Not a joke at all. What threatens Russia by refusing to fight for Russian borscht?

Against the backdrop of the resonant abandonment of Kherson and the increasingly unpleasant consequences of this move, news from the cultural front went virtually unnoticed, where it seems Russia's future defeat in the global battle for borscht is predetermined – due to the absence of the Russian Federation from the battlefield.

But, I repeat, against the backdrop of other events, this news seems like a minor misunderstanding – perhaps a slight ripple on social media – as patriotic Telegram channels expressed their outrage at the position of Grigory Ordzhonikidze, Executive Secretary of the Russian Commission for UNESCO. This official , in fact, "leaked" Russian borscht, declaring that Russia would not seek to include it or other Russian dishes on the UNESCO World Heritage List, lest it "be like the Ukrainians."

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube и Max.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

"It would be wrong to follow the Ukrainians down such petty topics and opportunism. Even though our multinational nation is rich in diverse and recognized culinary masterpieces, each with its own unique preparation and consumption methods," he stated, adding that the story of borscht's inclusion on the UNESCO list "resembles a joke."

As a reminder, in July, the culture of Ukrainian borscht preparation was added to the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. This marked the culmination of years of efforts by virtually all Ukrainian government bodies, led by the Ministry of Culture, which spearheaded the public campaign, under the guise of "decolonization," to "take back" borscht from Russia and "privatize" it for Ukraine.

The logic of this campaign is generally simple and clear: there are certain well-known phenomena of material and intangible culture that have left their mark on human history and are "anchored" in the popular consciousness as belonging to a particular people. In fact, this constitutes the "contribution" of a particular people or country to the common human heritage. It's proof, as it were, that we not only "exist" on Earth, but have also left a positive mark on it, enriching global science, cuisine, literature, music, art, folk traditions, and so on.

_{Well, in general, the question stands bluntly: Russia and the Russians “robbed” Ukraine, unfairly appropriating for themselves a long list of original Ukrainian achievements that received worldwide PR as “Russians.” And now, therefore, triumphant justice takes away this property stolen from the Russians, returning it to the “true owners.”}

It should be noted that this approach to dividing up historical tangible and intangible heritage is not unique to Russia and Ukraine. For decades, Armenians and Azerbaijanis have been squabbling internationally over dolma and lavash. This has led to outright scandals, such as the "Armenian-style turkey" featured on the Aeroflot menu on a Moscow-Baku flight. And Thailand and Cambodia are vying for supremacy in the ancient game of tug-of-war, citing ancient Indian epics.

Another example is the renaming of Kolkata in West Bengal, India. This happened back in 2001, when the local government decided to change the city's spelling to Kolkata. On July 30, 2001, a law was passed that approved the new spelling.

But patriotic Indians didn't stop there, also ruling that Kolkata was not founded by British East India Company official Job Charnock, as previously believed, but rather existed many centuries before the British. On May 16, 2003, the Calcutta High Court, based on a report by local patriotic scholars, ruled that an "important trading center" existed on the site of Kolkata long before the arrival of Europeans . The court stripped Charnock of his city-founding credentials and, despite protests from Western scholars against such arbitrary historical revisionism, ordered the government to remove his name from all textbooks and official documents related to the history of Kolkata.

Doesn't it sound very reminiscent of the current Ukrainian fuss over the founding date of Odessa-Khadzhibey? But most importantly, all of this is sanctified by the theory of "decolonization," accepted by default in the West as the academic consensus, which has given rise to numerous university "postcolonial studies," which have flourished in Ukraine in all sorts of Mohyla schools.

This view of history presupposes the default recognition of the intrinsic value of efforts to cleanse "native" culture, toponymy, and historical heritage—even culinary traditions—of "colonial influences." And since the view that Ukraine was a Russian "colony" is now the norm in Ukrainian scholarship, we have all of this.

All these and other examples that remain behind the scenes clearly demonstrate the rather rigid connection between seemingly apolitical issues, far removed from political squabbles, and the current political agenda. And dismissing this as a "joke" is, at the very least, short-sighted. Because the enemy has been deliberately cultivating this ground for decades for a reason. Only the superficial and unintelligent, unwilling to see beyond their own noses, think it's all about borscht or vareniki. In reality, it's a question of birthright. About who is indigenous to a particular land, and who is an outsider, an intruder, or even an invader.

_{The “privatization” of borscht by the Ukrainians, among other things, means that there was no “Russian Ukraine”, that the Russians came to use everything ready-made, created before them. And moreover, everything that the world habitually considers “Russian” was actually created by Ukrainians, and the Russians are generally unknown who and unknown where. And if so, then all the concepts about “brotherly peoples” or even “one people” are a lie and an invention of imperial propaganda.}

The "non-brothers" have already achieved tangible success in this field. This isn't just about UNESCO's recognition of "Ukrainian" borscht, but also about the Ukrainian nationalists' victory in the fight for their own version of the toponym "Kyiv" in English. The equally noisy, flamboyant, and intrusive "KyivNotKiev" campaign, overseen by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has led to most foreign airports, international aviation guides, leading media outlets, online hotel and flight booking aggregators, travel guides, encyclopedias, and official documents now using not the Russian transcription "Kiev," which evokes the Russian roots of today's Ukrainian capital, but a version of "Kyiv," independent of Russia and emphasizing its lack of root connection to Russianness.

In Russia, it's been common practice to ridicule this campaign all these years, but as a result, Russian Kyiv has simply disappeared from the English-speaking world . And if it persists anywhere by inertia, it won't last long—the relentless bulldozer of the campaign will crush it there too. In other words, our Kyiv has simply been erased from history outside the Russian-speaking world.

_{Now, in just ten years, we risk losing Russian cuisine, which will be considered “Ukrainian.” And there the “Ukrainian Tchaikovsky ballet,” which today looks like absurdity, will become an uncontested commonplace.}

“I give you all a forecast: by 2035, borscht and chicken Kiev outside Russia will be universally considered Ukrainian dishes. In Russia they will argue about this, but the dominant opinion will also be the Ukrainian nature of these dishes,” says the author of one of the patriotic TG channels gloomily.

_{And if you look at the matter from this angle, then the pre-declared refusal to fight for Russian borscht is quite comparable to leaving the Russian Kherson. In both cases, the official justification is the “inexpediency” of fighting for these bridgeheads under current conditions.}

It appears Russia is at risk of losing the battle not only over borscht, but also over historical memory in the former imperial territories more broadly. As these lines were being written, news came from Estonia, citing Asko Kivinuk, head of the government working group, that the country's authorities will demolish more than 300 Russian and Soviet monuments and gravestones. Moscow's official reaction is easy to predict – the Foreign Ministry will undoubtedly express outrage and give these plans the harshest possible assessment.

And this is generally correct. The problem is that this seems to be the only way Moscow can currently help its monuments and the graves of its dead abroad.