Vladimir Putin may need to take remedial lessons in cartography and geography.
On May 23, Valery Zorkin, the head of Russia’s Constitutional Court, showed the Russian leader a copy of a map from the mid-17th century depicting Eastern Europe. “Why did I bring it?” Zorkin asked rhetorically, pointing at the territory north of the Black Sea. “There’s no Ukraine on this map.”
To which Putin, who’s devoted an extraordinary amount of time to asserting Ukraine’s historical nonexistence, replied: “We know that these lands were part of the [Polish] Commonwealth, and then asked to join the Muscovite tsardom, and that’s that. And then later, after the October Revolution … the Soviet government created Soviet Ukraine. Everyone knows this. Until then, there was no Ukraine in the history of humanity.”
Not quite, as the map Zorkin and Putin seemingly studied shows exactly the opposite.
According to the Russian website Verstka, the map the two men examined was produced by the French cartographer Guillaume Sanson (1633-1703). It shows, in unmistakable capital letters, that the area immediately north of the Black Sea is labeled “UKRAINE OU PAYS DES COSAQUES” or “Ukraine or the Country of the Cossacks.”
Even more embarrassing, the map makes no mention of a country called “Russia.” Instead, it depicts a whole slew of duchies, including the “DUCHÉ DE MOSKOU.” True, the map is labeled as being of “La Russie blanche ou Moscovie divisée suivant l’estendüe des royaumes, duchés, principautés, provinces et peuples,” but that too doesn’t help Putin’s cause, as it translates to “White Russia or Muscovy divided according to the extent of kingdoms, duchies, principalities, provinces and peoples.” But this label provides Putin with even less succor, as White Russia is the country that today goes by the name of Belarus.
Cartographers can debate just what exactly Sanson had in mind when he produced the map, but two things are clear: a place called Ukraine is depicted and a place called Russia is not. Which makes perfect sense, since the Cossacks called their country Ukraine and Russia is the term adopted by Peter I (a.k.a. Peter the Great) in the 18th century.
Putin’s complete misreading of a very accessible map is disturbing. It raises serious questions about his ability to comprehend reality and to resist confirmation bias. Putin, evidently, is absolutely certain that Ukraine does not exist, despite the obvious reality of people calling themselves Ukrainian being embroiled in a war with Russia, and no evidence to the contrary can possibly convince him to change his mind.
Putin is so deeply ensconced in his alternate reality that even capital letters staring back at him remain invisible, just as the country he is hoping to bring to its knees is invisible.
Is it possible for Ukraine to conduct any kind of negotiations with a man who refuses to recognize its existence and to weigh the pros and cons of policy choices by considering a whole range of evidentiary facts?
As much as reasonable people everywhere desire the Russian-Ukrainian War to end as quickly as possible — and via negotiations, if possible — it is their obligation to show just how Putin’s stubborn blindness to reality can be overcome and genuine negotiations be conducted.
Simply calling for negotiations isn’t enough. Indeed, given Putin’s blindness to Ukraine’s existence, simply calling for negotiations is the ethical equivalent of accepting Putin’s definition of reality and calling for Ukraine to cease to exist.
Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”