Taras Bulba is a Russian classic, based on Ukrainian folk mythology, written by the famous writer Nikolai Golga. It is a brutal, quasi-historical tale about a bloody Cossack revolt in the Ukraine fighting against invading forces from Poland. When the book was republished in 2003, Robert D. Kaplan wrote the introduction, and a similar version of that text appeared in an article in The Atlantic titled Euphorias of Hatred. There, Kaplan warned:
The novel has a Kiplingesque gusto that makes it a pleasure to read, but central to its theme is an unredemptive, darkly evil violence that is far beyond anything Kipling ever touched on. We need more works like Taras Bulba, to better understand the emotional wellsprings of the threat we face today in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Kaplan’s warnings about the “emotional wellsprings” have turned out to be like much of what he writes—prophetic. Five years later, Russia and Ukraine are vigorously fighting over which country has claim to the heritage of the violent tale. Russia has financed a $20 million dollar epic film of the story, produced over the course of three years, in a Lord of the Rings-esque epic, and is the latest salvo in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine culture war (the previous chapter of which was covered here).

What’s the big issue? Taras Bulba has long been adopted as a Ukrainian national hero. Ukrainian nationalists conveniently ignored the fact that he spoke Russian, was fighting an enemy invading from the West, and acting as a proxy for the Czar and the Orthodox faith. Russia’s purpose in making the film is explicit. The director has said that he wants to show that “there is no separate Ukraine… When two drops of mercury are near each other, they will unite. You’ve seen this. Exactly in the same way, our two peoples are united.” Fighting words directed at the heart of the Orange Revolution.
Kiev’s political elite is naturally furious, accusing Russia of “borrowing” heroes when it has none of its own, and issuing a film that smacks of propaganda reminiscent of Soviet times—but many Ukrainians have already said that they admire the film and sympathize with its themes and the call for Pan-Slavic unity. Putting that aside, the real concern for the peoples of the civilized world is that two countries are fighting for title to this shamelessly glorified violent tale. To quote Kaplan writing in 2003:
As one Cossack declares, “I need hardly tell you that a young man cannot exist without war.” In such a world the notion of a rational “balance of power” with the Catholic Poles or the Islamic Tatars is not a pragmatic goal but a corrupting and effeminate conceit. Those outside the marrow of Orthodoxy exist only to be annihilated, or to be converted en masse to the faith.The rare breaks in the fighting are given over to “spellbinding,” prolonged drunken orgies. “The inns in the suburb were smashed,” Gogol wrote, “and the Cossacks helped themselves to mead, vodka and beer without payment, the innkeepers being too glad to escape with their lives.” Hearing stories of Catholic victories to the west, and of Jewish collusion in those victories, the Cossacks take murderous revenge on local Jews, whom they toss into the river.
We will have to watch and see how this emotional wellspring will affect the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict.
ENDNOTE: Here’s the trailer:

Comments to this entry
ElamBend
April 17, 2009
4:17 am
I've met many people who've told me they're from Russia or that they're Russian only to find that they come form Ukraine proper. Honestly, Canada and the US have a more distinct history than Russia and Ukraine.
That being said, if I were a Ukrainian citizen, I'd want no part of the Russian polity. Both for historical and contemporary reasons. Unfortunately, Brussels if far away and there is no geographic boundary between the two to speak of, but then what borders in that area of the world are permanent anyway.
Can't wait to see the movie, though.
Roy Berman
April 17, 2009
5:31 am
So in short, if the Ukrainian's want to call whatever they speak "The Ukrainian Language" as opposed to "The Ukrainian Dialect of Russian" they are perfectly welcome to, as the label is linguistically meaningless and purely an indicator of political status.
MUPOH
April 17, 2009
10:11 am
Thomas
April 17, 2009
1:08 pm
While we tend to remember Kipling for children's stories like The Jungle Book and poems full of 18th century warrior romanticism like "Danny Deever" and "If," he also wrote a number of graphically violent works. "The Grave of the Hundred Dead" comes to mind, a brief narrative poem about a native regiment in Southeast Asia that, upon the death of the Captain by sniper's bullet, slaughter an entire village, building a pyramid of severed human heads as a monument to his memory.
Curzon
April 18, 2009
12:02 am
ElamBend
April 18, 2009
1:55 am
Mupoh. I agree with your first sentence, not your second. As for the third, I'm not sure any one film could fully encapsulate Stalin's depravity. There is a decent, but middling HBO production staring Robert Duval, but it only shows his paranoia upon those close to him. I'm just not sure how film can depict the sheer numbers, the misery and the random and unpredictable violence that Stalin inflicted upon those under his command. He is truly a monster of history.
Lexington Green
April 18, 2009
4:05 am
It is bound to be a hit, with those factors in its favor.
I recall fondly the Hollywood version with Yul Brynner and Tony Curtis, a staple on Channel 56 in Boston when I was a kid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrwzfAI5uU
Romko
April 18, 2009
7:04 am
And why should Ukrainian cossacks speak Russian when they have their own language?
Yes Ukrainians and Russians and Poles share some common history in the same way as the Irish, Scots, Welsh, English and Canadians. But we want a different relationship for the futue. One that is based on mutual respect.
von Moltke
April 18, 2009
1:02 pm
To make such a statement about the Ukraine being a Russian state ignores the fact that Russians were settled into the Ukraine by Stalin throughout the 1930s and 1940s in an effort to recreate history (in much the way as this film functions). One may well meet a Russian from the Ukraine, who says that he or she is from Russia, much in the same way you may meet a Russian from Belarus. These people are not lying to you, as they are indeed not Ukrainian or Belarussian.
A couple of talking points:
1.) The capital of Belarus had substantial historical estates dating back to the times of its part in Poland-Lithuania, and these were not destroyed by WWII warfare, but before that by a deliberate effort of the BSSR to eliminate the true history of Belarus's independent identity.
2.) The Ukraine lost on the order of 10m citizens during the 1930s in Stalin's effort to eliminate not only private property and Ukrainians, but to provide grain and a political basis for the greater Russianization of the Ukraine and its other colonies.
3.) Russian was made an official language of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and these countries were settled to a greater or lesser extent by Russian during the same period.
4.) Early in WWII (1940) and perhaps as a foreshadowing of its aims, the USSR murdered some 22,000 Polish officers and civilian intellectuals, captured in the coordinated Nazi-Soviet assault on Poland, in an attempt to destroy the identity and political will of Poland.
5.) The USSR settled another area of Europe, first even maintaining its name as Кёнигсберг "Kyonigberrrrrrg" until 1946, because the absurdity of maintaining it to be Russian or have some connection to Russian history has made such an allegation impossible.
6.) Prussia? That's Russian too, I think... maybe it was pRussia.
Rommel
April 18, 2009
10:37 pm
Now, who else thinks the Siege of Vienna would make for an oustanding epic movie? In fact, many of the conflicts fought by history's tragically perennial losers would make for good cinema (i.e. Warsaw Uprising, the 1920's Polish-Soviet War, 1st Battle of Tannenberg.) On the other hand, I've never been able to root for the Russians in any conflict (except perhaps for their battles in Chechnya or Central Asia.) I'm not sure why this is - there is no prejudice, I just find their peasant armies led by brutal Oriental style despots unappealing. I even find myself silently cheering the invading Germans in the World Wars...
Lexington Green
April 19, 2009
12:42 am
I am the other way around. I cheer for Ivan in both world wars. A rugged, tough, even brutal chap, beset by corrupt leaders, facing a foe with better weapons and training and leadership (often), mostly just trying to stay alive and keep his country from being pillaged, or worse. Thank God for Ivan, the Third Reich landed blow after blow, and bloodied and blinking, he got up again and again, learned war the hard way, and finally tore the Hitlerite beast limb from limb.
Plus my grandfather (whom I never met) was Russian, and served in the Tsar's army.
The two movies The Cranes are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier are old-fashioned, but good depictions of the war from the Russian side.
Rommel
April 19, 2009
9:07 am
There is something to be said for the way the average Russian man - and woman -conducted himself in the Second WW. From surrender en masse and frequent collaboration at the beginning of Barbarossa to a ferocious will to stay alive and fight for their very humanity when the nature of the beast became apparent..
Perhaps I am biased though, as I come at it from the opposite perspective of Lex. My grandfather's family were German Mennonites settled on the Dnieper and he had many tales (told w/o animosity) of hardships endured at the hands of their East Slav neighbors. Whether it was forced conscription and Russification policies of the Tsar or the senseless killing and barbaric anarchy of Mahkno's horde..
Indeed by the time the mustachioed demon was in charge, most of his family/community had fled to Kansas. His brother still has letters from those left behind begging for food and money until the '40s, when Uncle Joe completed the annihilation of the Russian Germans once and for all.
Michael Hancock
April 19, 2009
7:18 pm
Then again, I also find the idea that Robert Kaplan's works are 'prophetic' as pretty comical. Kaplan dispenses advice from a lack of deep understanding - truly the jack of all trades, master of none, except voicing his opinions in an air of understanding, generalization, and simplification. Then again, for those that would deify such imperialists as Curzon and Younghusband, Kaplan is a noble model to live up to.
But I think that anyone that seriously suggests comparing Ukraine/Russia with Middle Eastern and Chinese/Taiwan problems lacks a deeper understanding of the problem. Allegory and analogy are fun to play with, but I'm not sure our leaders should listen to advice couched in such terms. "You see, Mr. President, this is just like that Steelers game back in 78, and Russia is the quarterback." When you analogize, you avoid all the information that doesn't fit the model, for the sake of the model. That is dangerous self-omission.
Munro Ferguson
April 19, 2009
9:31 pm
feeblemind
April 20, 2009
6:28 am
Michael Hancock
April 20, 2009
10:14 pm
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
April 21, 2009
6:16 pm
I really recommend reading "it" and not "of it". It describes a violent time; an apology Gogol makes several times during the narrative. I see it as kind of a Slavic Illiad. It's a rollicking read. I would not draw too much more from the present political debate than Greeks and Macedonians (FYROM) arguing over Alexander, another pretty violent guy. Enjoy the book or movie. Bohdan Stupka who plays the lead in the new version is a great Ukrainian actor.
Nick
April 22, 2009
5:18 pm