because I want to parse out Putin's claims about Lenin's role in giving rise to what we think of as an independent Ukraine and the blame that he puts on Lenin. And that question has to do with really what the value is of investigating these historical origins to begin with. Because from my perspective, power is the most important thing that really matters to define what is a national boundary or not when it comes to a state's ability to impose its will. But insofar as history is important, it seems that the only importance of history, and it's not a small thing, is in the population's sense of legitimacy over the ruling order. So how much of this is really about claiming a sense of national legitimacy and aligning state policy with that view and getting the public's support to believe it? So how much of this was already in the Russian public's mind, the theories that President Putin has put forward, and how much of this has been actively cultivated by him and more importantly, other (17/40)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: