The development of separate Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities/ethnicities

[Eivind]

This has been discussed earlier, but as this was back in 2013, I guess it is against the rules to continue that thread, so I start a new one instead. Why did Ukraine and Belarus develop separate ethnicities? I would assume that there would be a dialect continuum rather than a clear cut dividing lines between the dialects of East Slavic. IIRC, there was a separate country for some time controlled by the cossacks in the area of Ukraine, and a large part of what is now Ukraine was for much of its history part of Poland (not just the areas taken from Poland after WW2, but also areas conquered by Russia after 1700). Still, as the war in East Ukraine shows, parts of Ukraine seems to be more pro-Moscow than pro-Kiev. IIRC, also many in southern parts of Ukraine are pro-Moscow. About Belarus, I am not aware of any Belarusian country before Belarus became a separate Soviet republic, although the area was part of Lithuania before Lithuania merged with Poland. This was, however, the case also for much of Ukraine, so it does not explain why Belarus is separate from Ukraine. Maybe even more than Ukraine, it seems like many people in Belarus have sympathies with Moscow. So, what was the reason that the Soviet Union decided to make them separate republics?

 

[Otto Kretschmer]

Belarus is a concoction of Lenin. Ukrainian national identity has a significant probability of not developing without state support from Austria

 

[N7Buck]

Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian are more sub-ethnicities of the East Slavic ethnicity, rather than their own. So a Ukrainian is equivalent to a Bavarian or Prussian, whereas East Slavic is equivalent to a German.

 

[Intosh]

Belarus is a concoction of Lenin. Ukrainian national identity has a significant probability of not developing without state support from Austria

Even at the height of the PLC, Polish and Ruthenian were separated "cultures", separated not only by the religion (and also the written form of the language) but also by history. Poles being descendants from the Piast kingdom and Ruthenian being descendants from the Rurik principalities...

Ruthenian could be more "polonized" if Polish state continue to exist after 1795 but still religion will separated Latin-Catholic Poles and Greek-Catholic Ruthenians...

 

[Analytical Engine]

Belarus is a concoction of Lenin. Ukrainian national identity has a significant probability of not developing without state support from Austria

That very much depends on your definition of Belarusian.

Partially, it was a reaction against Tsarist Russification policies during the 19th century. The Russians wouldn't have tried to stamp it out if it didn't already exist.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian are more sub-ethnicities of the East Slavic ethnicity, rather than their own. So a Ukrainian is equivalent to a Bavarian or Prussian.

I can't help but feel like you've pissed off a lot of people with that statement.

To develop upon this point further, "ethnicity" and "nationality" are identity concepts that can be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in most circumstances. Does a group of people only become an ethnicity when they have a state or autonomous state? What's the precise treshold that has to be crossed in order for a "dialect" to be considered a "language"?
In general, one might say that Ukrainians and Bielorussians are separate ethnicities from the Russians due to the fact that they each have separate nation-states claiming to represent them in which most of them are concentrated. And yet, there is a subtle level of artificiality to the Ukrainian and Bielorussian identities that makes it difficult for one to imagine their existence before the collapse of the Russian Empire in the 1910's.
There are cultural and linguistic cues that both approximate and distinguish these East Slavic peoples from each other, yes, but in general, i would say that nationality is often defined more by politics than anything; if too few people in Ukraine were to believe themselves to be Ukrainians, then the country would not exist and the government in Kiev would be merely a circle of delusional men. Same with Russia.
And the same here applies to, say, the US-UK distinction and that between the many countries of Latin America.

 

[N7Buck]

I can't help but feel like you've pissed off a lot of people with that statement.

To develop upon this point further, "ethnicity" and "nationality" are identity concepts that can be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in most circumstances. Does a group of people only become an ethnicity when they have a state or autonomous state?
In general, one might say that Ukrainians and Bielorussians are separate ethnicities from the Russians due to the fact that they each have separate nation-states claiming to represent them in which most of them are concentrated. And yet, there is a certain level of artificiality to the Ukrainian and Bielorussian identities that makes it difficult for one to imagine their existence before the collapse of the Russian Empire in the 1910's. There are cultural and linguistic cues that both approximate and distinguish these East Slavic peoples from each other, but in general, i would say that nationality is often defined more by politics than anything; if too few people in Ukraine were to believe themselves to be Ukrainians, then the country would not exist and the government in Kiev would be merely a circle of delusional men. The same here applies to, say, the US-UK distinction and those between the many countries of Latin America.

Well it is important to distinguish national and ethnic identities.

In terms of ethnic identity from what I have read, there is 3 layers.
Pan-Ethnic, such as Pan-Slavic espoused by the Russian Empire, or Pan-Celtic nationalism, espoused in the British Isles. There was Pan-Germanicism and Mediterranean Nationalism.
Ethnic, such as German, South Slavic (YugoSlavia)or Dutch.
Sub-Ethnic level, such as Frisians, Flemish, Austrians, Ukrainians, Serbians.

That is my understanding of ethnic dynamics.

As for people believing in a identity, well that is constant, Ukrainians saw themselves as a distinct people before indpendence, it's just that they were content under Imperial Russian rule. Or Austrians subjugating their Austrian identity and elavating their German identity.

As national identity is state based, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian are historic, strong identities.

Also Prussian was a very distinct (independent) state at one point, so I fail to see how Ukrainian or Belarusian isn't equivalent to Prussian identity.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Belarusian nationalism was much weaker than Ukrainian nationalism, perhaps because Belarusians lacked analouge to Galizia and their entire territory was ruled by Russian Empire.

Due to that weak nationalism Belarusians left on Polish side of the border after 1945 were easily assimilated and their descendants are Eastern Orthodox Poles with East Slavic surnames, while much less numerous Lithuanian miniority survived to this day in northeastern Poland in better shape (add the fact, that Lithuanians are largely Roman Catholic, like Poles, and it should make assimilation easier).

 

[GauchoBadger]

Well it is important to distinguish national and ethnic identities.

In terms of ethnic identity from what I have read, there is 3 layers. Pan-Ethnic, such as Pan-Slavic espoused by the Russian Empire, or Pan-Celtic nationalism, espoused in the British Isles.
And then there is mid level of ethnicty, such as German, South Slavic (YugoSlavia)or Dutch.
And then there is the sub-ethnic level, such as Frisians, Hollanders, Austrians, Ukrainians, Serbians.

That is my understanding of ethnic dynamics.

As for people believing in a identity, well that is natural, Ukrainians saw themselves as a distinct people before indpendence, it's just that they were content under Imperial Russian rule. Or Austrians subjugating their Austrian identity and elavating their German identity.

As national identity is state based, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian are historic, strong identities.

I feel like you've mostly stated the point well based on what you were trying to explain there, but there is also another factor that can sometimes define nationality as well as superficial aspects such as faith and language: economics. Larger countries tend to have separatist disputes due to their size: as they expand, they come to control areas that were previously not well connected to the "heartland" in a more than superficial way (Xinjiang, Tibet, India's northeastern territories, etc.). Geographically diverse, smaller countries (Turkey, Georgia, Ethiopia, Myanmar) tend to have this problem as well. Up to this day, most separatist movements use economic grievances such as taxation, trade and development as the strongest rallying points to their cause, which can be used as a measurement to explain why, for example, Scottish separatism is much stronger than Texan separatism can ever hope to be despite the fact that both regions were independent at some point in their history.
A similar economic incentive or pressure might have been there to cause Ukraine and Belarus to develop separately from the Russian heartland in time.

 

[N7Buck]

I feel like you've mostly stated the point well based on what you were trying to explain there, but there is also another factor that can sometimes define nationality as well as superficial aspects such as faith and language: economics. Larger countries tend to have separatist disputes due to their size: as they expand, they come to control areas that were previously not well connected to the "heartland" in a more than superficial way (Xinjiang, Tibet, India's northeastern territories, etc.). Up to this day, most separatist movements use economic grievances such as taxation, trade and development as the strongest rallying points to their cause, which can be used as a measurement to explain why, for example, Scottish separatism is much stronger than Texan separatism can ever hope to be be despite the fact that both regions were independent at some point in their history.
A similar economic incentive or pressure might have been there to cause Ukraine and Belarus to develop separately from the Russian heartland in time.

I would say identities are always existent regardless of whether a people are independent or integrated. For example, Scots had the Scottish Unionist Party for a long time, it was pro-British, but also pro-Scottish at the same time, so they maintained dual identities, one based on their scottish ethnicity and another based on their British ethnic/civic identity.

So sepratism isn't neccesarily based on ethnic grounds, but rather political considerations. If the Germany economy was wreck, whereas the Bavarian economy was maintained, you would see Bavarians supporting independence despite their Germaness.

Regionalism is also not necissarily an ethnic dynamic, such as Russian Siberia, they could be just as ethnically Russian as those in European Russia, but because of their geography support independence.

Instead of Xinjiang or Tibet, an example of Han sepratism would be Taiwan. it is based on regionalism and politics.

New World states tend to be a mix of regionalism and ethnic identity. For example the difference between an Anglo American-Anglo Canadian, Anglo Australian-Anglo New Zealander and Anglo Southerner-Anglo Northerner is purely regionalism.

@Eivind

Why did Ukraine and Belarus develop separate ethnicities?

They were always east-slavic sub-ethnicities, it's just due to political factors, such as the Great War and Communism that they no longer wanted to remain within the same state/polity.

 

[Eivind]

In general, one might say that Ukrainians and Bielorussians are separate ethnicities from the Russians due to the fact that they each have separate nation-states claiming to represent them in which most of them are concentrated. And yet, there is a subtle level of artificiality to the Ukrainian and Bielorussian identities that makes it difficult for one to imagine their existence before the collapse of the Russian Empire in the 1910's.

But the reason why they today are separate nation states is that the Soviet regime decided that they should be separate republics, and when the Soviet Union ended, Belarus and Ukraine suddenly became independent. But that does not explain why the Soviet Union decided that they should be separate republics. Part of Ukraine was for some time independent before the Russian conquest, but it is more difficult to explain why Belarus is separate from Russia and Ukraine.

 

[Otto Kretschmer]

But the reason why they today are separate nation states is that the Soviet regime decided that they should be separate republics, and when the Soviet Union ended, Belarus and Ukraine suddenly became independent. But that does not explain why the Soviet Union decided that they should be separate republics. Part of Ukraine was for some time independent before the Russian conquest, but it is more difficult to explain why Belarus is separate from Russia and Ukraine.

This had to do with Lenin's belief that Russian Empire frll because ethnic minorities felt discriminated against and there have to be ethnic republics to balance the Greater Russians. The issue could have been solved differently

It's IMO ironic how Ukrainian nationalists hate the USSR since without it Ukraine either would not exist or would be half it's current size

 

[Eivind]

This had to do with Lenin's belief that Russian Empire frll because ethnic minorities felt discriminated against and there have to be ethnic republics to balance the Greater Russians. The issue could have been solved differently

But that does not really explain why he considered Belarus a separate ethnicity and why he drew the borders between the three East Slavic republics where he did. Why was Belarus considered separate from Ukraine? Both had historically been part of Poland. And why just three East Slavic ethnicities? Why not more? Russia is huge compared to tiny Belarus.

 

[cloistered scholar]

This had to do with Lenin's belief that Russian Empire frll because ethnic minorities felt discriminated against and there have to be ethnic republics to balance the Greater Russians. The issue could have been solved differently

It's IMO ironic how Ukrainian nationalists hate the USSR since without it Ukraine either would not exist or would be half it's current size

Thanks to Putin, they are half their former size.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Thanks to Putin, they are half their former size.

That's something of an exaggeration. The Crimea and the area controlled by pro-Russian rebels (with totally-volunteers-guys) is more like a fifth to a quarter of Ukraine's territory.

 

[cloistered scholar]

That's something of an exaggeration. The Crimea and the area controlled by pro-Russian rebels (with totally-volunteers-guys) is more like a fifth to a quarter of Ukraine's territory.

I stand corrected, thought the war was more widespread, ie up to the Dnieper.

 

[David T]

I had a post about having the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian serving as the basis for a "West Rus" state:

***

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-than-russia-and-poland.481852/#post-20077679

Lithuania! Now you will object that Lithuania s a Baltic, not Slavic nation. I reply: that is true today, but the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century had more East Slavs (what would today be called Ukrainians and Belarusians) than it did ethnic Lithuanians and most of its territory was in what is now Ukraine or Belarus (or parts of Russia that have been claimed by Belarusian nationalists):

Moreover, the formal name of the state was the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia." And the "Rus" language was the official language of the Grand Duchy--the Statutes of Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Lithuania for example being written in it--until Polonization led to it being superseded by Polish and Latin.

Of course for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to survive, it has to resist being absorbed by either Poland or the Grand Duchy of Moscow. But if it somehow manages to do so, there could be two East Slavic states--to use their Latin names, we could call the western one Ruthenia and the eastern one Muscovy.

There are even alternative ways to get a Ruthenian or West Rus' or Ukrainian-Belorussian state created. For example as a Swedish vassal state if the Swedes had won the Great Northern War. Or there was Oginksi's project to get the Tsar to restore (a mostly Belarusian and Ukrainian) Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which I discuss at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...reestablishes-lithuania.479966/#post-19907587

***

To that post I would add Andrew Wilson's observations in *The Ukrainains: Unexpected Nation*, pp. 46-47:

 

[Analytical Engine]

I stand corrected, thought the war was more widespread, ie up to the Dnieper.

Actually, I grossly overestimated.

It looks more like this. It's about 7% of Ukraine's total area, or about one fourteenth.

There are protests in across the south of the Ukraine.

 

[Aghasverov]

But that does not really explain why he considered Belarus a separate ethnicity and why he drew the borders between the three East Slavic republics where he did. Why was Belarus considered separate from Ukraine? Both had historically been part of Poland. And why just three East Slavic ethnicities? Why not more? Russia is huge compared to tiny Belarus.

The distinction existed well before Lenin. In the Empire-wide Census of 1897, "Great Russians", "White Russians", and "Little Russians" were counted separately, as speakers of distinct "mother tongues", and you find that in the earlier tax censuses going all the way back to the Polish Partitions as well.
As far as the Belarus/Ukraine divide, well, there's a big strip of sparsely-populated marshland running along the Pripet which divided the two populations. In 1569, by which time dialectical differences already existed, when the real union of Poland and Lithuania happened, the Grand Duchy retained (roughly) the lands north of the marshes, while the Kingdom (Poland) took the "wild fields" to the south. In the Lithuanian part, the Ruthenian population (and language) was under strong Polish and "Polonized Lithuanian" influence, while in the southern part under the Polish crown, it was a chaotic mess... a chronic battlefield between the Poles, the Turks, the Crimean Tatars, the remains of the steppe hordes, and expanding Muscovy. This was where the Cossack culture emerged. The interplay of all those factors made Ukrainian or "Little Russian" more distinctive.

 

[Socrates]

But that does not really explain why he considered Belarus a separate ethnicity and why he drew the borders between the three East Slavic republics where he did. Why was Belarus considered separate from Ukraine? Both had historically been part of Poland. And why just three East Slavic ethnicities? Why not more? Russia is huge compared to tiny Belarus.

Belarus was in the Lithuanian part and Ukraine was in the Polish part.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29_compared_with_today%27s_borders_%28ENG%29.png