintegration of post-Soviet space was one of his prime objectives and the Ukraine is the largest and most valuable former Soviet republic there is.Plokhy's book does a magnificent job of spelling out the incredible suffering these people have endured in the last century. You owe it to yourself to read it.

It's a 'careful exposition' and 'authoritative' - an exhaustive sometimes arid read. It's rigorous detailed history in such a short densely-packed space but it gives some unease about nuanced omission - so much that is not said or so much not really reflected of deep national and geopolitical significance.

As we witness history everyday, this puts Ukraine, it’s people, and it’s long history, in perspective.May peace’s and freedom prevail.

Looking at the front cover (1), I assumed that this was a book from the 1970s, but it is a recent book, first published in 2015, and at the end includes the 2014 Russia takeover of the Crimean Peninsula and the Donbas. The book is quite detailed and authoritative, the author being Professor of Ukrainian History at Harvard.I found it a complex and unfamiliar story of an ever changing area with unfamiliar names. Understanding what is going on can take several re-readings. It starts with the Scandinavians in the north, the tribal south and the Greek colonies in Crimea. Later there are links to the Byzantine Empire and conversion to the Orthodox Church. Then there is the Golden Horde, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Cossacks, the Poles, the Tatars, the Ottoman Empire, Muscovy, Russia and the Soviet Union. Now there is post-Soviet Ukraine.THE BOOK has 27 chapters divided into 5 sections (2). The chapters are short. There is a set of 10 black and white maps at the start of the book, which are very useful (3). Each map is on its own page. There are no other illustrations. The paperback is a smaller than the hardback and I found the font size of the paperback a little too small (4).LOOK INSIDE: This option displays the ten maps, the Introduction, Chapter 1 On the Edge of the World, Chapter 2 The Advent of the Slavs and part of Chapter 3 Vikings on the Dnieper.__________________________________________________________(1) The front cover is a photograph of the Palais de Justice and Panteleimon Church, Odessa about 1890/1900.(2) The Contents are:Introduction (6 pages) I On the Pontic Frontier 1. The Edge of the World 2. The Advent of the Slavs 3. Vikings on the Dnieper 4. Byzantium North 5. The Keys to Kyiv 6. Pax MongolicaUkraine is forest in the north, and steppe in the south until it reaches the Black Sea. The ancient Greeks had colonies on the Crimea and the Greek historian Herodotus mentioned the barbarian steppes to their north. These barbarians were the Scythians, later replaced by the Sarmatians. In the 5th century AD the great barbarian migration of the Goths, Huns and others passed through the Ukrainian steppes on their way to Western Europe. In the 6th century the Slavs appeared and stayed. Then came the Vikings from the north who mixed with the Slavs to form a new ruling class and later accepted Orthodox Christianity from Constantinople. Finally, the Mongols swept through from the east and became their overlords. II East Meets West 7. The Making of Ukraine 8. The Cossacks 9. Eastern Reformations 10. The Great Revolt 11. The Partitions 12. The Verdict of PoltavaThe west is Catholic Poland. The east is the emerging Orthodox Russian Empire. To the south the Byzantine Empire has been replaced by the Islamic Ottomans. The steppes are occupied by the Tatars. To the north is Lithuania and Sweden. At the start of the period Ukraine is in the Polish part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the end of the period it has moved to the east as a dependency of the Russian Empire. The Cossacks emerge as the representative of Ukraine and their power and influence waxes and wanes. At the end of the period the people are known by several names, all interchangeable and dependent on context. They are the people of the Rus’ or Ruthenia from the old Viking rulers, Little Russia a term given to them by the Russians, but they are also the people of Ukraine. III Between the Empires 13. The New Frontiers 14. The Books of the Genesis 15. The Porous Border 16. On the Move 17. The Unfinished RevolutionUkraine was split between the Russian and Austrian Empires, with the greater part in Russia. However, a national identity developed with interest in folklore, history and the Ukrainian language. Under the Austrians, literature in Ukrainian could be published. Under the Russians, Ukrainian was consider a Russia dialect and its publication was banned. Industrialisation came late to Russia and was centred in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. This area attracted many migrants, mostly Russian speakers from other parts of the Russian Empire.IV The Wars of the World 18. The Birth of a Nation 19. A Shattered Dream 20. Communism and Nationalism 21. Stalin’s Fortress 22. Hitler’s Lebensraum 23. The VictorsWorld War I led to the collapse of both the Austrian and Russian Empires. The Ukrainians took their opportunity and created a government in the east, which later incorporated the western Ukrainians in the Austria Empire, but the situation was chaotic. After the formal end of World War I fighting continued in Ukraine for several years involving the Ukrainians, Polish, White Russians and the Russian Bolsheviks. Ultimately, central and eastern Ukraine became a Soviet Republic. Western Ukraine was divided between Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. This was followed by Stalin’s famine and Hitler’s Holocaust. At the end of World War II, Ukraine was once again part of the Soviet Union.V The Road to Independence 24. The Second Soviet Republic 25. Good Bye, Lenin! 26. The Independence Square 27. The Price of FreedomAt the end of World War II Ukraine was physically devastated and mentally traumatised. In the villages there was another famine. Stalin died in 1953, to be replaced by Khrushchev. The new leader’s well-intentioned reforms did not bring the economic results expected, and he was toppled in a palace coup. His replacement, Brezhnev, played it safe and returned to the old centralised model, bringing repression and stagnation. After Brezhnev were two short-lived leaders, followed by the reformer Gorbachev. In Ukraine, the Chernobyl accident increased discontent with Moscow. The failed coup in 1991 brought the end of Gorbachev and of the Soviet Union. The Ukrainians voted for independence. In 1994 Ukraine signed a cooperation agreement with the European Union (EU), but independence brought oligarchs and corrupt politicians. This resulted in the Orange Revolution resulting in new elections and a new president. In 2013 demonstrators were on the streets again, demanding reform, the end of government corruption and closer ties with the EU. A year later Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and invaded the Donbas.Epilogue The Meanings of HistoryAcknowledgmentsHistorical TimelineWho’s Who in Ukrainian HistoryGlossaryFurther ReadingIndex(3) The Maps (10 maps, 1 per page)» The Greek Settlements 770 BC – 100 BC» Kyvian Rus’ 980 – 1054 ( source:  Historical Dictionary of Ukraine )» Rus’ Principalities ca. 1100 ( source:  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet Union )» The Golden Horde ca. 1300 ( source: Paul Robert Magocsi  A History of Ukraine: The Land and its People )» Cossack Ukraine ca. 1650 ( source: Hrushevsky,  History of Ukraine-Rus’ Vol IX )» The Hetmanate and surrounding territories in the 1750s ( source: Kohut  Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy 1760s – 1830s) )» The Partition of Poland ( source: Paul Robert Magocsi  A History of Ukraine: The Land and its People )» The Soviet Ukraine ( source:  Encyclopedia of Ukraine Vol V )» The Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(4) Both the hardcover and paperback have 432 pages. The paperback is 12.9 x 2.4 x 19.8 cm. The longest pages have 38 lines. The hardcover is 15.7 x 3.9 x 24.1 cm. Would the maps and text be easier to read using the Kindle edition? Historical Dictionary of UkraineThe Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet UnionA History of Ukraine: The Land and its People History of Ukraine-Rus’ Vol IXRussian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy 1760s – 1830s)A History of Ukraine: The Land and its PeopleEncyclopedia of Ukraine Vol V

[...]Nel breve arco di qualche settimana – il volume è uscito in libreria lo scorso dicembre – The Gates of Europe, saggio di Serhii Plokhy, docente di Storia Ucraina ad Harvard e direttore dell’Istituto di Ricerca Ucraina presso la stessa Università, che ripercorre più di mille anni di storia del Paese, è già diventato un classico dell’ucrainistica.Il libro, che ha ricevuto le lodi pubbliche sia dell’ex ambasciatore statunitense a Kyiv John Herbst sia dell’accademico inglese Andrew Wilson, professore di Studi Ucraini all’University College di Londra, è lettura imprescindibile per chi voglia approfondire alcune fondamentali questioni emerse in tutta la loro drammaticità nel recente conflitto tra Russia e Ucraina.Come sottolinea l’autore nelle pagine introduttive, le immagini del febbraio 2014 relative ai cecchini del governo Azarov che aprono il fuoco sulla folla di dimostranti in Maidan Nezalezhnosti a Kyiv uccidendo e ferendo decine di manifestanti filoeuropei, hanno scioccato il mondo e prodotto un punto di discontinuità nella storia europea degli ultimi venticinque anni le cui conseguenze sono destinate ad influenzare non solo i rapporti tra Russia e Ucraina, ma il futuro dell’Europa così come l’abbiamo conosciuta dal crollo del Muro di Berlino ad oggi.L’annessione della Crimea alla Federazione Russa del marzo 2014, la guerra ibrida in Donbas e l’abbattimento il 17 luglio 2014 nell’oblast di Donetsk da parte dei separatisti filo-russi dell’aereo della Malaysian airlines, che ha causato la morte di 298 persone, hanno trasformato la guerra russo-ucraina in un conflitto dalle dimensioni internazionali.Il ritorno a una Nuova Guerra Fredda con l’avvento di un neo-imperialismo russo, come già preconizzato da Edward Lucas nel 2007, non è dunque una provocazione intellettuale “per umiliare la Russia di Putin” come scrisse con una certa impudenza l’ex ambasciatore Sergio Romano, ma una realtà con cui occorre fare i conti.Cosa ha causato la crisi ucraina? Qual è il ruolo della storia in questi eventi recenti? Cosa differenzia gli ucraini dai russi? Chi ha diritto di governare in Crimea e nell’Ucraina orientale? Perché gli avvenimenti in Ucraina hanno forti ripercussioni internazionali?Il libro di Plokhy cerca di rispondere a questi interrogativi andando alla radice di molti degli attuali problemi, nella speranza “che la storia possa fornire chiavi di lettura per il presente e influenzare il futuro”.Passando in rassegna, in un volume di “sole” 395 pagine, più di un millennio di storia – dai tempi di Erodoto, (il primo storico a fornire le tre fondamentali direttrici geografiche dell’Ucraina, tuttora valide, da sud a nord rispettivamente costa della Crimea, cuore centrale della steppa e foreste del nord), fino alla recente guerra in Donbas – l’accademico di Harvard, da valente studioso, sceglie con cura gli eventi su cui approfondire la propria indagine.Per Plokhy, la cui narrazione compendia al suo interno l’approccio hrushevskyano (Mykhailo Hrushevsky è stato il fondatore della moderna storiografia ucraina ed è lo storico cui è intitolato l’Istituto di Ricerca di Harvard di cui Plokhy è l’attuale Direttore) e i moderni approcci transnazionali che enfatizzano il carattere multietnico dello stato ucraino, centrale è il concetto di Europa.Il libro, il cui titolo, Le porte d’Europa, è ovviamente una metafora “ma da non prendere alla leggera o da liquidare come una trovata di marketing”, mette infatti in evidenza come “l’Europa è una parte importante della storia ucraina” e al contempo “l’Ucraina è parte della storia dell’Europa”.“Situata al margine occidentale della steppa eurasiatica, l’Ucraina è stata per molti secoli porta d’ingresso per l’Europa. A volte, quando le “porte” erano chiuse a causa di guerre e conflitti, l’Ucraina ha contribuito a fermare le invasioni straniere da est e da ovest; quando erano aperte, come è avvenuto per la maggior parte della storia dell’Ucraina, è servita come ponte tra l’Europa e l’Eurasia, facilitando lo scambio di persone, beni e idee.”Altrettanto importante, accanto a quella di “europeità”, ai fini dell’analisi storica, è la categoria di nazione.“Nazione è un’importante – sebbene non dominante – categoria di analisi ed elemento della storia che, insieme con l’idea d’Europa in continua evoluzione, definisce la natura di questo lavoro. Questo libro racconta la storia dell’Ucraina entro i confini definiti dagli etnografi e dai cartografi della fine del XIX e l’inizio del XX secolo, che spesso (ma non sempre) coincidono con le frontiere dello Stato Ucraino attuale”.Il saggio di Plokhy nel definire il suo campo d’indagine fa proprie le coordinate geografiche dello storico greco Erodoto sopra ricordate e, pur nella consapevolezza che “la politica internazionale e nazionale forniscono una trama convincente”, considera la geografia, l’ecologia e la cultura i tre fattori fondamentali per leggere gli avvenimenti storici del Paese.“L’Ucraina contemporanea, considerata dal punto di vista delle tendenze culturali di lungo periodo, è un prodotto dell’interazione di due frontiere in movimento, una delimitata dalla linea tra le steppe eurasiatiche e i parchi dell’Europa orientale, l’altra definita dalla frontiera tra Cristianesimo orientale e occidentale. La prima frontiera era anche quella tra popolazioni sedentarie e nomadi e, alla fine, tra Cristianesimo e Islam. La seconda risale alla divisione dell’impero romano tra Roma e Costantinopoli e segna le differenze di cultura politica tra Europa orientale e occidentale che esistono ancora oggi”.A detta dell’accademico statunitense l’identità dell’Ucraina attuale deriva “dal movimento di queste frontiere nel corso dei secoli”. Tale movimento “ha dato origine a un insieme unico di caratteristiche culturali che costituiscono le fondamenta dell’identità ucraina odierna”.Questi dunque gli assunti teorici di un lavoro di grande portata il cui maggior pregio, oltre alla chiarezza e alla brillantezza della prosa, è quello di riuscire ad individuare nella millenaria storia dell’Ucraina alcuni passaggi chiave che ancora oggi influenzano con la loro eredità politico-culturale le vicende del Paese.Di grande interesse le pagine relative all’Ucraina cosacca – Plokhy è un esperto di storia cosacca (The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine; Tsars and Cossacks: A Study in Iconography; The Cossack Myth History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires)– e quelle dedicate al complesso rapporto tra élite ucraine e russe ai tempi dell’Unione Sovietica.Entrambi i campi d’indagine, sia quello dell’eredità cosacca – le centurie presenti sul Maidan di Kyiv sono espressione di talelegacy storica – sia quello della dialettica di potere tra russi e ucraini nella defunta URSS – cui si deve tra le altre cose la nascita dei clan di Dnipropetrovsk e di Donetsk, che tanto peso hanno avuto nella storia dell’Ucraina indipendente – risultano illuminanti per comprendere molti dei problemi attuali.

A great book about the history of Ukraine, written before 2022, useful to dispel certain propaganda. Recommended.

The historiography of Russia and to some extent Poland are extensive, reflecting the crucial historical and political dominance of the first and the important role of the second country in European affairs. Ukraine by comparison, the second largest European country after Russia, seems to be the voiceless orphan, suffering from the Historians’ neglect, often denied historical definition or wrongly assimilated to its big Russian neighbour. It’s history is complex and like many of its Eastern European neighbours tragic, particularly during the last century and the present one. Even its name as a polity was transformed over the centuries from Kievan Rus to Cossack Hetmanate, from little Russia or Ruthenia to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Ukrainians were described as Ruthenians, or little Russians. It took the recent brutal conflict to propel the Ukraine into our conscience and to focus our minds on the profound chasm separating it from its Russian neighbour.The complexity of its history arises from its geographical location at the gates of Europe, its partition and absorption by different Empires. It was crossed and occupied by many invaders from the East; the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Huns, the Khazars , the Pechenegs, the Mongols hordes and the Tartar tribes, but also from the North with the Vikings ( Varingians) who established the first dynasty of Kievan Rus, until their state was destroyed by the Golden Horde in 1240. Its proximity to the Black Sea exposed its lands first to the small Greek settlements, then to the Byzantine Greek cultural influence who converted its inhabitants to Orthodox Christianity, followed by the Ottomans who attempted to subjugate them into vassalage. Its historical Destiny since the 14th Century, was bound to the large Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but never accepted as a third equal member. As a result its small scattered urban population and elites were exposed to the Catholic and Westernising influences brought from Poland. The creation of a separate minority Greek Catholic Church, divided from mainstream Greek Orthodox Church, intensified religious antagonism and cultural polarisation in theses lands, divided geographically by the great Dnieper river. The Polish Lithuanian landowner nobility supported by a more advanced urbanised Polish society exploited its Orthodox peasantry. This culminated in a number of rebellions spearheaded by a free martial peasantry, the Cossacks. Living along the Dnieper river, and jealous of their rights and privileges , they launched numerous rebellions against the Poles, often allied but also betrayed by the Tartars of the Crimean Khanate. Eventually an autonomous Cossack Hetmanate (1649-1764) was founded. It was ruled by Khmelnytsky and his heirs, but fell under the tutelage of the newly formed Russian Czardom, the rulers of the Muscovy principality. It was an unfortunate compromise to safeguard the autonomy of its Orthodox peasant communities and guard against the interference of the Polish Lithuanians and the Ottomans. The tragic aspects of this historical journey are rooted in the subjugation and partition of what became Ukraine between successive Empires; the Mongol, the Polish-Lithuanian, the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian and the Soviet. Treated as a vassal or a colony to be exploited; its linguistic and cultural identity denigrated. Alternatively as a junior member of a larger entity in Tsarist Russia and its successor the Soviet Union, patronised and dominated by a ruling elite from the larger nation. Its lands throughout the 20th Century were exposed to extensive devastation and destruction, first during the First World War, followed by the bloody Civil war after the Bolshevik Revolution , then the Russian Polish wars of 1920’s. But the greatest tragedy inflicted on its population happened during the Stalinist brutal collectivisation of agriculture and the requisitioning of grain in the mid 1930’s leading to the genocidal famine that killed millions, the so called ”Holodomor”. More atrocities were perpetrated during the German Nazi invasion and occupation. Followed by further famines after the war due to mismanagement of agriculture during Khrushchev.The final chapters shed light on the events that led to the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the independence of the Ukraine and its people’s struggle as they grappled with the newly found democracy, and the encroachments of Putin’s Russia, bent on reviving the Tsarist Empire.The author shows unusual historical objectivity and scholarly authority, yet his narrative is passionate without emotionalism, even as he describes the recent tragic events of his country. It was written just before the Russian invasion. An important book to explain the present.

For a long time it was difficult to find an introductory/overview history of Ukraine as such. With this and other books, the topic comes out of the shadows. Comprehensive and accessible, from earliest times to the near present. Plokhy writes in an easyidiom, almost as he might speak, with occasional wit to keep you engaged. I imagine him as a friendly professor with interested and attentive students. My interest arose out of wanting to know more about the country that fills the headlines for sure, but more importantly realising from other reading why the 'gates of Europe' have mattered in differing epochs.