Deep Cut: The Fight Over Rus Identity

The War That Started in 2022 Is About Identity and History

The ongoing 2022 war between Russia and Ukraine is rooted in an older battle over identity and history. The dispute is driven by a profound disagreement between the leadership of both nations about their respective identities. The bloodshed on the battlefield is the consequence of a long debate. The story started back during the Dark Ages when Christianity struggled in the aftermath of Islamic invasions in the seventh century and brutal Viking invasions in the eighth century.

First, some global background.

Russia and Ukraine are both successor states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was the successor of the Russian Empire. That Russian Empire was the renewed state of the Rus people, but who were they? Why do the lands of the Rus seem so different from the West, and what is the West in relation to the Russian East? These are big questions, and the pull between East and West is part of the disputed history that divides Russians and Ukrainians both internally and with each other. However, taking Russia and Ukraine and offshoots of the old Russian Empire, it is important to note that the Rus peoples developed differently from the West. Let’s consider why it is by beginning with late antiquity and the spread of the remnant of Roman civilization to northeastern Europe.

During the early medieval era, which began around AD 476, Christianity adapted to the many challenges posed by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Earlier, during the height of Christian Roman power in the late AD 300s, Christianity was expanding eastwards through Persia and toward India while much of North Africa and the Middle East were converted to the faith. Yet, by approximately AD 1000, Christianity was mostly limited to western Eurasia or “Europe” and much declined from the 500s and 600s when it had a wide presence across Africa and Asia.

The Christian communities that were once thriving faced a turning point with the rise of Islam. Islam swept through the Persian Empire and the Roman heartlands after both empires were weakened by the great Roman-Persian War of 602–628. The first Caliphate’s invasion of Persia, beginning around AD 632, was an attack of opportunity. They attacked the Christian Roman Empire soon after. Jerusalem had been a Christian city for three centuries and was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate. Across Africa and Western Asia, Christianity was hit with persecution and subjugation; over centuries, this led to the disappearance or marginalization of many ancient Christian communities. Ethiopia was a notable exception. Almost alone, this East African Christian land survived and remained robust and independent. However, Ethiopian Christians had to navigate a complex web of adversaries to preserve their faith and nation. Despite being somewhat protected by geography, the Ethiopians were also isolated from the Christians of Europe, many of whom were descendants of the barbarians who migrated to Roman lands and had little to no knowledge of Africa or African Christians. Ethiopians were already an ancient literate civilization and could maintain their traditions without constant contact with the Christians in the Mediterranean world. It would be much harder for others who had never had civilization before to renew or develop civilization if they were too isolated from the Mediterranean societies.

So, to be clear, “Europe” is not really a separate continent; it is really more of a cultural term for what is actually the westernmost part of Eurasia, and the idea that the area between Portugal and Russia is one thing, an exclusive common community, makes little sense apart from the connecting influence of Christianity. Christianity’s isolation and sequestration in western Eurasia made Europe distinct. Christianity's status in Europe during the Middle Ages was complex and varied. The faith was divided along cultural and geographical lines, creating distinct identities in the Latin West and North, and the Greek-influenced East and South. The Pope in Rome served as the spiritual leader for the Western and Northern European Christians, leading to the emergence of the international and hierarchical Roman Catholic Church.
Meanwhile, the Eastern and Southern European Christians aligned themselves with the legitimate government of the old Roman Empire, and their allegiance was to the Orthodox Catholic Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Christians found themselves at the center of the Christian struggle against Islamic invasions, which defined their unique Christian experience during this era: almost unceasing war on the frontiers. The East was the frontline, whereas the Pyrenees buffered the West on the border of France and Islamic-ruled Spain, but the West, too, remained vulnerable to seaborne raids along the Mediterranean coast.

This is the world the Slavs migrated into during the Dark Ages. There are three branches of the Slavic peoples: East, West, and South.

• East Slavs: Primarily found in Eastern Europe, including Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. This group is associated with regions that were historically influenced by the medieval state of Kievan Rus and are the main subject of this Deep Cut.

• West Slavs: Located in Central Europe, including Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks. Historically, they have been influenced by Central European powers like the Holy Roman Empire.

• South Slavs: Found in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe, including Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, and Macedonians. This group developed under Byzantine and later Ottoman influences, but also with extensive connections to the Holy Roman Empire based in Germany. The South Slavic areas were the frontiers of cultural conflict and open warfare between Sunni Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

For our example consider that Polish and Russian, as well as other Slavic languages, evolved from a common ancestor termed Proto-Slavic (or Common Slavic), which was spoken by early Slavic tribes. Proto-Slavic likely began diverging into distinct dialects around the AD 700s as Slavic peoples migrated and settled across Eastern, Central, and Southeastern Europe. By AD 1000 it is believed that these dialects had evolved into distinct language groups recognizable as early forms of the East, West, and South Slavic languages.

So, in modern times, within the Christian religion, there are a few important branches or what Americans call denominations, but around AD 1000, there were only two major branches in terms of population and power - Latin Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each branch has its own unique ecclesiastical, political, and cultural context. Latin Christianity was shaped by the sui generis institution of the "Papal monarchy," which is a model of ecclesiastical authority that gave the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, supremacy and jurisdiction over all other Christian bishops and ministers in the West. Eventually, this authority was extended worldwide with the growth of the colonial empires of Spain and Portugal during the Age of Discovery. But the critical point for us is the evolution of the doctrine of papal supremacy over all other bishops and archbishops. This centralized papal authority helped create a cohesive and hierarchical structure within the Western Christian world and nurtured a distinct religious identity based on the spiritual and administrative power of the Papacy and its relationship with the crowns of Europe. When some mention “Western Civilization,” they mean the worldviews that emerged from this medieval Catholic development; others, however, include the Eastern Church in the formulation of “The West,” and “Western civilization” becomes a secular eliding of the truth that the “West” is simply an embarrassed Christian civilization. The West is just another term for Christendom.

Most, however, would accept that Latin Christianity made the West, such as the Tom Holland thesis, which is really just what everyone understood before the Enlightenment confused people. But, if one is talking about Christianity as opposed to Islam - which is the only peer civilizational rival to Christianity in Western Eurasia - then the “West” means Christian Europe. This is why, to many people, Armenia and Georgia are considered European despite this making almost no geographic sense when they say Asia Minor is Asian, as is Azerbaijan. The cultural border matters more than the geography. Hence, the second option includes European Eastern Orthodoxy as part of the West. Others will offer the critique that “yes, the modern West is a secularized Christendom and we are embarrassed about it, but still, it is the Latin Church that makes the West itself, and the East is something else. Russians are just different.” I recognized that the puzzle its proponents can’t solve is Russia and, to an extent, the Balkans. Part of this is residual Cold War hostility.
Nevertheless, Russia did develop quite differently from the Western Europeans, and modern liberals, since the end of the Cold War, trying to force-fit the Russian sphere of influence into a Western mindset or political logic, always come up short because Westerners refuse to recognize that the East is significantly different. Well, they resist until a crisis or conflict reminds them of this reality. In regards to the idea that the West stops in Poland and Austria, we have to reckon with how Europe Christianized after the fall of the Roman Empire and the three catastrophes that broke up their unity. The Russian East is different. How did it turn out this way for the Rus? Let’s explore Eastern exceptionalism ;)

The Eastern Orthodox Church established its unique identity, in part, by opposing the Latin Christian world’s papal monarchy. The interactions between these two Christian traditions were not limited to church affairs but were also closely intertwined with the political and cultural contexts of their respective regions. While Latin Christianity was consolidating its identity around the Pope's authority, Eastern Orthodoxy was staying true to its original path as the Church of the Roman Empire received from the hands of the apostles. A complex relationship between religion, empire, and culture characterized this road.

(The divide could be called “Pope and not-Pope,” as my students have said.)

Okay, let's go to Constantinople, the radiant capital of the Roman Empire, the jewel of the East, the city coveted by all. Not only was it the center of Roman imperial power, but it was also a bustling hub of long-distance trade across Eurasia. Its significance in terms of geopolitics and economics made it a nexus for cultural exchange, thus facilitating the flow of goods, ideas, and traditions between various civilizations. And it drew admirers and imitators. Constantinople was instrumental in transmitting ancient Greek and Roman knowledge to both the Islamic world and the rest of Europe, serving as a channel through which the intellectual legacy of antiquity was disseminated and preserved.

Your historian at the Hagia Sophia AD 2023

Between AD 850-950, Eastern Europe as we know it today slowly started to take shape. Significant changes in demographics, politics, and culture occurred that would have a lasting impact on the history of the region. By 800, Slavic settlements were spread across a wide area from the Danube River, south toward Greece, and north to the Black Sea. These settlements marked the beginning of a long and complex process of regional state-building, where different Slavic groups came together to form more cohesive political and cultural entities and, eventually, kingdoms.

During this time of change and struggle between old-timer peoples and migrating newcomers, the coexistence of Latin Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy in the Balkans meant that as the Slavic barbarians civilized and converted, they were pulled between the Pope and the East. So again, while the papal monarchy served as the foundation for unity and authority within Latin Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy went in a different direction. These differences shaped the trajectory of development for the newcomers to Europe. One of the key differences was that Eastern Orthodoxy opposed papal monarchy in favor of their system of Autocephaly.

Autocephaly is a term that is about the status of a national church within Christian ecclesiology, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. It means a church that has its own chief bishop, typically a patriarch, archbishop, or metropolitan, and is governed independently without being accountable to any higher-ranking bishop. Simply put, an autocephalous church has the power to govern itself and make decisions without being subordinate to any other authority. In terms of orders and discipline, an autocephalous church organizes and disciplines its members independently of all other Church authorities. A national church patriarch cannot discipline the ranks of another patriarch, and there is no single international head who can override the national patriarchs and synods.

To be clear, Autocephalous churches exercise internal decision-making concerning liturgical practices and governance without the requirement of external approval. Nevertheless, such autonomy is often balanced by ensuring a broader communion with other Christian churches, thereby upholding both independence and communion. Doctrine binds the Eastern Orthodox, while practice may vary based on culture and tradition. An autocephalous church cannot change theology.

Autocephaly is often contrasted with "autonomy" a status of churches that are self-governing to a degree but whose head still reports to a higher-ranking bishop. The Official difference, according to the Orthodox Chuch in America is: 

An “autocephalous” Church is completely self-governing. It elects its own primate and has the right to consecrate its own Holy Chrism, among other prerogatives unique to autocephalous Churches. [The term “autocephalous” literally means “self-heading.”]

An “autonomous” Church is self-governing to a certain degree in its internal matters, but its head is appointed or confirmed by the autocephalous Church which nurtures it. An autonomous Church also receives its Holy Chrism from its “Mother Church.”

Historically, autocephaly was prestigious and highly sought after by kings and wanna-be caesars in areas that were in the orbit of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Emperor of the Romans had a Patriarch, and up-and-coming warlords-cum-kingdom builders wanted one of their own. Now, the process of granting autocephaly varies and involves historical, cultural, and political factors, along with pastoral and oversight considerations. Constantinople, as the center of culture and theology, thrived due to its imperial and commercial prominence. The Archbishop of Constantinople was and remains the key figure in the Eastern Christian hierarchy, while his counterpart in the West is the Bishop of Rome. While the Bishop of Rome is the "Pope," the top cleric in Constantinople is the Patriarch.

The role of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who serves as the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, is significantly different from that of the Pope, however. The Ecumenical Patriarch holds a primus inter pares or "first among equals" status among the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, with his leadership reflecting a more honorary and spiritual role, as opposed to administrative or doctrinal supremacy. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarch encompasses several key aspects, including serving as a symbol of unity among the various self-governing Orthodox Churches. While he does not have direct jurisdiction beyond his Patriarchate, his position commands considerable respect and often plays a crucial mediating role in disputes. Eastern Orthodox polity is different from but most similar to that of the Anglican Communion the largest organized body of Protestants. Orthodoxy grew out of the East Roman Empire, while Anglicanism grew out of the British Empire.

The other significant responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch is the ability to grant "autocephaly" to national churches, acknowledging their independence. The process of granting and recognizing autocephaly can sometimes be sensitive and complicated, but in the Medieval period, it was a powerful tool of cultural sway and influence. Now, remember, during this time, the emergence of Slavic settlements added a new layer of complexity to the already diverse European landscape. This marked the creation of fresh political and cultural realms in Eastern Europe. Several key developments were instrumental in transforming the region into what it is today, including the West Slavs, like the Poles and the Czechs, aligning with Rome and the Pope, and the South Slavs, like the Serbians and Bulgarians, attracted to the greatness of Constantinople and its Empire and its Patriarch. The Bulgarian rulers, in their conflict with the emperors in Constantinople, were the first to get recognition of their own patriarch in AD 927 after the Roman-Bulgarian War of 913–927 ended in victory for the Bulgarians. To have your own patriarch and autocephalous church was to claim quasi-equality with the Emperor of the Romans.

The story of Cyril and Methodius, two brothers who introduced Eastern Orthodox Christianity to the Slavs in 863, is fascinating and crucial to our tale. Their success in spreading the Christian faith and their influence on the Slavic language was remarkable. Their students created the Cyrillic alphabet, an essential aspect of the Slavic people's cultural and linguistic identity, which allowed them to express their literary and spiritual heritage uniquely. Cyrillic is distinctive, and the brothers left behind an incredible legacy: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo all use the Cyrillic alphabet devised by the Bulgarian students of those two missionaries dispatched by Constantinople. It is probably not too surprising that the first Slavic pope, the Polish John Paul II, declared them to be the equals of Saint Benedict, or as he wrote in his SLAVORUM APOSTOLI:

"...by my Apostolic Letter Egregiae Virtutis of 31 December 1980 I proclaimed Saints Cyril and Methodius Co-Patrons of Europe. In this way I followed the path already traced out by my Predecessors, and notably by Leo XIII, who over a hundred years ago, on 30 September 1880, extended the cult of the two Saints to the whole Church, with the Encyclical Epistle Grande Munus, and by Paul VI, who, with the Apostolic Letter Pacis Nuntius of 24 October 1964, proclaimed Saint Benedict Patron of Europe."