January 2004: The Pereyaslav Council. 350 Years Later
Bohdan Khmelnytsky (1595-1657) was a Hetman - the highest state as well as military post in Ukraine's Cossack republic - and undoubtedly one of Ukraine's greatest personalities. Thus, for me it wasn't very difficult to predict that 2004, the year of the fateful Peryaslav Council, in which he played such a crucial role, would be selected as the year of Bohdan Khmelnytsky.
In 1654, in the city of Pereyaslav, a council took place which represented the beginning of an endless series of naive mistakes made by Ukraine in it relations with Russia. The recent decision by Ukraine's current authorities to mark the 350th anniversary in grand fashion - with whatever reason in mind - will inevitably lead to a tense discussion between the country's two major ideological groups: The pro-Russians and the nationalists. Confrontation between these two diametrically opposed camps has broken all world records, flaring up and dying down over the last several centuries.
I would like to focus on the main sore points in this irreconcilable dispute.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky is the only political figure in Ukraine who managed to unite all layers of society, if only for a short period of time. Today, there are more than a few people among both Russia's and Ukraine's authorities who are really frightened by the results of Ukraine's 2002 census, which indicated that 77% of Ukrainians identify themselves as Ukrainians (instead of Russians or former Soviets). Could another Bohdan Khmelnytsky appear on the political landscape? More than likely, during the expected tense discussion mentioned above, attacks against supporters of Ukrainian nationalism - particularly the radical ones - will be stepped up.
From independence to union - different historical interpretations
Khmelnytsky managed to unite Ukrainians and to so fully create a nation in such a short period of time that the Cossack-Polish war of 1648-1654 was referred to in Europe at the time as the "Peasant-Cossack Revolution". During the war, Hetman Khmelnytsky proved to be an excellent commander, losing only one battle against Poland's professional army but winning four much more significant ones. Yet it was Moscow's silent czar, whose forces never heard a single cannon shot during the conflict, that came out the winner. For Poland, it was the beginning of the end of its regional hegemony and eventually its very existence. Khmelnytsky received a crown of fame with a small crack of doubt that has been alternately glossed and tarnished by the pages of history depending on whose version one reads.
For In 1654, during a council in Pereyaslav attended by representatives of various Ukrainian lands and all layers of society, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky convinced his countrymen of the need to be taken "under the wing of the Czar", as an alliance with Turkey or Poland "would be even worse". This is an undisputed historical fact. Thereafter, events start to be interpreted from an exaggerated and indeed hypocritical Russian point of view, which traces its beginnings from the times of Moscow Prince Yuriy Dolgoruky (founder of Moscow, 12th century) and Ivan the Terrible (16th century - a contemporary of England's Queen Elizabeth). The present-day pro-Russian elite considers Khmelnytsky's signing of the Pereyaslav treaty with Russia a pragmatic and wise decision on the part of the Cossack leader, fervently rejecting arguments supporting the view of a fledgling Ukrainian state cut down in its infancy.
But in Europe, many vassal states had "been taken under the wing" of a foreign sovereign without losing much autonomy as a result.
Khmelnytsky had such intentions for Ukraine as well when he signed the so-called union treaty in Pereyaslav. In essence, it was a framework agreement, which guaranteed Ukrainian hetmans supreme and local power, including their own diplomats, finance and army. After the death of Khmelnytsky, both the originals of this treaty disappeared under strange circumstances and have not been found to this date.
Bohdan's legacy in dispute
The absence of the agreement has, over time, enabled the word "union" to replace the word "confederation" in the minds of the people. From this arose Russian denials of a diplomatic victory by the Czar and the propagation of the myth that the Pereyaslav Council was the realization of Ukrainians' long-time dream of eternal unity and assimilation with their brothers in faith and language - Russia.
This conjecture, which always accompanied any Russian historical mention of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, even confused Ukraine's greatest poet and all-time rebel, Taras Shevchenko, who alternately eulogized and almost cursed the great Hetman.
As the Russian empire expanded, turning into the Soviet Union, the myth of Khmelnytsky's firm orientation towards Moscow was immortalized with countless memorials, military awards and the naming of army units and ordinary towns - all in honor of the great leader of the Cossack state. Opponents in the pro-Ukrainian camp consider all this to be historical distortion and will most likely air their arguments during public discussion next year. Here are some of them.
While the war with Poland was still in full swing, Khmelnytsky more than once asked the Czar to take bleeding Ukraine under its protection, but Moscow remained silent. An experienced diplomat, Khmelnytsky understood that the Russians wanted Ukraine and Poland to wear each other out. Only when the Cossack commander, using all kinds of cunning diplomatic tricks, began to weave alliances with Sweden and even Ukraine's most irreconcilable enemies -Turkey and the Crimean Tatars, did the Czar start parallel negotiations on the division of Ukraine with Poland. And although Khmelnytsky was aware of the plans being hatched between Warsaw and Moscow, Ukraine was divided up immediately following his sudden and suspicious death.
Ukrainian, Russian interests in conflic
In 2004, arguments like the common ethnic roots of Ukrainians and Russians and the fact that Zaporizhian Cossacks fought on the side of the Czar in numerous military campaigns well before the Peryaslav treaty was signed will probably be widely used by the pro-Russian camp. These are facts. But in the case of the joint campaigns, the Cossacks commonly served as mercenaries for various European monarchs to fill the treasury of their Zaporizhian capital. Ukrainian historians have found more than 30 instances of battles between Cossacks and Russian forces. In the beginning of the 17th century, Cossack troops even stood at the gates of Moscow - as well as those of Istanbul.
In 1696, the young Russian Czar Peter the First (or Peter the Great) managed to take control of the Turkish fortress Azov on the northern shores of the Azov Sea only on the second try and with the help of 30,000 Zaporizhian Cossacks. This was the beginning of a new empire. Acquiring an outlet to the sea through the Kerch Strait, Peter then demanded from the Turkish sultan, the lord of 20 seas, "an insignificant piece of land" - the northern shore of the Black Sea! It took Russia another 100 years to get it.
There was never any place for an independent Ukraine in the strategic plans of Russia. Moscow looked at its southern neighbor as a platform for further expansion and a source of human and material resources. During all the years that the Russian empire existed, taking control of over 300 different nationalities, lands and bodies of water, Ukrainian recruits made a significant yet unfortunately forgotten contribution to the so-called glory of Russian arms.
For three centuries, Russia exploited Ukraine like an occupied territory. Gradually, prosperous Ukrainian farmers were made into serfs. Ukrainian culture, publishing, education and language were reduced to a minimum. No doubt, pro-Russian supporters would put forth the argument that these losses were compensated by the creation of a single Russian-Ukrainian culture, which enriched both peoples.
But more recently, the Ukrainian pubic has responded with enviable unanimity to a new conflict between Kyiv and Moscow over Tuzla Island in the Kerch Strait, dismissing explanations by Moscow that local Russian authorities (in Krasnodar) are responsible for taking the decision to build a controversial bridge so dangerously close to sovereign Ukrainian territory. In my opinion, this incident can be considered a third Azov campaign - but this time, it is against Ukraine instead of Turkey. Apparently, independent Ukraine is getting in the way of the new "liberal" Russian empire, whose renaissance is supported by the vast majority of the Russian population. These factors, in my view, will contribute tougher arguments to the polemics expected during the 350th anniversary of Bohdan Khmelnytsky's signing of the Pereyaslav Treaty.
|
