© HK/BRAMA.com
Roundtable: The Ghosts of Pereiaslav: History and Politics in Contemporary Ukraine
Pictured left to right: Mark von Hagen (Harriman Institute, Columbia U, US), Frank Sysyn (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, U of Alberta, Canada), Serhii Plokhy (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, U of Alberta, Canada), Zenon Kohut (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, U of Alberta, Canada).
In 1654, Cossack Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky established an alliance with the Tsar of Muscovy (later known as Russia) which was written into history as the Treaty of Pereiaslav. 350 years later, the exact nature of that agreement is still a major source of controversy for historians. The participants in yesterday's panel underscored that there was no document signed by Khmelnytsky, and the originals of any later agreements between Muscovy and the Cossacks have not survived, hence the question of authenticity cannot be resolved with absolute certainty. The interpretation of the type of agreement it might have been, whether it was simply a military alliance (Ukrainian historian Viacheslav Lypynsky), a protection and vassalage agreement subjugating Ukrainians to the more powerful Muscovites (Ukrainian historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky), or an unconditional agreement by which Ukrainians united their territory with Muscovy (Nikolai Diakonov, a Russian), or some other variation, remains a mystery that only historians can unravel.
Does it have any relevance at all for Ukraine today? The issue has been the subject of heated debates lately for only one reason: a decree issued by Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma calling for a "celebration" of the Treaty of Pereiaslav as a union between Ukrainians and Russians. Arguments against a celebration of the Treaty suggest that if the event is to be observed at all it should be a commemoration of an episode in Ukrainian history that marks the beginning of 350 years of subjugation under Russia.
|
![[BRAMA Client Websites]](http://www.brama.com/banners/miniads1.gif){kind=small}
Foto I
