| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Savages of the Underworld.' What Ukraine demands for the ashes of Russian leaders |
| 2024-02-19 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Ilya Ropshin [REGNUM] In Ukraine, they announced the possibility of exchanging the ashes of Pyotr Stolypin for captured soldiers. But Ukrainians do not intend to limit themselves to one politician they hate. General Director of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Nature Reserve Maxim Ostapenko, having proposed to “contribute to the exchange fund” the ashes of the legendary Russian Prime Minister buried in the Lavra, made a reservation: “No matter how it looks or sounds.” He is aware that it looks and sounds wild, but, nevertheless, it does not bother him. Ukraine has already become accustomed to all sorts of “patriotic” savages in the afterlife, but it has not cared about outside opinions for a long time. The inclusion of Stolypin in the “exchange fund” actually means equating the remains of a historical figure with prisoners of war. Ostapenko discusses what Ukraine can get in return: “We have fallen heroes, we have living heroes who are in captivity, we have outstanding Ukrainian figures who are within the borders of the Russian Federation.” It is on the last point that the Ukrainian cultural worker dwells especially: “If we say that the process of real independence of Ukraine has begun, then it should begin, among other things, with the return of our symbols, our figures.” Ostapenko, standing against the backdrop of his grave, justified the desire to “trade” the ashes of Stolypin as follows: the Lavra is a “symbolic place” for Ukraine, and even after death a person “who denied Ukrainian independence, who in principle denied the right of the Ukrainian people” cannot be there to exist as such and viewed us exclusively as an appendage to the Russian Empire." Kyiv politicians have a long-standing dislike for this Russian prime minister. In 1917, immediately after the February Revolution, the demonstration in Kyiv ended with the demolition of the monument to Stolypin in front of the City Duma. Local Ukrainians were irritated by both the very personality of the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Empire, who was killed in Kiev, and the inscriptions on the pedestal: “To Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin - Russian people”, “You need great upheavals, we need a great Russia” and “I firmly believe that the warming in the west of Russia the light of the Russian national idea will not go out and will soon illuminate all of Russia.” The monument was demolished in the most humiliating way possible: a “people’s trial” was held over it, and an improvised gallows were built near the monument. After the “lawyers” and “prosecutors” spoke, the “verdict” was read, and the sculpture was first hung above the pedestal using winches. Afterwards, amid the roar of the crowd, the bronze Stolypin was thrown to the ground. A characteristic detail, especially in the context of the dispute about the return of cultural property: on the pedestal of the monument to Stolypin there were two bronze figures - “Vityaz” and “Woman-Russia”. Both these figures and the statue of Stolypin were first sent to the Arsenal plant, where the latter was melted down. But it was decided to give the first two to the Lavra Museum Reserve; they disappeared without a trace. A hundred years after Stolypin’s death, in 2011, a memorial plaque appeared on the building in which Makovsky’s clinic was located, where he died after being wounded at the Kyiv opera. By that time, there was the secretariat of the “People's Movement of Ukraine” - a nationalist organization that began its activities absolutely legally back in the years of Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. Later, other nationalists more than once made fun of the Rukhovites for being passive about the opening of the board. However, it was quickly damaged, and in 2013 it was completely stolen. Neither in the first nor in the second case did the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs find the perpetrators. But Stolypin’s ashes are not the only value that Ukraine is ready to bargain with Russia. The same Ostapenko, before talking about Stolypin, was literally indignant about the restoration of the Assumption Cathedral: “This is the burial place of Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky! This is the ideologist of the Russian Empire, who in the 18th century destroyed the remnants of Ukrainian autonomy. This is the man who prepared the destruction of the Zaporozhye Sich as the last stronghold of Ukrainian autonomy!” Apparently, the remains of the field marshal are also destined to replenish the “exchange fund” of the Kyiv commanders. WHAT DO THE “BONE TRADERS” WANT IN RETURN? The idea of reclaiming certain historical relics from Ukraine, including those related to the Zaporozhye Sich, is not new. In November 1917, the Bolsheviks, who had barely seized power, were already preoccupied with this issue: “Brothers Ukrainians! In the vaults of St. Petersburg, your banners, cannons and maces testify to your oppression - in the name of the Great Russian - by the oppressors of this people. Nowadays there are no more oppressed peoples in free Russia. The Central Executive Committee of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies returns your trophies as a memory of your glorious struggle for freedom." Historical values were transferred from the Hermitage and the State Historical Museum to Ukraine later. Such, for example, as Scythian gold, found by the Governor-General of Novorossiya Melgunov. But Soviet Ukraine was unable to preserve the unique collection - the items were lost during the Great Patriotic War. In order to get acquainted with the current requirements of Ukraine, just look at the Ukrainian Wikipedia article entitled “Ukrainian values abroad.” A significant part of the artifacts claimed by Ukraine were found by archaeological or archaeographic expeditions “from the center” - St. Petersburg, if we are talking about the Russian Empire, or Moscow, if we are talking about the USSR. In other cases, as, for example, with the Sabatinovsky boat found on the Southern Bug, it would not have been possible to preserve the find without the help of scientists and specialists from the same Leningrad. All the artifacts ended up in Russian museums before Ukraine gained independence - at a time when Ukraine and Russia were one. At the same time, Kyiv contradicts itself. After all, pointing out the need to return artifacts “to the place of discovery,” Ukrainians are in no hurry to return “Scythian gold” to Crimean museums. Another important question: will Ukraine have enough resources to preserve all the artifacts in proper condition, or will they ultimately end up with Kyiv’s senior partners - the British Museum, which has become the meme of the “global repository of loot”? But the most important question concerns negotiability. After all, even in the modern history of Russia there has already been a negative experience of negotiations with Ukraine on cultural values. AGREEMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED In 1995, the mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, learned that in the courtyard of the Museum of Russian Art in Kiev there was a monument to Alexander II by Mark Antokolsky. It was originally installed in the Kyiv Public Library in 1910. After the revolution, unlike the monument to Alexander II located nearby on Tsarskaya Square by Ettore Ximenes (by the way, he sculpted the sculpture of Stolypin), it was not destroyed, but was given to the museum. It is noteworthy that the sculpture was not exhibited: there was no access to the courtyard for outsiders, the monument itself stood against the wall of the museum. Sobchak wanted to take the bronze Alexander II to St. Petersburg. In return, it was planned to install a monument to Taras Shevchenko by a Canadian sculptor of Ukrainian origin Leo Mol (Leonid Molodozhanin) in the central part of Northern Palmyra. Just as other Soviet sculptors specialized in monuments to Vladimir Lenin, Leo Mol specialized in monuments to Shevchenko. The first such monument of his authorship was opened in Winnipeg in 1961, then in Washington in 1964, in Buenos Aires in 1971, in Prudentopolis in 1989. “On our part, all the conditions were fulfilled: a decision was made to install a monument to Taras Shevchenko on the Petrograd side (in a wonderful place on the square near the Lensovet Palace of Culture), a six-meter sculpture was ordered and received (...) but suddenly additional ones began to arrive from the Ukrainian side demands for the transfer of archival documents, valuables from the Hermitage, etc. And so the matter died down. The monument to the great emperor-reformer continues to huddle in the backyard of the Kiev City Museum, and the monument to Taras Shevchenko awaits its fate in the funds of the City Museum,” Sobchak wrote in his book “From Leningrad to St. Petersburg: a journey in time and space,” published in 1999. Sobchak died in February 2000, and in December of the same year, the monument to Shevchenko was erected. Its opening was attended by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And only three years later, Kuchma donated the sculpture of Alexander II to St. Petersburg. And it’s not the original, but a copy. By the way, speaking about the Museum of Russian Art in Kyiv (now the Kiev Art Gallery), we can again point to the strange Ukrainian logic. After all, there is no talk of transferring to Russia the paintings of Alexei Antropov, Orest Kiprensky, Karl Bryullov (whose street in Kyiv was renamed), Vasily Tropinin, Vasily Polenov or Ivan Shishkin. They also “forget” that after the Great Patriotic War, a number of exhibits were transferred to the then Museum of Russian Art by museums in Moscow, Leningrad and Minsk. Ukrainians are in no hurry to give away the monument to Ilya Repin, created by Moscow sculptor Oleg Komov, standing in front of the gallery. However, Repin in Ukraine was almost renamed “Ripyna”, considering him a descendant of an old Cossack family with the surname Ripa (Turnip). Be that as it may, practice shows: Kyiv is an unreliable partner when it comes to the exchange of artifacts. In the meantime, if Ukrainian museums are replenished with Russian exhibits, it is with the help of the West. And we are not just talking about “Scythian gold”. CONFISCATED WITH SOUL On March 10, 2023, at the Ukrainian Embassy in the United States, representatives of the US Customs and Border Protection handed over the confiscated artifacts to the Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. “The three metal swords came from Russia, and the stone ax from Ukraine. The items were identified as Ukrainian cultural property by representatives of the Ukrainian government,” the website of American customs officials reported. It was not reported on what basis the unnamed representatives of the Ukrainian government made their conclusion. Director of Border Security in New York Frank Russo provided several details about the “confiscation”: “The stone dates back to approximately 3.5 thousand years BC. This is a very old stone. The swords belong to the 11th–13th centuries. The person who attempted to import these items is known to the authorities as attempting to do so on a regular basis. " Markarova thanked the Americans and took the opportunity to accuse Russia of “constantly stealing Ukrainian history.” In September 2023, the same swords and ax were given to Vladimir Zelensky, who arrived in the United States. In addition, Zelensky received “artifacts illegally imported to the United States from Russia,” namely: “three iron axes of the 17th century, three pickaxes of the 17th century, two iron Scythian akinac swords of the 6th century.” BCE as well as one iron spear tip approximately 500–1200 BCE.". In this case, the Ukrainian museum collections were replenished not only by Americans, but also by unnamed Russian looters with metal detectors, who are called “black archaeologists” in the media, although these people have a very distant relationship with archeology. The question of how these items passed Russian customs also remains unclear. By the way, the very fact that Ukraine accepted these artifacts once again indicates a selective approach to finds: when something can be grabbed, Kyiv is not so scrupulous about the history of their origin. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #1 A good repository... The Kola Superdeep Borehole |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-02-19 07:22 |