Kenneth Glad
Political leaders often draw on the past to support present-day goals. In the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, competing historical accounts have become part of a much larger struggle over legitimacy and influence.
A Dutch security researcher has warned that Vladimir Putin’s interpretation of history has become a key instrument in the Kremlin’s effort to justify its actions in Ukraine and shape opinion beyond Russia’s borders.
According to Ukrinform, Niels Drost of the Clingendael Institute made the remarks during a security conference in The Hague, where policymakers, researchers and students discussed challenges facing Europe.
Events connected to the conference were held at Leiden University’s campus in The Hague, with a particular focus on the role younger generations will play in shaping future security policy.
Drost told Ukrinform that Putin has spent years building a historical argument that portrays Russians and Ukrainians as parts of a single people rather than separate nations.
“Putin claims that Ukrainians, as ‘little Russians,’ are part of the broader Russian people through a 1,000-year history,” Drost said.
He argued that this message has become central to the Kremlin’s case against Ukrainian sovereignty.
The argument has been years in the making
Many of the themes highlighted by Drost appeared in a lengthy essay by Putin published by the Kremlin in 2021.
The Russian president wrote that “Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole,” presenting Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as descendants of a shared historical civilization.
The essay traced political developments from medieval Rus through the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union while questioning the historical foundations of modern Ukrainian statehood.
Putin also argued that modern Ukraine was largely shaped by decisions made during the Soviet era and described a close partnership with Russia as essential to the country’s future development.
For Drost, understanding these claims is important because they did not suddenly appear after the invasion. The Russian president had been developing and repeating similar arguments for years.
At first, Putin emphasized the closeness of Russians and Ukrainians, Drost noted. Later, he increasingly described them as a single people, particularly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Foreign audiences are part of the target
Drost said these historical claims are directed not only at domestic audiences but also at people in Europe and North America who may know relatively little about the region’s history.
As an example, he pointed to Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson, during which the Russian leader spent considerable time discussing historical events before addressing contemporary political issues.
“History is a powerful weapon,” Drost said. “Putin uses it to mobilize Russian society and to create a convincing narrative for the outside world, which is not familiar with this history.”
That approach can be effective because complex historical arguments are often difficult for foreign audiences to evaluate without broader context.
The same historical record can also support a very different conclusion, namely that Ukraine emerged through its own political development and has the right to exist as an independent democratic state, Drost said.
Hybrid pressure remains a concern
The researcher argued that examining Putin’s historical claims should not be confused with accepting them:
“We must understand how Putin distorts history and uses it as a weapon. Understanding does not mean justifying.”
He added that many officials and analysts in Eastern Europe had warned for years that the Kremlin’s rhetoric should be taken seriously. Similar warnings were issued by Western intelligence agencies before Russia launched its full-scale invasion.
Beyond military operations, Drost pointed to propaganda campaigns, sabotage efforts and influence operations as continuing security concerns for Europe.
Sources: Ukrinform; Kremlin
