By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Russia’s first direct talks with Ukraine in three years, Kremlin negotiator Vladimir Medinsky expressed satisfaction with the discussions and a commitment to continued negotiations. He invoked the 21-year Great Northern War as a historical precedent for Russia’s willingness to sustain its military campaign in Ukraine indefinitely. Medinsky reportedly conveyed Russia’s preparedness for a prolonged conflict, emphasizing their resolve even at the cost of further casualties. This stance suggests a hardened negotiating position and a commitment to achieving their objectives regardless of the duration required.
Read the original article here
A Kremlin negotiator recently invoked Peter the Great’s 21-year war with Sweden during Ukraine talks, a move that has sparked considerable discussion and raised questions about the historical context and implications of this reference. The sheer audacity of using this historical parallel is striking, especially considering the apparent misuse of quotes from prominent historical figures like Bismarck and Napoleon, lending a somewhat farcical air to the entire affair. This approach seems reminiscent of the kind of historical revisionism found on social media, where facts often take a backseat to preferred narratives.
The choice of Peter the Great’s war with Sweden is particularly curious. This war, a brutal and protracted conflict, saw the eventual annexation of territories that are now part of Ukraine. The connection, however, isn’t straightforward. While the Russian Empire expanded significantly under Peter the Great, the current situation in Ukraine involves a very different geopolitical landscape, marked by modern weaponry, international alliances, and significantly different power dynamics. The parallel, therefore, feels strained and somewhat disingenuous.
The historical context itself is complex. While Peter the Great’s reign saw modernization and expansion of the Russian Empire, he was also a ruthless autocrat. Drawing on this era to justify actions in 21st-century Ukraine ignores the vast technological and societal shifts since that time, along with the fundamentally different nature of international relations and the very concept of state sovereignty. This invocation of a historical figure who acted decisively to expand the Empire is presented in a way that arguably ignores the suffering and conquest that also marked this era.
The Kremlin negotiator’s apparent disregard for historical accuracy is also alarming. The claim of additional chromosomes in Russians, combined with the assertion that “facts don’t matter,” reveals a troubling disregard for evidence-based reasoning. This attitude undermines the integrity of any historical comparison and casts doubt on the negotiator’s overall approach to the conflict. The comment suggesting that “everything begins not with facts, but with interpretations” demonstrates a degree of historical relativism that undermines any serious discussion of historical parallels.
Interestingly, the very outcome of the Great Northern War offers a counterpoint to the Kremlin’s narrative. Sweden, once a formidable adversary, is now a prosperous and democratic member of NATO. This stark contrast suggests that the historical parallel, used to support Russia’s actions, might actually serve as a powerful argument against them. The implication is that Russia’s actions, unlike Peter the Great’s, are not likely to result in similar outcomes. A long and costly war, rather than leading to regional dominance, may well result in the opposite.
The comments made concerning Russia’s military performance in past conflicts further strengthen this point. The suggestion that Russia historically performs poorly when lacking access to the vastness of its own territory raises questions about their current strategy in Ukraine. It implies that Russia’s historical military successes are heavily reliant on geography, suggesting that a campaign fought in a relatively smaller, more confined theatre like Ukraine may not lend itself to Russia’s traditional strengths.
The current state of Russia’s economy and military also undermines the credibility of invoking Peter the Great as a role model. Reports of depleted Soviet-era stockpiles, a struggling national train system, and issues with food security paint a picture of a country far removed from the image of a powerful, expanding empire. These internal challenges contrast sharply with the perceived strength and expansive ambitions suggested by referencing a historically aggressive and successful period of Russian expansion.
In conclusion, the Kremlin negotiator’s invocation of Peter the Great’s war with Sweden reveals more about the current Russian mindset than it does about the historical parallels. It appears to be an attempt to leverage historical narratives for propaganda purposes, without a genuine engagement with the historical complexities involved. The move highlights a disregard for accuracy and factual basis, potentially signaling a lack of confidence in the current military campaign and reflecting the broader challenges faced by Russia internally and on the international stage. Ultimately, invoking Peter the Great’s conquests serves not as a historical justification, but rather as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of aggressive expansion and the dangers of a revisionist view of history.