History Of Ukraine

The Oldest Period of Ukrainian History
The first man (archanthropinae) appeared on Ukrainian territory about one million years ago during the Stone Age. Archanthropinae probably came from the western regions of Southern Asia and the Balkans. Soon to follow were Neanderthal men (about 135-150 thousand years ago), who were more mentally and physically developed and had family relations. Then about 35 thousand years ago, came Cro-Magnon, the first representative of Homo sapiens.

During the Middle Stone Age the population increased considerably and people could not feed themselves by relying solely on hunting. Thus, they learned how to fish, gather berries and plants, and how to domesticate animals. During the Neolithic era, men learned how to cultivate land, rear cattle, and make pottery. The divergence in economic occupations of people in different regions of Ukraine became greatly appreciated during this time. More agricultural development, hunting and fishing and cultural and economic developments were on the rise at this time. Also during this time, a primitive communal system with a matriarchal social base was formed on Ukrainian terrain.

During the Copper-Bronze age (the 4-3rd millennia BC) labor productivity grew and there were significant changes in the primitive society due to property stratification and changing ideology. The Tripillian culture, which quickly developed vast new territories, is distinguished as having been highly intelligent.

Slavs
In the first millennium BC, Slavs played a leading role in the development of civilization of ethno-Ukrainian society. There were also other ethnic groups which had considerable influence on the ethnogenesis of Ukrainians, such as the, Scithians, Balts, Germans and Kerlates. The territory of Slavs expanded considerably with the coming of a new era. In written sources, they are known as Anths and Sclavs. They shared a common language, similar way of life, similar customs and beliefs. However, there were different tribes, each having its own chiefs, military and policy. After some time, although the Anths disappeared from the South European political map, their traditions have not. The descendants of Anths began populating in the vast areas.
The intensive break-up of patriarchal traditions was observed in the 7th and 8th centuries in the development of East Slav society. Property inequality of the community intensified and determined the formation of the social hierarchy. These processes were especially active in the territory of the Middle Dnieper Area and adjacent lands. Archeological sources have discovered rather quick development of arable farming, cattle rearing, handicrafts, and trade. Soon political and economic centers of Slavic tribes appeared, such as Kyiv. About 14 East Slav tribe unions existed in Ukraine during the 6th — 9th centuries. This lay the political groundwork for Rus. In the late 9th century conditions appeared for forming early feudal states in the area of Slavonic settlement. Modern Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereiaslav were the centers of its territory.

Kyiv Rus
In the year 882, it was stated in old chronicles that Oleg, the Prince of Novhorod, having killed Prince Askold and Prince Dir, mounted the Kyiv throne. He became the ruler of Kyiv or Old Rus, the first state of Old Slavs, which soon turned into one of the greatest countries of Medieval Europe and which played an important part in political life on the continent. It also served as a certain protective barrier between European civilization and nomadic East. Kyiv became the capital of the state.

The poly-ethnical Old Rus state was a monarchical form of government. When he proclaimed Kyiv to be the political center of Rus, Prince Oleg (as well as his successors) were greatly concerned about the problem of consolidation of the nearest tribal principalities around Kyiv — the force of central state institutions being applied it its territory. All the East-Slav tribes and many non-Slav people were under dominion of the Kyiv Prince at the end of the 10th century. Kyiv Rus spread from the Black Sea to the White Sea, from the Carpathians to the Volga River. The vastness of the territory determined the availability (within limits) of certain language and cultural peculiarities — a potentiality of centrifugal tendencies being inevitable.

The Prince’s armed forces played the role of the state elite in Kyiv Rus until the early 11th century. Elder men at arms served as the Prince’s advisers in the most important state affairs and occupied all administrative and court posts. Under the reign of Yaroslav Mudriy (or Yaroslav the Wise) (1019-1054), they performed only military functions, while administrative and legislative staffs were subject to boyars (old tribal aristocrats by birth).

Kyiv princes of the 9-10th centuries cared mainly about strengthening the economic and political power of the state. They fortified cities, put in order legal proceedings and a fiscal system, and regulated the obligations of the dependent population. During Princess Olga’s reign (approximately 946), the first attempt was made to expel paganism and replace it with Christianity. But Christianity wasn’t officially introduced as a state religion in Rus until 988 by Prince Volodymyr Sviatoslavych. Diplomatic relations of the Old Rus State with the neighboring countries, in particular, Byzanthia and the German Empire, intensified during the mid-10th century after the fall of Khozar’s state.

The military marches of Kyiv Princes played an important part in the expansion of the territory of Kyiv Rus and assertions of its power in the eyes of surrounding people. The «Povist mynylykh lit» mentions the victorious raid of Prince Oleg of Tsarhorod in 907, owing to having made peace with the Byzantine Emperor. Some years later, the Russians made several raids on the lands of the Arabian caliphate. In the 940s, Prince Ihor (Oleg’s successor), made several military raids to the Crimean East and Taman, to Byzanthia and to the Caspian Seaside. Military activity of the Old Rus State was also observed in the 960s and early 970s during the reign of Prince Sviatoslav (964-972).

The creation of the Old Rus nation state took place during the reign of Prince Sviatoslav’s son, Prince Volodymyr (978-1015). The economical and political strength of the state, the authority of the Prince’s rule, and the organization of law considerably increased during his reign. The successful military raids of the Prince expanded the limits of the Rus territory.

The process of forming the Old Rus State finished in the beginning of the 11th century under Yaroslav Mudriy. That was the time of the greatest rise of Kyiv Rus. The international authority of the country increased, due to the dynastic relations and diplomacy of the Prince. Yaroslav put forth much effort to subdue civil war (which occurred after the death of Volodymyr) and to protect the state territory from nomad raids. Under Yaroslav the importance of cities in economic and cultural life of the state increased, and relations between the different regions became revived, which helped to increase the trade, agriculture and handicraft industries. The first code of the Old Rus state was created — a collection of laws, «Ruska pravda». Unfortunately, the Prince’s successors were involved in many feuds that inevitably resulted in breaking the unity of the Rus state.

It wasn’t until the early 12th century that Volodymyr Monomakh (1113-1125) managed to stop these feuds for a while. It was under his reign that Kyiv’s authority as the capital was once again increased, and the authority of the Kyiv Prince expanded to the major principalities, and other princes. It was by his initiative that the convention of princes was called to decide important affairs and disputable issues. The internal and external position of the state was stabilized. This was the stage when all the characteristics of the medieval socio-political system with great feudal property, certain ideological religious and political directions had been established in Kyiv Rus.

From the 1130s the disintegration process of the Old Rus State attained an irreversible character. For several years, the territory of this newly powerful state was separated into several independent principalities whose owners did not stop military conflicts until the mid-13th century. The authority of the Kyiv Prince as the state head became quite formal but did not lead to the complete disintegration of the Old Rus state. Kyiv still remained its capital. The personal power of the Kyiv Prince was replaced by the government of «collective suzerainty» of the most influential and powerful Princes. A single centralized monarchy was changed into a federal monarchy, which no longer had the might nor size of its predecessor.

The period of feudal disintegration on the Old Rus lands not only set a mark on their political, socio-economic and cultural development, but also introduced certain innovations to geographical definitions of the state. In particular, the Kyiv Chronicle of 1187 had first coined the term «Ukraine» to define the southern area of Rus lands (Kyiv, Pereiaslav and Chernihiv provinces). After some time, this name was also applied to Halychyna, Volyn, and Podillia. Despite several attempts to unite principalities separated by boundaries, which took place during the 12th and 13th centuries, Kyiv Rus of 1237 weakened economically and politically and suffered the forays of Mongol-Tatar Hordes of Batyi. The Horde reign in the lands of Ukraine continued for more than two centuries.

Halytsian-Volynian Principality

After the disintegration of the Old Rus state in the 12th century into separate regional formations, the Halytsian-Volynian principality had undertaken the state-creating traditions of Rus. In spite of the devastating wars, which had not passed through the principality, certain stabilization of economic and political development was observed in this area in the 12th century. The increase in population, economic potential, as well as the regulation of economic relations was visible in the Halytsian Subcarpathia and Volyn territories. In 1199, principalities with common economic and cultural conditions and political and economic relations, united and formed the Halytsian-Volynian state under the reign of Halytsian Prince Roman, a descendant of Volodymyr Monomakh. Prince Roman was the first in the history of the Old Rus state to be referred to as «Grand Duke», «Autocrat of the whole Rus».

The reinforcement of the Prince’s power in the Halytsian-Volynian state took place under constant hostility on the part of the powerful boyar opposition supported by foreign protectors: Hungarians and Poles. After the death of Roman Mstyslavych, the boyars succeeded in excommunicating his sons: Danylo and Vasylko. In 1214, Kalman, a young Hungarian prince who married a Polish Princess, was proclaimed King of the Halytsian-Volynian principality. From that time began a long war by Danylo Halytskyi and his brother Vasylko to have their father’s throne returned to them. This war became known as the liberating war, for restoring state independence and territorial unity of the Halytsian-Volynian principality. Danylo Romanovych’s main task was to reinforce the state institutions of the principality and social support, which the boyars should have returned to him. Under these conditions, he allowed for the state-creating experience of Byzanthia and a number of other West European countries.

By the end of the 1230s, Danylo Halytskyi managed to secure the neighborly relations by marrying his son to the daughter of Bela IX, the Hungarian King. The Prince had rendered great services to his country in protecting boundaries of the Halytsian-Volynian Principality during the Mongol-Tatar invasion to Rus. The fortification line he had constructed immediately before the invasion allowed decreasing the number of plundering raids as compared to other principalities. For 1254-1255, he succeeded in gaining a number of victories over the Horde armies and in driving them away — outside the boundaries of Ukraine.

The internal and foreign policy of Danylo Halytskyi favored the increase of his popularity in the eyes of the world community. Courtiers of European countries considered it an honor to be associated with the Halytsian-Volynian Prince. In 1253, he was crowned by Pope Innokentyi IX in the town of Dorohychyn, in Pidliashia. This act confirmed the recognition of the Halytsian-Volynian principality as a subject of international law. Territorial possessions of the principality considerably increased in the 13th century, under the descendant of Danylo Romanovych. In particular, the lands of Liublin and a part of Transcarpathia were added to the principality. The Halytsian-Volynian Prince possessed the lands of Lithuania for a certain time. Notwithstanding, the partial economic and political dependence on the Golden Horde, the Principality leaders managed to keep to their own foreign policy. But the constant exhausting struggle with foreign and home enemies gradually weakened the Halytsian-Volynian principality, of which its enemies took advantage without delay. At the end of the 14th century, the lands of the recently b state proved to be divided between Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Moldavia.

Ukrainian Lands as Part of Great Lithuanian Principality and Rich Pospolyta
The military-political movement of Lithuania and Poland to Ukrainian lands began in the 1330s and 1340s, when the Lithuanian Grand Duke Liubard conquered Volyn. The assignment of the lands of the Halytsian-Volynian principality between two foreign states was completed by the Lithuanian-Polish War of 1351-1352, after which Halychyna proved to be under the power of the Polish King (later the West Volynian lands: Kholmian and Belzian, came under the Polish crown). The Podilia, Kyiv, Siver and Pereiaslav provinces also became parts of Lithuania under Liubard’s successor: Grand Duke Olgerd. The local population did not resist Lithuanian expansion to Ukrainian lands. It can be explained that Vilno did not try to break traditional socio-political institutions and the economic system which existed at that time. The state did not want to meddle in the spiritual life of Ukrainian lands. And what is more, it intensively assimilated Ukrainian cultural and religious influences. In 1458, even separate Kyiv metropolia was formed, which was an additional impetus to the development of centrifugal tendencies in Ukrainian lands. The accessibility of Orthodox Kyiv to Western and Greek-Byzantine influences permitted the most important achievements of European civilization to be assimilated and adapted on the local ground.
Forced to resist the onset of German Knights and Golden Horde Khans, as well as the home opposition, the Lithuanian and Polish governments created an international union, validated by the dynastic marriage. The Union conditions foresaw the incorporation of the Great Lithuanian Principality to Polish Kingdom. At the same time, they took measure to politically centralize Lithuania. In particular, Volynian, Novhorod-Siverian, Podilian and Kyiv appanage principalities stopped to be independent. Now, they were subject to the vicars of the Grand Duke of Lithuania. In the future, notwithstanding certain successes, Ukrainian appanage princes did not manage to restore their past positions. For all that, the political and cultural influence of the local princes and boyars in the state was too considerable. In particular, Ukrainian language was the official language of Lithuania. Traditional norms and bodies of self-administration were in force in the country. Vilno also had to reckon with the interests of the Ukrainian reigning elite when performing its home and foreign policy. All of that determined the relative internal stability of the Lithuanian-Russian state.

However, soon the Lithuanian-Catholic element began dominating within the state. Naturally, this called for certain resistance on the part of the home aristocracy. A whole number of revolts took place in the terrain of Ukrainian lands in the late 15th to early 16th centuries. Princes  I. Olshanskyi, M. Olelkovych, F. Biliskyi (1481), and M. Glynskyi (1508) took part in these rebellions.

Cossacks
The first written mention of Cossacks appeared in the late 15th century. The appearance of Cossacks played an outstanding part in the historical fate of Ukraine. Cossacks represented a social standing of free people who defended their land and guarded its boundaries against Turkey-Tatar aggression.

In the middle of the 16th century the Cossacks created their own military-political organization: Zaporizhian Sich. It had the original military-administrative system based on the principles of Cossack democracy. The Cossacks founded specific political institutions such as: institutions of military councils, the Zaporizhian Army Kish as the higher executive-legislative organs, and their own legal proceedings.

The Cossacks were a rather b and numerous organization. K. Kosynskyi and S. Nalyvaiko led the Cossacks in the first great revolts. They took fortresses, liberated towns and villages, and their law became firmly established in the Kyiv, Volyn and Bratslav provinces. Among other great Cossack leaders were Taras Fedorovych, Pavlo But, Yakiv Ostrainyn, Dmytro Hunia.

In 1633 the Polish government, influenced by the revolts, legalized the existence of the Orthodox Church (of which Petro Mohyla was the Metropolitan), and in 1638 the Warsaw courts abolished the Cossacks’ privileges which were previously conquered. Among these Cossack privileges were a legislation of their own, the appointment of officers by election, and the limitation of register.

The defeats of the Cossack rebellions of the 16th to early 17th century made the grave position of Ukrainians worse. Cossack leaders, as well as thousands of rebellious Cossacks and peasants, were annihilated and lands were redistributed. The «gold tranquillity» which prevailed in the early part of the 17th century proved the tranquillity only for Polish magnates and squires who had not obtained lessons from the events of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Gradual accumulation of force before the decisive conflict with the powerful state machine of Rich Pospolyta took place in Ukrainian society.

Liberating War of Ukrainian People in the mid-17th Century
The Liberating War in the mid 17th century had become an event of great significance that fundamentally changed the further development of Ukrainian history. Its most important result was the formation of the independent Ukrainian state.

The war began in February 1648 from the conquering of the Sich by rebels and election of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi (1595-1657), the Chyhyryn sotnyk, as Hetman of the Zaporizhian Army. News about the events in Zaporizhia quickly spread across Ukrainian land, and drew the broadest circle of the population into the rebellion. The success of the rebels was insured by the activity of the newly elected Hetman oriented to the rebellion expansion to the districts, winning over to his side of the register Cossacks, formation of the national army, avoiding the premature military actions with the Polish Army.

Two processes had been distinctly crystallized at the beginning of the Liberating War: state formation and a complete change in the principal model of socio-economic relations. The triumphal attack of the Cossack Army in the spring and summer of 1648 — as well as the liberation from the reign of Polish squires of the vast territories of Ukraine (battles under Korsun and Zhovti Vody) and the defeat of Poles under Pyliavtsi and a raid of the Cossack Army to the vicinities of Lviv and Zamostia — had determined the essential change in Hetman’s political plans.

The idea of Cossack autonomy within the limits of the Kingdom of Poland was inferior to that of the necessity of complete defeat of Rich Pospolyta and creation of the own state whose foundations had been laid by the end of 1648 in most parts of Ukrainian territory. Thus, during June-November 1648, the process of forming national state institutions was mainly completed in the central, southern and eastern regions, while in the western regions they were in the intensive process of formation the old administrative territory was replaced with a new regiment-sotnia the Cossacks’ court and judicial procedure was introduced the National Army was formed serious changes were observed in the social structure of the population. The Cossacks’ played a leading part in ruining the Polish state, and in the formation of Ukrainian state institutions.

The close links between national liberation and social struggle at the very beginning of the war was a characteristic feature of that time. It was a social struggle that played an exceptionally important part in the formation of the new socio-economic system of the Ukrainian state. Hundreds of detachments of the peasants and townsmen ruined the estates of squires, destroyed shliakhta, leaders, village magistrates and Catholic churchmen. The Cossack ideal became a generator of the activities for masses of peasants. Their conscience imagined the Cossack to be a man free from any obligations (except for military) before a squire and a state. That is why the struggle for obtaining the Cossack immunity (personal freedom, the right to possess land, to be under their own jurisdiction) became the all-Ukrainian phenomenon during this time . The social struggle resulted in the peasants’ war which for the first time in the history of Ukraine embraced the greatest part of its territory and proved to be an especially important factor in the development of national revolution. Peasants refused to perform numerous duties in favor of their landlords (statute labor in particular). The Liberating War opened a possibility of transfer of peasants and townsmen to the status of Cossacks who had a lot of rights and privileges at that time. At the same time, the Cossack officers also consolidated their positions during the years of war. They also took the road of material enrichment and wanted to secure the ownership of land and acquire production enterprises.

The lessons of the first war allowed Bohdan Khmelnytskyi to make certain corrections in his political program early in 1649. Henceforth, his first rate task was to unify all ethno-Ukrainian lands in the limits of the national state. A new program also provided for the recognition of social gains of the people masses, and consolidation of the Hetman’s power.

The period 1649 to 1652 was characterized by the active efforts of the young state to firmly establish itself in the world arena. The Hetman’s government made a military-political union with the Crimean Khanate, carried on active negotiations with Moscow and Warsaw, and established diplomatic relations with Porta, Moldavia, and Transylvania.

Extremely unfavorable geopolitical situations interfered with Khmelnytskyi’s plans. In order to avoid the Union of Crimean Khan Islam Hirey with the King of Poland, Yan Kazymir, the Hetman had to make the Zboriv agreement in August 1649. The latter, though recognizing the existence of the Cossack states, limited its territory by Bratslav, Kyiv and the Chernihiv provinces. At the same time, it abolished a number of social gains of the Ukrainian people. In response, the Cossacks and peasants took up arms once again. Mass actions in a number of regions took place for much of 1650. The threat of civil war was avoided because of Khmelnytskyi’s social policy.

The ruling circles of Rich Pospolyta tended to decide the Ukrainian problem by the methods of war. In February 1651, the Polish Army passed to the offensive. A new military campaign was started which nearly turned into a catastrophe because of the insidious Crimean Khan under the town of Berestechko. This agreement was signed in September 1651 in Bila Tserkva. The terms of this agreement greatly limited autonomy, which evoked mass discontent among the Ukrainian people. Patriotic enthusiasm embraced Ukraine. Khmelnytskyi mobilized the army and won a great victory in the battle near the settlement of Batih against the Polish Army on May 23, 1652. Nearly the entire Ukrainian territory was liberated from Polish oppression. However, the development of this victory was not successful. The anti-Ukraine coalition, which included Rich Pospolyta, Moldavia, Valakhia and Transylvania, was created in the summer of 1653. The Crimea-Porta relation grew worse. Under these conditions, the relations with Moscow assumed a peculiar place in the Hetman’s political plans. In the opinion of the Ukrainian ruler, the orientation to the Moscow state could provide for irreversibility of the changes that had occurred at that time in Ukraine: the liberation from Polish power, the functioning of Ukraine as an independent state, and the reunification in the future of all Ukrainian lands under the Hetman’s hist mace. After long-term negotiations, Ukraine consented to embrace the protectorate of Moscow. On October 1, 1653, a corresponding resolution was passed by the Zemstvo Council, the highest representative body of the Moscow State. On January 8, 1654, the decision on the Zaporizhian Army subjection to the Moscow Tsar was made by the participants of the Pereiaslav Rada.

This agreement provided for the preservation of the political system that existed in Ukraine, the army, the in-force model of socio-economic relations, and rights for making an independent home policy. Partial control was established only over its foreign-political activities and taxation policy. The agreement of 1654 ratified the creation of a confederation — a military union. However, being a part of monarchic Moscow, the Ukrainian state was deprived of prospects for its development.

After 1654, a new stage in the course of the Liberating War began. The aim of the Ukrainian state to destroy Rich Pospolyta and to reunite all ethno-Ukrainian lands within the Cossack territory was invariable. As a result of miscalculations by the Moscow government in evaluating the military-political situation, the military campaign from the autumn of 1654 to winter of 1655 resulted in an awful ravage of the Bratslav province. Hetman Khmelnytskyi began searching for allies among other countries. He succeeded in improving relations with the Crimea and Turkey, modified relations with Transylvania, and created an important alliance with Sweden.
At about the same time, Moscow, intimidated by the success of the Swedish Army, signed the Vilno truce agreement with Rich Pospolyta in August 1656, and began military actions against Karl  X. When he had come to know about Moscow’s change in the foreign-political course, the Hetman Khmelnytskyi understood its balefullness for realization of the program of reuniting Ukrainian lands and began looking for the ways to create an anti-Poland coalition with Sweden and Transylvania. He set his special hopes on the success of the Ukrainian-Transylvanian raid on Poland which, unfortunately, had a tragic end for the troops of Gyorgy II Rakoczi. The failed raid meant a crash in the plans of Ukrainian sovereign to win the victory in the struggle with Rich Pospolyta in coalition with Sweden and Transylvania. The internal situation in Ukraine also became worse. The Hetman’s influence on the settlement of state affairs weakened due to poor health. The growth of social strength became noticeable, the will of Cossack officers increased and some groups were fighting for power. During this time, the Tsar’s government activated the measures on the limitation of autonomous rights of Ukraine. During the most critical period of this time, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytskyi died on July 27, 1657.

The Ukrainian State During the Late 17th Century
The Hetman’s State in Ukraine that Khmelnytskyi created had great potential for independence. However, these potentials were not realized for many reasons. It wasn’t until the late 17th century that the domestic problems that tore Ukrainian society apart became more defined as a result of a policy of tsarism. The brutal struggle between some hetmans and claimants of the Hetmate broke out immediately after Khmelnytskyi’s death. The country was drawn into the vortex of civil war, political crisis and economic displacement for many years.

The intricate socio-political situation required that existing problems be resolved quickly. However, political mistakes, unweighted means in the social sphere made the available contradictions in the society too sharp. New Hetman  I. Vyhoskyi (?-1664) pursued a course for the creation of an oligarchic republic and gradually lost the support of the greatest part of cossacks. Zaporizhia, and a number of regiments in Left-Bank Ukraine who neglected the Hetman’s aspirations, proved to be in opposition to him. The Tsar’s government, interested in weakening the Cossack State, also made its contribution to increasing civil disquiet. Governments of other neighboring states were also in a hurry to take advantage of this situation.

During the civil war, which began in Ukraine in the spring of 1658, its leader (first in the state’s history) was the first to look for support from the foreign force (not to defend the state independence, but to fight with the domestic opposition and the rising people). He created the Tatar Horde in order to smash the rising regiment and cossacks headed by M. Pushkar and Y. Barabash, and decided to renew the union with Rich Pospolyta. The Hadiach agreement of September 16, 1658, provided for the return of Cossack Ukraine under the Polish crown as an autonomy. The agreement’s conditions changed the then political system of the Hetman’s power. In the socio-economic aspect of things, they renewed the pre-war forms of land ownership. Changes in the course of foreign policy as well as cruel measures of people in the Left Bank Ukraine area increased the discontent of cossacks, with I. Vyhovskyi reigning, and created a precedent of a split of the state. This created an elite which was dangerous to the territorial unity of the state. A tendency of the Left Bank officers to be oriented with Moscow, and the Right Bank officers to be oriented with Warsaw was manifested and became more profound at this time.

Newly elected Hetman Yurii (about 1641-1685), a son of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, could not prevent the increase of the troubling symptoms. The Chudnivsk agreement, which he made during the military campaign of 1660, practically recognized the validity of the Hadiach agreement. In 1663, deprived of real political support, Yurii Khmelnytskyi abdicated. The Hetman’s mace in Left Bank Ukraine, owing to the support of the Tatars, came to the hands of General Secretary (Pysar) P. Teteria. Near the city of Nizhyn in 1663, the Chorna Rada, as it is called in Left Bank Ukraine, elected the Cossacks’ chief, I. Briukhobetskyi (?-1668), to be Hetman,. Such was the division of Cossacks’ Ukraine into two Hetmanates. The complete territory distribution of Ukraine between two states was confirmed by the Andrusiv truce of 1667 between the Moscow State and Rich Pospolyta. The Left Bank and Kyiv with surrounding territory stayed with Moscow the Right Bank remained under Poland, and Zaporizhia was subject to both states. Some time later, the territory dismemberment was confirmed by the clauses of the so called «Eternal» peace of 1686.

The signing of the Andrusiv agreement made the reunion of Ukrainian lands much more problematic. But notwithstanding, the deep socio-political contradictions between the state elite oriented to different foreign forces and continual interference of the latter to the domestic life of Ukraine, both its regions were bound into a single state organism by political and economic factors. The prospects of the territory consolidation of the Left and Right Banks became most visible in the period of the reign of P. Doroshenko (1627-1698), a colonel from Pryluky. Being one of Khmelnytskyi’s fellow warriors, the Left Bank Hetman belonged to the convinced supporters of the existence of a single powerful Ukrainian state. To achieve this aim, he began fighting with Poles, made an agreement with the Tatars, negotiated with representatives of the Moscow Tsar and Left Bank Hetman  I. Briukhovetskyi. He succeeded in uniting both of the territories under his mace for a short time. But the interference of Russia and Rich Pospolyta which extended a campaign against the Hetman made this victory an unstable one. The Cossacks’ Ukraine proved to be drawn into a new vortex of political struggle and internecine wars. At the beginning of July 1668, P. Doroshenko had to leave Left Bank Ukraine, and in March 1669, at the Cossacks’ Council in Hlukhiv they elected a Chernihiv colonel who was supported by Moscow, D. Mnohohrishnyi (1696), to be Hetman of Left Bank Ukraine. The agreement he had with the Moscow government essentially limited the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state.

Under the new conditions, P. Doroshenko, supported by the Korsun Council in March 1669, became inclined to accept the Turkey protectorate. At the same time, he did not think it impossible to come to an understanding with Moscow or Rich Pospolyta, but on the condition that their governments would recognize the sovereignty rights of the single Cossacks’ Ukraine. Doroshenko’s political career ended in 1676.

At the General Council in Pereiaslav, General Judge  I. Samoilovych was elected a Hetman of Cossacks’ Ukraine «on both sides of the Dnieper». He succeeded in holding the Hetman’s mace for fifteen years. An autocrat and loyal to his officers and to the Tsar, he was also oriented to the creation of the aristocratic state with b Hetman’s power. He resisted the attempts of the Zaporizhia chiefs to affirm their political independence, often expressed his discontent with the Moscow government, as they had renounced the right for Left Bank Ukraine in favor of Poland. He always tried to draw the attention of Moscow and Rich Pospolyta to the fact that the Right-Bank Ukraine and West Ukrainian Lands with the Left Bank Ukraine can be a single state body.

Late in the 17th century, one could observe considerable changes in the social sphere of life in Cossacks’ Ukraine. The hetmanate was a multi-class social organism. The population mainly consisted of peasants who had conquered their personal freedom with weapons, and for some period, they owned their own land. However, due to historical conditions, all the actions of the Hetman’s administration (both economic and socio-political) were subject to interests of the Cossack upper layers, who were the privileged class in society at that time. They obtained the right to possess land, to occupy themselves in production activity, to take part in political life of the state.

Ukrainian membership in the Moscow state also influenced its economic development. In particular, certain changes took place in the Hetmanate foreign trade and economic relations. The country painfully lost its traditional western trade routes and sales markets. They were gradually reoriented to Moscow.

The institutions of the Ukrainian state system, formed in the years of the Liberation War, still functioned in the second half of the 17th century within the borders of the Hetmanate. However, the Russian government began the limitation and later liquidation of the traditional military-political system of Ukraine. The offensive of Moscow also touched the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which from 1686 was subject to the Moscow patriarchy. The decades after 1654 gave the impetus to gradual but inflexible processes when the Ukrainian state lost its ethnic features — the whole socio-political institution being liquidated.

Right-Bank Western Ukrainian Lands During the 18th Century
The violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the last part of the 17th century considerably determined certain peculiarities in social, political and economic development for the following decades of its two great regions: Left Bank Ukraine and Slobozhanshchyna, and West Ukrainian lands. Almost until the end of the 13th century, the Left Bank region was part of Rich Pospolyta. The winnings from the Liberation War of the mid 17th century were gradually abolished and the prewar regime was renewed. But certain elements of state-creating traditions still remained the important fact of socio-political life in the land. In the early 18th century, there were cossacks’ regiments in the Right Bank Dnieper area. Large villages with quickly developing economic activities were distributed in the area. Unfortunately, the international situation was not favorable for the Right Bank cossacks. Poland soon established its power in the entire Right Bank territory.

The same was the situation in Eastern Halychyna. Royal authorities acted within its boundaries. Polish lords owned great land estates that included hundreds of towns and villages. Only cities (Kamianets-Podilskyi and Lviv) had a right of self-government. The Union was still introduced in West Ukrainian regions. In the early 18th century it was adapted by Lviv and Lutsk bishops as well as by other church hierarchies. As to other Ukrainian lands: Transcarpathia was still part of Hungary and Northern Bukovyna was under the reign of the Moldavian principality, the vassal of Turkey. Foreign ethnic political institutions and right standards were in force there.
Considerable changes occurred in the political condition of the Western Ukrainian lands in the late 18th century. The downfall and division of Rich Pospolyta marked the territory-state belonging to Halychyna, Transcarpathia and Northern Bukovyna. As a result of the first Poland downfall (1771), almost all of Halychyna and the western part of Volyn and Podillia were conquered by Austria. Those lands were unified with a part of Polish provinces into the «Kingdom of Halychyna and Lodomeria». The other territories were gained by Austria after the third downfall of Poland (1795). Northern Bukovyna was also occupied by Austria. In 1774, the Vienna troops occupied the whole territory of the land (in 1775 these gains of Austria were affirmed by the Constantinople convention). Transcarpathia, which preserved traditional division into comitates, remained under the reign of the Hapsburgh monarchy.

For the last part of the 18th century, Austrian Emperor Josef II and Empress Maria Theresia realized a number of reforms in the land. They limited the power of landlords over peasants, canceled the peasants’ personal dependence on landlords, liquidated certain duties. The government also made reforms in the spiritual sphere (e. g., they opened a lyceum in Mukacheve and seminary in Lviv). At the same time, schools with education in Ukrainian were organized. A number of Ukrainian departments were founded in Lviv University, which opened in 1784. Unfortunately, these progressive actions of Austrian government were ceased in the future.
The liberating struggle never stopped in the lands of Right Bank Ukraine. A great peasants’ rebellion burst out in 1702-1704. The rebels crushed the Polish Army in the Kyiv province, Podillia and Volyn. The Right Bank rebels had the help of Cossacks from Zaporizhia and Left Bank Ukraine, and people from Moldavia, Bielorussia, and Valakhia. This «people’s rebellion» was suppressed. However, the so-called movement of Haidamaks rose in the region. Small, yet extremely mobile squadrons of Haidamaks attacked the landlords’ estates, merchants’ caravans, separate tenants, etc. The Haidamak movement continued until the mid 1770s.

The great people’s liberation revolt began in Right Bank Ukraine in 1768 and was known as «Koliivshchyna». The rebels conquered the fortress of Uman as well as a number of other towns and settlements. Cossacks’ regiments were introduced in certain provinces. However, some months later Poland, with the help of the Russian Army, succeeded to defeat the main cossack regiments.

In the second half of the 18th century, Rich Pospolyta went through a period of decline. As a result of the downfall of Rich Pospolyta, the territory of the Right Bank belonged to Russia. Two years later, the lands of Volyn and Bielorussia also became a part of Russia. General imperial orders: separation into vice-regencies (later provinces), Russian court system, action of «nobility charter», etc. were introduced into these regions. However, the issue of reuniting all the Ukrainian lands was not yet completely resolved. They became parts of the Russian and Austrian empires. There were decades of political disconnection, statelessness, and the national persecution of Ukrainians in the future.