On October 12, during the scientific-practical conference “Ukrainism: Who constructed it and why”, researcher Ilia Rosliakov covered the historical ancestral relationship between the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic and the present-day Eastern Ukrainian republics in his talk “The Historical Roots of The Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic”, Rossa Primavera News Agency reports.
Ilia Rosliakov noted that modern Ukraine cannot preserve its territorial integrity by rejecting its continuity with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR) and replacing it with the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR). ‘’By calling Ukraine the legal successor of the UNR, Ukrainian pseudo-national separatists have opened a can of worms, because after the Russian Revolution of 1917 on the territory of the modern Ukraine several state formations appeared alongside the UNR. These were the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (DKSR) and the Odessa Soviet Republic (OSR). Which is to say that, in theory, it would be fair to assume that after that there might appear successors for them as well.”
The researcher also made a point that History responded to the modern Ukrainian regime by reviving the Eastern Ukrainian identity when Donetsk People’s Republic announced itself as successor to the DKSR in 2015.
Ilia Rosliakov pointed out the internationality of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic as well as the integration of its economic and industrial system as its key features. “The most natural principle for the multinational working-class Donetsk-Krivoy Rog region was economic. The thesis of the economic inseparability of the region was shared by all parties in the local Soviets. This thesis was actively used as an argument against the attempts of the Central Rada to impose its authority on the DKSR.”
The researcher brought into focus that the demise of both the UNR and the DKSR was brought by the separatist and nationalist sentiments among the “Little Russia” [Malorossiya, one of Ukraine’s historical names, analogous to the neighboring Novorossiya – editor’s note] Bolsheviks who could not sufficiently resist the advancing German troops in 1918-1919. He observed the reasons of such behavior. “The collapse of the Russian Empire became a real chance for ethnic elites to gain full authority in their independent states. To restore the unity of the country, the Bolsheviks had to rely upon the local groups, which could only be achieved by giving the national peripheries much greater rights than they had in Tsarist times. Ukraine was no exception. All Ukrainian political powers from the Central Rada to the Bolsheviks were infected with national separatism. In order not to lose that territory, Lenin had to compromise,” he said.
The scientific-practical conference “Ukrainism: Who constructed it and why” took place in Moscow on October 11 and 12, organized by Essence of Time social movement and Experimental Creative Centre International Public Foundation. The emphasis of the researchers, who presented a monograph by the same name via the conference, was not on real history of Ukraine, which is firmly connected with Russian history, but the fundamentally anti-Russian construct of “Ukrainism”, which had been created over many centuries, and which the present Ukrainian regime is actively implementing.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency