“Ukraine is not a real country,” claims Vladimir Putin. “It is,” he has repeatedly stated, “an artificial creation” that is historically and culturally part of Russia.
If you go back far enough—the 9th century—he has a point. Kyiv was the cradle of what became the Russian Orthodox Church which for centuries defined Russian nationalism.
But since the mid-13th century, borders, allegiances and political alignments have been constantly shifting.
It started with the Mongol invasion which led to the heirs of Genghis Khan ruling the Principality of Moscow until the 15th century. Most of Ukraine became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which lasted until a Cossack rebellion in 1648.
The 1648 rebellion established the Cossack Hetmanate which lasted a little over a century and is viewed as the foundational state by Ukrainians. The Hetmanate rejected the feudal system of Poland and the authoritarianism of Russia. The leadership was not hereditary, but was elected by a warrior class on the basis of merit.
Initially the Hetmanate’s main enemy was Poland. It was the era of religious wars and the Cossacks were Orthodox Christians. So they turned to their co-religionists in Moscow for protection. Big mistake. Russia gradually increased their control over Ukraine and in 1764 Catherine the Great simply abolished the Hetmanate and imposed direct imperial rule.
From that point on Ukraine’s history was a story of Russian domination with the occasional burst of independence. The biggest came with the collapse of the Tsar in 1917. The problem, however, was that the Ukrainians themselves were divided. The Bolsheviks quickly crushed the half dozen independent Ukrainian states that sprang up.
Ukraine then became a nominally independent country within the Soviet Union. In reality it was part and parcel part of the USSR and it suffered more than any other part of the Soviet Union under Soviet rule. Two million-plus Ukrainians were arrested and deported to either Siberia or Kazakhstan. Up to 7 million died in the Holodomyr famine of 1932-33 caused by Stalin’s forced collectivisation. The Ukrainian language, culture and customs were suppressed and an estimated one million ethnic Russians were moved into Ukraine in an attempt to dilute the Ukrainian identity.
Not surprisingly, many Ukrainians initially welcomed the invading Germans as liberators. Many Ukrainians joined the German army; not because they were pro-Nazi but because they were anti-communist and anti-Russian. The resistance to Soviet rule continued until 1954 and led to a fresh wave of deportations in the postwar years.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine was quick to declare itself independent. And the move had overwhelming support. A referendum on December 1, 1991 revealed that 90 percent of the population favoured independence. This figure could only have been achieved if a large proportion of ethnic Russians had voted to split with Moscow.
There were, of course, transitional problems. The biggest being the troubled history of Ukraine-Russian relations which left the Ukrainians uneasy about future Russian intentions. Fortunately, the Soviets left behind a large portion of their nuclear arsenal. Ukraine was—in 1991—the world’s third largest nuclear power. It decided to exchange its nuclear weapons for the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia, Britain and the US agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and the integrity of its borders. Then in 1997, Moscow and Kyiv signed a Treaty of Friendship in which Russia again guaranteed Ukraine’s borders with a special mention for Crimea.
2000 saw the accession of Vladimir Putin and post-Soviet frictions began. The two sides couldn’t agree on the division of the Black Sea fleet or the status of Crimea’s strategic port of Sevastopol. Ukraine became heavily dependent on Russian gas and Putin started to use that dependence to extract political concessions. In response, the Ukrainians start to move closer to the West. They applied to join the EU and NATO.
2004 brought the Orange Revolution. Following a rigged presidential election favouring pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, mass protests led to a revote and the victory of pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko. This alarmed the Kremlin. In 2006 and 2009 Russia cut gas supplies. As the pipeline that crosses Ukraine also feeds Western Europe, the move disrupted energy supplies across the continent.
There was a temporary thaw from 2010 to 2013 after pro-Russian Yanukovych returned to power. But tensions re-emerges when Ukraine prepared to sign an EU Association Agreement in 2013. In November 2013 Yanukovych abruptly rejected the EU deal under Russian pressure. Massive protests (Euromaidan) erupted. Yanukovych attempted a crackdown. It failed and he fled to Moscow.
In March 2014 Russia invaded and annexed Crimea following a disputed referendum. The following month Russian-backed separatists seizes parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine and war starts in the Donbas region. Ukraine dates the start of the war from 2014.
There were attempts to broker a peace deal in 2014 and 2015. These were called the Minsk Agreements. They both failed and the fighting continued in the Donbas region with the West supplying Ukraine with weapons. Ukraine cut economic, political and cultural ties with Russia.
On April 21, 2019, TV comic Volodomyr Zelensky won the Ukrainian presidential election on a pledge to end corruption and negotiate a peace deal with the Russians. A few months later the new president met with Putin in Paris and agreed a prisoner exchange, ceasefire and a renewed commitment to the Minsk Agreements. The prisoner exchange went ahead. The ceasefire quickly broke down and Putin continued to ignore the Minsk Agreements.
In the autumn of 2021, Russia started building up its forces along the border with Ukraine. The West warned Putin against invasion. The Russian leader denied that he had any such plans. Then on February 24, 2022, Russia launched its “special military operation”—also known as the invasion of Ukraine.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
20 Comments
“The ceasefire quickly broke down and Putin continued to ignore the Minsk Agreements.”
Sorry, this is the Ukrainian interpretation of events but it disputed. As you will know, the Minsk 2 agreement promised the return to Ukraine of all the state borders under the control of pro-Russian forces (point 9 of the agreement) but explicitly stated that this would only happen once point 11 of the agreement had been completed – the passing of constitutional changes to decentralise Ukraine and provide more autonomy to the Donbas. The Ukrainian government refused to act on this requirement and Chancellor Merkel of Germany admitted in 2022 that the Ukrainian government had no intention of implementing Minsk2 but just signed it to provide time to build up their military strength.
So rather than ‘Putin continuing to ignore the Minsk Agreements’, what we had was Ukraine refusing to implement what they agreed. Still doesn’t justify this horrible war, but may be more historically accurate.
Elections in these areas would never have been free or fair. Victory would have gone to those who sought the destruction of Ukraine and restoration of a puppet government answering to Putin So you can hardly blame them for wanting to survive.
@Tim Rogers
I agree…but that does not mean we should suggest that Putin was responsible for the Minsk agreements not being implemented, when it was – as you suggest – the Ukrainians.
Might the continuation of the overt conflict between Ukraine and Russia be a consequence of complex, insufficiently openly discussed factors?
1) It is, in reality, not a bilateral conflict but a multiparty war involving the U. S. A. and Europe?
2) Its start was not in 2022, as we are encouraged to believe, but in 2014 when the U. S. A. and Europe supported a putsch against an elected government.
3) The promise of 1989-1991 made by President G. H. W, Bush etc. that N.A.T.O. would not extend an inch eastwards broken in 2008 by the invitation to Ukraine and Georgia to join that alliance
4) Failure to implement Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements
5) The future of Russian speakers in the Donbass
6) The lack of reliability of national leaders to be “Treaty/Agreement Reliable”
7) A lack of objectivity/impartiality in the reporting of this avoidable conflict by the main stream media
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/08/14/ukraine-pax-optima-rerum/
@Steve Trevethan.
1) No.
2) Yes, the war arguably started in 2014, but you appear to have events mixed up: It started when Russia first (somewhat furtively) invaded Ukraine, annexing Crimea
3) Irrelevant. Even if George HW Bush did make the promise you claim (which is at the very least disputed), that is not an excuse for Russia to invade a sovereign nation. Besides, we didn’t force any countries to join NATO: They freely chose to join, in large part because they were worried about the risk of invasion from … you guessed it… Russia!
4. No. Maybe you’ve got your dates mixed up? Russia had already invade Ukraine (albeit furtively, not the open invasion of 2022) at the time of the Minsk agreements.
5. Yes, there probably have been issues there, but are you really arguing that it’s OK to invade another country, bomb and rape civilians etc. just because it’s possible that a group in that country might be discriminated against? Seriously?
6. Well yes, if you are referring to the rather obvious unreliability of Putin. That is who you are referring to, right?
6.No. The only lack of impartiality here appears to be in whatever nonsense you apparently use to get your information from.
Perhaps, Steve, the question you should be answering is, why are you so keen to defend the awful, illiberal, regime of Vladimir Putin?
Part 1
1) It is, in reality, not a bilateral conflict but a multiparty war involving the U. S. A. and Europe?
And China, Belarus and Iran on the other side. Or are we just counting Western parties to bolster the Russian narrative?
2) Its start was not in 2022, as we are encouraged to believe, but in 2014 when the U. S. A. and Europe supported a putsch against an elected government.
An elected government that was shooting and beating it’s own people. It is insulting, inaccurate and literal parroting of Russian propaganda to call it a “Putsch”, especially so since it echoes Hitler’s Putsch in Munich and the Russian Government constantly likes to portray any Ukrainian not on their side as Fascist.
Part 2
3) The promise of 1989-1991 made by President G. H. W, Bush etc. that N.A.T.O. would not extend an inch eastwards broken in 2008 by the invitation to Ukraine and Georgia to join that alliance
It was allegedly made by US Secretary of State James Baker. It was also not his promise to make. A verbal promise is deniable, treaty obligations are binding. The wavering of the Budapest Memorandum is less explainable. The UN Charter enshrines the right of all states to determine their own foreign policy independently. Many people speak of the eastward expansion of NATO being a failure of Western diplomacy. Yet the same people refuse to acknowledge that those countries had a right to seek security guarantees, when their recent histories were mutilated by Russian expansionism. They also do not consider whether it was more of a failure of Russian diplomacy, since arguably a more considered approach could have assuaged fears. Instead security forces directed from Moscow were called upon to help stifle Lithuanian independence.
4) Failure to implement Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements
The Agreements would have never have been necessary if rogue Russian paramilitary units hadn’t crossed the border to occupy the Donbass territories. The Russian Government subsequently backed up these units.
Part 3
4) Failure to implement Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements
The Agreements would have never have been necessary if rogue Russian paramilitary units hadn’t crossed the border to occupy the Donbass territories. The Russian Government subsequently backed up these units.
5) The future of Russian speakers in the Donbass
Zelenskyy is a Russian speaker, so I doubt this is the sticking point it is made out to be.
6) The lack of reliability of national leaders to be “Treaty/Agreement Reliable”
On the Russian side quite obviously.
7) A lack of objectivity/impartiality in the reporting of this avoidable conflict by the main stream media
Judging by the tone of the above, it seems your objection is more about those media outlets not supporting your biases.
As Tom writes: ‘In the autumn of 2021, Russia started building up its forces along the border with Ukraine. Then on February 24, 2022, Russia launched its “special military operation”’ Why?
12 July 2021 Putin published: ‘On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainiians’
28 June 2021 Hansard reported Loss of Secret Documents. Mark Logan MP said:
‘The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Ukraine, highlighted by the recent trilateral agreement signed on board HMS Defender, but maintaining the highest levels of information security is critical’
What was in the secret agreement signed on HMS Defender? Building a naval base in the Sea of Azov.
“What was in the secret agreement signed on HMS Defender? Building a naval base in the Sea of Azov.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57624942
I can see no evidence of this.
Is there anyone on here who WONT peddle Kremlin propaganda to support their arguments?
“Z” for Zachary who supports the Russian position.
Every peoples should have the right to self determination, no matter what the size of the state, community, nation.
There has been a long association between the Ukraine and Russia, not least when it was part of the USSR. However, that does not mean that Russia has any rights of colonising the Ukraine nor the Baltic states.
The only solution will be that Polish west Ukraine must be independent from Russia and the remaining Donbass region, which has a large Russian based population (but not necessarily pro-Moscow) should be separated to decide themselves whether it wants to be independent or part of Russia or part of the UKraine. It may not necessarily be controlled by any outside power.
How this is handled by the world is important because there are many places in the world where there are similar political, cultural and economic events that can develop into situations that can become just as serious if we don’t consider/attend to them soon.
Part 2:
Having lived in Wales for the last 10 years, I have realised that Wales (or Cymru) is a country with its own culture separate from England and this is becoming even more defined both economically, socially and politically. Wales even has its own language Cymraeg. Wales is moving towards wanting its own wealth, power, economy and be responsible for its own destiny. It is a new European country in the making.
Yet, its own neighbour to the east, the UK government still wants to run Wales as its colony and denied Wales control of its own lands and coast (with the control of the UK crown estates).
The Celtic Sea is important to the Welsh economy for its wind energy program and for the Wales as a nation. Wales is even denied the ability to set and collect all its own taxation as most taxation is demanded to be paid to the UK’s HMRC.
The majority of Welsh people support Ukraine’s struggle for independence as they can see that they could unfortunately be in the same situation with their neighbour to the east if progress is not achieved.
The Liberal Democrats should always oppose imperialism.
Independence nations never need to exist in isolation;
An independent England, Scotland and Wales can all be part of a greater Europe as full members of the European Union and that will be provide all nations with a better relationship than we have today.
I wonder you only go as far back as the 9th Century. Some folk think it legitimate to “justify” their quarrels by digging even further back e.g. various claims in the Middle East. It is thought that Kyievan Rus was founded by red-blond-haired “viking” traders coming down the river systems from the Baltic in the 7th (?) Century. Could Norway or Sweden stake a better claim than Mr Putin?
There’s a Swedish/Viking element in Ukraine’s history; many accounts have Kyiv as founded by the Vikings. The Swedish empire briefly included parts of Ukraine in the 17th century, until their defeat in southern Ukraine at Poltava. I recall a story that in 1992 a Swedish delegation were greeted in Kyiv as ‘rebuilding historic links’ – which most of the delegation were entirely unaware of…
Sadly it’s not the Dictator Putin that is stringing us all along, it is the wannabe ruler of the USA
Full of promises that he never keeps. Why we believe a word he says I am not sure. Europe needs to face it, Trump cannot be relied upon on anything at all. We have to rearm rapidly and prepare for trouble.
The Economist in 2016 wrote:
“Minsk II offers a detailed roadmap for resolving the conflict. Ukraine promises to implement constitutional changes to provide for “decentralisation”; in exchange, all “foreign armed formations” will be withdrawn and Ukraine will regain control of its state borders. But the agreement is riddled with loose language and the sequencing of many steps is highly convoluted.
In public, officials declare that there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements. But in private, few see any chance for its full implementation. Ukraine and the West insist on a full ceasefire before moving forward with the political elements of the deal. Russia, in turn, accuses Ukraine of failing to fulfill its political promises. Domestically Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, faces staunch resistance to an agreement that grants Moscow most of what it wanted, saddling Kiev with responsibility for the separatist territories while giving them enough autonomy to hinder Ukraine’s Western integration. Working group meetings continue in Minsk, but they are a fig leaf for real progress. Although the worst of the violence has abated, skirmishes along the line of contact continue. Yet the simmering status quo is not peace, and thus no guarantee that there will not be more war.”
Following the Alaska summit we appear to be heading for an undeliverable Minsk II.
@Ernest
‘The majority of Welsh people support Ukraine’s struggle for independence ‘
True.
‘as they can see that they could unfortunately be in the same situation with their neighbour to the east if progress is not achieved.’
Words fail me.
Though I am torn between ‘ludicrous’ and ‘ridiculous’
“Z” for Zachary who supports the Russian position.”
How did you make that mental leap? None of what I said on here, or other comments on other articles or even my own articles back this up.
If you are going to insult me at least 1. Make it a good one. 2. Have some basis of logic to it.
What is clear from your synopsis is that Ukraine is and will continue to be the bulward defending Europe from Russia. As such it is also clear that what happens in Ukraine will determine how Europe defends itself going forward. Ukraine is doing us a favour and we should reward it financially, diplomatially and militarily.