The state emblem is a distinctive sign, inherited, one of the symbols of statehood, reflecting the historical and philosophical essence of any state.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, "The Great State Emblem of Ukraine is established taking into account the small State Emblem of Ukraine and the coat of arms of the Zaporizhzhya Army … The main element of the large State Emblem of Ukraine is the Sign of the Princely State of Volodymyr the Great (small State Emblem of Ukraine)."
Let me tell you a little secret: Ukraine today does not have a state emblem, there is only a small emblem - a trident on a blue shield of golden color. At the same time, it is pompously indicated that this is the "Sign of the Princely State of Vladimir the Great." The authors of this statement refer to the sign of the state, which, moreover, with such a name, never existed. Also, there is still no large coat of arms, there is only a bill on this coat of arms, which has not yet been considered by the parliament of Ukraine.
So, the main symbol of the state so far is the trident, whose history is shrouded in fog. Where it came from and what this symbol means, no one knows for sure. There are more than thirty Ukrainian versions of its origin. This is completely abnormal, the symbol of the state is a sign, the meaning of which is precisely unknown to anyone, even to those who accepted it.
There are several versions of its origin. One by one, Prince Vladimir seemed to use it as a personal heraldic sign on seals and coins. At the same time, the trident was exclusively his personal symbol, which had nothing to do with the generic heraldic signs of the Rurikovichs. In addition to the trident, various ancient Russian princes also used the now forgotten "two-tooth" and a host of other sovereign symbols, reminiscent of stamps for cattle. The trident has never been the state emblem of Russia either.
Rather, it is just a distinctive princely symbol, a personal sign of the prince, with whom he marked everything that belonged to him, from his coins to cattle, bricks and slaves. That is, it was a purely economic sign of property that had nothing to do with heraldry. That is why each prince had his own personal trident or bident.
As for what exactly this sign represents, there are many assumptions: a banner, an anchor, a chandelier, an ax, a diving falcon (as on the coat of arms of the ancient Russian city of Ladoga). Whatever they tried to discern in the princely brand! We do not know what the Rurikovichs were thinking when they branded their cattle. But they probably did not even in a nightmare that this brand could become a symbol of the Ukrainian state in centuries.
Interestingly, this symbol in different versions was used only by the closest successors of Prince Vladimir: Svyatopolk the Damned and Yaroslav the Wise. Subsequently, the Rurikovichs and Russian tsars never used the trident as the emblem of Russia.
In this regard, it is funny to observe the Ukrainian "power-makers" who fanned the trident with romantic legends, even read the word "will" in it and worship it with reverence as an ancient symbol of Ukrainian statehood.
The trident also refers us to the myth of Neptune, the ancient god of the sea, whose dark energy is aimed at destruction. As an attribute of Neptune, this dangerous and cruel god, the trident symbolizes an element beyond the control of man.
Since Christian times, the trident has often been referred to as one of the symbols of the spiritual power of the prince of darkness. Satan is often depicted with a trident in his hand. Yes, and the notorious devils are depicted with a pitchfork, and it is with three teeth.
According to another version, the prince's trident really looks like the top of the scepter of the emperors of Byzantium. And by the presence of a Christian cross on the trident of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, one can assume about his connection with the Byzantine emperors.
What was the top of the scepter of the Byzantine emperors? Only general outlines are visible on the seals. Considering that the eagle was the symbol of the ruling dynasty of the Palaeologus and the state symbol of the Byzantine Empire, then it was he who should have sat on the imperial scepter.
That is, the top of the scepter, then copied by the Russian princes, was a simplified image of a two-headed eagle - a symbol of the Christian unity of East and West. Thus, it can be assumed that, ironically, the small coat of arms of Ukraine is a stylized imperial eagle that has now flown onto the coat of arms of Russia.
According to the most convincing third version, confirmed by facts, the earliest image of a trident appeared on the coins of the Kiev prince Vladimir at the end of the 10th century. In 985, Prince Vladimir took possession of Khazaria, and the Khazar state ceased to exist.
Due to the fact that until the 10th century coins were not minted in Russia, the first coins of Vladimir were imitations of the Khazar tamga that was circulating on the merchant market at that time, especially since this emphasized the victory over the kaganate. As can be seen from the figures, the image of the trident on the coins is a direct tracing paper from the Khazar tamga, which was widely used in the Khazar Kaganate.
As Christianity strengthened, the victory over Khazaria became history, and tamga-like signs disappear from use on the coins of Russia. The obverse of the subsequent coins depicted a prince seated on the throne, and the reverse depicts Jesus Christ, as on Byzantine solidi. That is, the appearance of the image of the trident-tamga was temporary.
Therefore, using as the state emblem of Ukraine the image of the tamga of the Jewish Khazar Kaganate that died in the darkness of centuries, moreover, with an unknown semantic meaning, is not only a manifestation of low historical literacy, but a sign of the absence of historical events and traditions in the state, which could be used as material for the coat of arms.
Now about what does not exist - about the large coat of arms, the draft of which has not yet been adopted by the parliament of Ukraine. It is made in the "heraldic" style of the African states that have recently gained independence, and looks more like the emblem of some commercial company than the state emblem. This is a complete departure from elementary aesthetic norms, lack of taste, style and sense of proportion with the simultaneous aggressive vulgarization and primitivization of everything and everyone.
First of all, the symbolic and semantic incompatibility of details is striking. Everything that someone considered purely Ukrainian was simply shoved into it. And this is no coincidence.
European heraldry is directly related to the aristocratic past, chivalry, nobility and is limited by clear symbolic and semantic rules, when each detail has its own clear meaning and is in its own specific place.
Countries that are deprived of a noble, aristocratic past have no need to comply with the laws of heraldry. They simply place symbols of the daily life of their people on their coats of arms. Even a Kalashnikov assault rifle. This is a completely different, non-European logic. That is why the project of the large coat of arms of Ukraine is purely "national", similar to a souvenir stall with cheap popular prints.
The design of the coat of arms depicts a lion, symbolizing the Galicia-Volyn principality, and the Cossack of the Zaporozhye army, which seem to personify the unity of Western and Eastern Ukraine. In what way can the unity between a wild beast and a man with a gun be manifested? This is obvious - the desire for mutual destruction. It is unlikely that it will be possible to more accurately show the relations between the whole of Ukraine and Galicia at a symbolic level.
In addition, the lion on the draft coat of arms is a slightly modified lion from the emblem of Lvov and the 14th SS Galicia division. On the head of the SS beast, they simply put on the golden crown of the kingdom of Galicia, which was once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The result is a wonderful symbol of Western Ukraine - an SS lion with an Austrian crown on its head.
And the state-making of Eastern Ukraine is symbolized by the Cossack. And this despite the fact that the Cossacks have always carried in themselves an uncontrollable, anarchic element that denies any statehood! To the Cossacks across the Wild Field, to the Zaporozhye Sich, they fled for freedom, not for freedom. For the will!
So the project of the large emblem turned out to be very symbolic, besides, the lion and the man trample wheat and viburnum into the ground - the generosity and wealth of the land, as if emphasizing the destructive power of this state.
Since the 14th century, the trident has been completely forgotten for more than five hundred years. On the territory of present-day Ukraine, at the suggestion of the representatives of Galicia, they tried to revive the trident in the symbols of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the Hetmanate of Skoropadsky and the Petliura directory. In addition to decline, civil war and another ruin, it did not bring anything worthwhile. What is symbolic, all these supposedly republics existed exclusively at the expense of foreign bayonets. Whether Germans, Poles, it doesn't matter. The main condition is the presence of a foreign army in the territory declared by the next Ukraine.
During the Great Patriotic War, Galician collaborators from the OUN-UPA under this symbol destroyed their compatriots. And again, only after the appearance on our land of foreign, this time Hitler's, boots. Vladimir Symonenko wrote well about them:
“No wonder people called you dogs, Bo you licked nimtsy postols.
Oral Heil, ohrydy basams, That "She ne vmerla!" voices revly ".
From Galicia, he came in 1991 to the separatist parliament of Ukraine and was imposed as a state symbol.
The symbolism of Ukrainian statehood is as absurd as its actual reality. Using this symbolism, it is easy to see its near unhappy future and depressing prospects.
By unbiasedly comparing the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR with the small coat of arms and the draft of the large coat of arms of Ukraine, we will see a striking difference. As far as the first one speaks of the lofty aspirations of its creators, the second one speaks of the wretchedness, provincialism and the unviability of a state with such symbols. This, in turn, indicates the artificiality of the very idea of Ukrainian statehood, giving it a touch of doom and unviability.
