Rusyns? Who Are They?

It’s a slow sort of news day, today, so we’ll go with some history. The Tucker - Putin interview has, unfortunately, led to some very embarrassing statements on the interwebs by people who oppose the West’s war on Russia. These are people seem to think that to recognize Russia’s legitimate security concerns also requires one to accept Putin as some sort of universal genius and infallible authority—not only in geopolitics, but also in the fields of history and linguistics. This is distressing for those who are simply interested in truth and find some of the statements now appearing to be cringeworthy.

Here’s a good example that’s typical of this new genre. Simplicius the Thinker, who has done yeoman work explaining military matters to the rest of us, seems to think that Putin denies the existence of Ukrainians. I’m not so sure of that, although Putin’s exact views appear to me to be tinged with anachronistic Pan-Slavic views of a nationalistic Russian bent. As a sort of bottom line of what Putin is saying, I think it’s clear that he regards the boundaries of the Ukraine that came into existence—by popular referendum—at the breakup of the USSR as artificial and lacking historical justification. That much I certainly agree with. I can also agree that many, if not most, of the ethnic Russians and others who spoke Russian by preference yet regarded themselves as Ukrainian nationals never bargained for a Ukraine that would be run by wild eyed nationalists with a distinctly Russo-phobic and even Ukro-Nazi bent—funded by US Neocons who overthrew their government and led them into a charnel house of a war on Russia. But Simplicius goes much further than that:

SIMPLICIUS Ѱ @simpatico771

Chief Banderite of history agrees with Putin: "Ukrainians didn't exist."

Vasily Stepanovich Cook, Chief Commander of UPA, OUN admits fatal truth: "There was no Ukrainians back then, we were called Rusyns...."

::For those of you who do not believe Putin's words, here is a historical reference given by Cook Vasily Stepanovich — Cornet General of the UPA; head of the OUN; Head of the UGVR; Chief Commander of the UPA. After Shukhevych's death, he took over all his positions.

And this character, the choicest real Bandera, says himself that there were no Ukrainians before. They turn out to be Ruthenians (Ruthenians).::

[video]

11:56 AM · Feb 12, 2024

What’s going on here? Who are these Rusyns and Ruthenians? First the short version. Both words refer to the same group of people. These people inhabit what is now called the Zakarpattia Oblast of Ukraine. It’s the mountainous area in the far SW of Ukraine. Here’s a demographic map of the oblast:

That green strip is where Hungarians live—take note of that, because it came up in the Tucker-Putin interview. As you can see, it’s a very narrow strip, and ethnic Hungarians make up less than 10% of the total population of the oblast—which is why all the nonsense you read about that entire oblast being gifted to Hungary by Putin is precisely that: nonsense. But in the interview Putin recounts visiting the town of Berehove in that area, back in the 80s. From that I believe we can assume that Putin is well aware of the ethnic complexities.

The pink area that predominates is, in the legend that accompanies the map, labeled “Ukrainians including Rusyns.” The reason for that is that the nationalistically inclined Ukrainians have long been at pains to inform the Rusyns that they (the Rusyns) are really Ukrainians. To drive the point home, the Ukrainian government refuses to count most of these people as Rusyns. This type of attitude is common among Slavs—and not actually unique to Slavs. Another example would be the Poles denying Kashubians a separate identity until recently.

Anyway!

Now you know why the Banderite in Simplicius’ tweet states: "There was no Ukrainians back then, we were called Rusyns...." He’s not denying the existence of Ukrainians. He’s affirming the Rusyn identity.

Further. Despite Ukrainian claims, most reputable linguistic researchers regard Rusyn as a separate Slavic language—not simply a dialect of Ukrainian. As in much of Slavic linguistics, issues of what is a dialect and what is a separate language take on definite political overtones. As you’ll see from this map, the Rusyn speaking area follows the arc of the Carpathian mountains and includes areas of Poland and Slovakia, as well as the larger area in Ukraine.

This separate identity applies in the religious sphere as well. There is a separate Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church that is not subject to the authority of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Moreover, the feuding between these two churches continued to America—not that most Americans would be aware of this. I’m aware of it because I belonged to a Ukrainian Catholic parish for years and sang in their choir. The western Pennsylvania mining country is the stomping grounds of the Ruthenians (Rusyns):

Ethnic tensions flared due to cultural differences (mostly of a political nature) between Ukrainians who came from Austrian-ruled Galicia and the Rusyns and other Byzantine Catholics who came from the Kingdom of Hungary.

Now, for all of you who have patiently read this far, here is Putin’s account of his travels to this area, to that thin strip of ethnic Hungarian territory:

TUCKER CARLSON: Have you told Viktor Orbán that he can have part of Ukraine?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Never. I have never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land.

Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you, I'll digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80's, I went on a road trip on a car from then-Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoye [sic, that’s a Russian version of the town’s name, the ‘g’ replacing the ‘h’], and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn't understand -- in Hungarian. In Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian -- in Russian and in Hungarian. [Note that Putin recognizes that Ukrainian is not Russian.]

I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, ”Are they some kind of entertainers?“ I was told, ”No, they're not entertainers. They're Hungarians. ‘I said, ‘What are they doing here?’ -- ‘What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.’ This was during the Soviet time, in the 1980’s. They preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement.....

Bring on the entertainers! Er, the Hungarians!

A bit more.

The terms Rusyn and Ruthenian both derive from the original term Rus’, which was first applied to the people who ruled at Kiev—thus the large East Slavic state of the early middle ages was termed Kievan Rus’. That term is believed to derive from an old Norse term rootsi, meaning ‘rowers’—the people who rowed their longboats on the rivers of the East Slavs, down to the Black Sea and on to Constantinople. Please note that the word Rus’ is what is called an exonym—an identifying word that is not the indigenous self designating word. The word Rus’ came to be applied to all the East Slavs indiscriminately, who spoke a common language and still lived in largely tribal societies with distinct tribal identities.

Nowadays, however, the terms Rusyn and Ruthenian apply only to the mountain people in the Carpathian regions.

Even more.

‘Ruthenian’ is simply a Western version of that word, Rus’ or Rusyn, as is ‘Russian.’ However, ‘Ruthenian’ as an ethnic or linguistic designation only applies to the East Slavs of Belarus (a word that, literally, means ‘White Rus’) and what is now called ‘core Ukraine’ (mostly west of the Dnieper river). It has never been applied to Russians. However, the areas of Ukraine that were under Lithuanian and Polish suzerainty were also referred to as Ruthenian lands (or, in the Polish areas, Red Ruthenia). That continued into the early 18th century. Interestingly, the Ruthenian language, which developed later into Belorussian and Ukrainian, was a well developed literary language, used in the church but also in the Lithuanian government (‘chancery Ruthenian’). This literary ‘chancery Ruthenian’ or ‘chancery Slavonic’ was actually based on Old Church Slavonic, which is a South Slavic language and is not based on Russian. The ‘chancery Ruthenian/Slavonic’ was influenced by local East Slavic dialects and, later, by Polish, giving it a localized flavor and identity. As also happened in Russian use of Old Church Slavonic as a literary language.

The reason I bring this up is because Putin refers to the Lithuanian areas as speaking ‘Old Russian’ rather than ‘Ruthenian’ of Common East Slavic:

… the Grand Duchy of Lithuania … was even called Lithuanian-Russian, because Russians made up a significant part of this state. They spoke Old Russian and were Orthodox.

That’s an anachronistic term that modern linguists avoid, preferring Old East Slavic or Common East Slavic—to reflect the fact that the separate Slavic languages were somewhat late in developing, compared to languages in Western Europe. Here’s a typical periodization of the development of the East Slavic languages. Note that Russian develops into a separate branch, while Ruthenian splits into Belorussian and Ukrainian—that despite the fact that Russian and Ruthenian derive from the same word Rus’, etymologically:

Here’s a map that illustrates the linguistic situation as of 1389. That would be at the time that Common East Slavic was breaking up into separate Ruthenian and Russian branches (you can find Moscow in the light green if you look for MOCKBA):

East Slavic languages in 1389. Colors represent spoken dialects. Dashed lines represent written languages: Ruthenian in green, Old/Middle Russian in orange, Old Novgorodian in blue.

Note the distinction between “spoken dialects” and “written languages”. The “spoken dialects” are basically dialects of Common East Slavic, on the verge of becoming separate languages. The “written languages”—which Putin calls “Old Russian”—are variants of Old Church Slavonic, as influenced by the “spoken dialects.” The use of Church Slavonic as a literary language among Ruthenians and Russians alike continued for several more centuries. This is a complex topic that varies among different Slavic languages, but with regard to modern Russian’s relationship to Old Church Slavonic it should be noted that the influence of Old Church Slavonic—a South Slavic language—is very significant, even if Putin’s history doesn’t extend that far:

Thus, while standard Russian was codified on the basis of the Central Russian dialect and the Moscow chancery language, it retains an entire stylistic layer of Church Slavonisms with typically Eastern South Slavic [i.e., Bulgarian] phonetic features.^[132] Where native and Church Slavonic terms exist side by side, the Church Slavonic one is in the higher stylistic register and is usually more abstract, …

By the way, the language of Novgorod—the republic to which Putin attaches great importance in Russian history—was so distinctive from Common East Slavic that historical linguists, including Russians, now believe it constituted a separate ‘Northern’ branch of the Slavic languages.

Now, going back to the Polish influence—because it’s so important for Putin. If you read the transcript I think you’ll see that Putin appears to be advancing a Pan-Slavic, Russian nationalist point of view—namely, that the Belorussian and Ukrainian languages did not develop in the normal course of linguistic history, in the same way that South Slavic and West Slavic developed into separate languages (respectively, Serbo-Croat/Slovene and Polish/Czech/Slovak). Rather, Putin appears to suggest that Belorussian and Ukrainian are somehow simply Russian as corrupted by a Polish influence.

… for decades [centuries?], the Poles have been engaged in the Polonization of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, they began to introduce the idea that these are not entirely Russians, that since they live on the edge, they are Ukrainians.

If you think I’m going too far in my reading of Putin’s views, I can assure you that I have encountered Russians who, similarly, maintain that even Polish is not a natural development of West Slavic but is, instead, simply Russian—as corrupted by a harsh Germanic influence. According to these Russians, Poles are simply trying to deny their true Slavic identity, and the same goes for Ukrainians (denying their Russian identity). They should all—Poles, Ukies, whoever—simply give up and admit that they’re really Russians. They’d be much happier if they did. I’m not saying that’s the view of the majority of Russians, and certainly not of Russian linguistic researchers, but it is a view that crops up among nationalistic Russians. If this reminds you of Ukrainians and Rusyns and Poles and Kashubians, just on a grander scale, well, yeah.

Finally, as for the idea of Ukrainians simply living ‘on the edge,’ so to speak, a glance at the map will show that we’re not talking about ‘edges’ at all. We’re talking about a truly vast region, and one that developed separately from the Muscovy and the later Russian Empire for quite a few centuries.

Why do I think this stuff is important? Because if Putin thought it was important to yack about this stuff for a half an hour or so, that’s probably because he thinks it’s important. And if the leader of a great power like Russia deems that important, then anyone who wants to understand Russia should pay attention. None of this changes the rights and wrongs of the West’s war on Russia and Russia’s reaction. Still, this history matters very much to Russians and we should be aware of it. You know, our own American or British history matters to us, too. Americans, in particular, tend to think of themselves as above such things as history, as if we can reinvent ourselves at will. Historical awareness—real critical knowledge of history—is a good thing. If I ever get the chance, I’ll tell Putin that, too.