Tweet
The agreement that followed the negotiations between the Cossack delegates and the Muscovites was that of a simple military alliance between two independent and sovereign states. Essentially Left-Bank Ukraine or the Hetmanate became a protectorate of Muscovy. The petition by the Cossacks which was approved by the tsar can be summarized as follows: the traditional rights and privileges of the Host were to be kept intact; the tsar was not to interfere with Cossack courts; the quota of the registered Cossacks was to be raised to sixty thousand; the Ukrainian gentry was to retain its privileges; only native Ukrainians were to receive appointments in Ukraine; the hetman was to be elected freely by the Cossacks, who were to notify the tsar only after elections; all dignitaries of the Host as well as registered Cossacks were to receive a regular salary from the tsar’s exchequer; the hetman retained his authority to receive foreign envoys. However a significant exception was made by the Moscow government that limited the hetmans ability to conduct foreign policy, who was not to enter into any negations with either the sultan or the king of Poland without the authorization of the tsar. Nowhere do the Cossacks agree to give up their liberties in a way that would make them fully dependent on the Muscovite state. They pled allegiance to the Tsar directly, in return for his protection of the Cossack lands. According to V. Lypynsky, the agreement of 1954 was a chance alliance directed against Poland. This analysis coincides with the fact that both parties began negotiations after becoming aware of each others wish to eradicate a mutual enemy. For Khmelnytskyi the alliance with Muscovy was no different to his previous alliances with the Crimean Khanate,
“All historical facts show quite clearly that Khmelnytskyi regarded this agreement as a simple treaty of protection which was quite familiar to him since he had more than once concluded similar treaties in the past, as a temporary military alliance of two states.”
According to professor Yakovliv foreign nations and monarchs viewed the treaty as a contract alliance, as it was perceived by Khmelnytskyi himself. They continued to maintain diplomatic relations with Ukraine as a free and independent state. In 1656 Charles Gustavus, the King of Sweden, wrote to Khmelnytsky of being aware of a treaty being concluded between the Grand Duke of Muscovy and the Cossack Nation, but that “…the freedom of the peoples has remained complete and inviolable” an opinion shared also by the French. Ukraine was also recognized as a “free nation, subject to nobody” in the treaty of alliance concluded between hetman Vyhovsky and Sweden in 1657 at Korsun.
The perception that the treaty signified the reunification of Ukraine to Russia has deep historical roots. Muscovite-Russian chronicles argued that the Kievan lands of the former Kievan Rus’ belong to the prince of Moscow who inherited the political primacy of Kiev, hence making them a part of the tsar’s patrimony. In some capacity even the Polish laid claim to Kievan lands. From this arose the assumption that Muscovite leaders were primarily lead by their desire to reunite the lands formerly subject to the Kievan Rus’ in allying with the Cossacks. On the part of the Ukrainians however there was an absence of the idea that Rus’ was once a single nation. Between 1620 and 1648 there have been numerous reports with references to Ukrainians wanting to serve the Russian Tsar. These reports have been used cited in reference to the idea of a “reunion” however detailed analysis of these documents reveals that Ukrainians simply wished to “serve” the tsar, never does the language of these reports suggest the Ukrainians wished to reunite under his leadership.
=========
Thats all I have on this rig,,,,need my laptop for the rest.
“All historical facts show quite clearly that Khmelnytskyi regarded this agreement as a simple treaty of protection which was quite familiar to him since he had more than once concluded similar treaties in the past, as a temporary military alliance of two states.”
According to professor Yakovliv foreign nations and monarchs viewed the treaty as a contract alliance, as it was perceived by Khmelnytskyi himself. They continued to maintain diplomatic relations with Ukraine as a free and independent state. In 1656 Charles Gustavus, the King of Sweden, wrote to Khmelnytsky of being aware of a treaty being concluded between the Grand Duke of Muscovy and the Cossack Nation, but that “…the freedom of the peoples has remained complete and inviolable” an opinion shared also by the French. Ukraine was also recognized as a “free nation, subject to nobody” in the treaty of alliance concluded between hetman Vyhovsky and Sweden in 1657 at Korsun.
The perception that the treaty signified the reunification of Ukraine to Russia has deep historical roots. Muscovite-Russian chronicles argued that the Kievan lands of the former Kievan Rus’ belong to the prince of Moscow who inherited the political primacy of Kiev, hence making them a part of the tsar’s patrimony. In some capacity even the Polish laid claim to Kievan lands. From this arose the assumption that Muscovite leaders were primarily lead by their desire to reunite the lands formerly subject to the Kievan Rus’ in allying with the Cossacks. On the part of the Ukrainians however there was an absence of the idea that Rus’ was once a single nation. Between 1620 and 1648 there have been numerous reports with references to Ukrainians wanting to serve the Russian Tsar. These reports have been used cited in reference to the idea of a “reunion” however detailed analysis of these documents reveals that Ukrainians simply wished to “serve” the tsar, never does the language of these reports suggest the Ukrainians wished to reunite under his leadership.
=========
Thats all I have on this rig,,,,need my laptop for the rest.
Comment