Summary

It is obvious, that the people of the late Middle Ages as well as the Early Modem Age, including that ones, which inhabited «the old» — Cossack Ukraine, had got quite different political intellection, than that a society of the beginning of the third millennium has. It is apparent, that three or five centuries ago the contemporary intellectuals and political figures interpreted absolutely otherwise international law relations between the different states and political formations. But its largely depended on the process of transformation of the old «private» feudal suzerain-vassals relations firstly into «private and political» and then into «state and political» connections, as well as on replacement of personal relations between the head of a state, suzerains and his vassal lords by modem institutional relations between a government and the whole mass of the subjects of one or another state. As a result of the development of poly-variant political structures and state institutions the process of formation of early Modem Age model of a state began, that afterward became the basis of Etat modern. The formation of new state-political systems of East-Central Europe and, in particular, such specific state organism as Ukrainian Hetmanate, having arisen as a result of the revolutionary events of the 1648–1676 years at the territory of «the Rus’» provinces of Polish-Lithuanian federation became constituent part of that process.

To the end of the 16-th — in the first part of the 17-th centuries the autonomic tendencies of Ukrainian Cossacks led to the fact that they in the status of corporative military and political structure — «collective vassal» — began their struggle for the «restoration» of their privilegia et libertates as well as for the purpose of influencing on Polish king (who was before a suzerain of Zaporozhian Cossacks during a long time), and they addressed to the neighboring monarchs with the request to accept them on military service and to grant the help. The result of these actions was the fact, that the Cossacks became the power having upset the contemporary system of international relations, and, in consequence, gradually having assumed a character of an agent of interstate affairs. At the same time as a result of numerous political-military campaigns the Cossack officers (starshyna) acquainted themselves well with a problem of international affirmation of Near Danube Principalities — Moldavia, Wallachia, as well as Transylvania. It consisted in orientation of the local elites toward the three strong neighboring powers — Ottoman sultan, Austrian emperor and Polish king (and sometimes — towards the Hungarian king and Muscovite tsar also). The manifestation of foreign policy development of the governors of these small states was a changing of their suzerains by turn, and occasionally simultaneous acceptance of two (even three) protections for saving own independence. To our mind, it was influence of Moldavian, Wallachian and Transylvanian practice of intergovernmental relations that affected the arising of poly-vassalage subordination policy of Zaporozhian Cossacks — Ukrainian Hetmanat during considered period. The political and cultural exchange between Cossack corporation and Crimean Khanat was enough brisk as well.

The Ukrainian national revolution of the 1648–1676 years, that had been founded by Polish nobleman and Cossack officer Bohdan Khmel’nytskyi, became original continuation of European Thirty Years’ War of 1618–1648, because of the leaders of the revolution completed the aims, which had not been solved by the leaders of anti-Habsburg coalition during the first part of the 17-th century, namely to counteract for the plans of the House of Austria to resume as well as to expand of supranational Habsburgs Empire of the period of Carle V. The arising of a new as a matter of fact national state at the eastern lands of Polish-Lithuanian federation not just made weaker this powerful country — «unofficial» catholic ally of Vienna but at the same time it destroyed the «east barrier» concept of Habsburgs in their plans of modernization of Holy Rome Empire.

Due the poly-vassalage subordination concept put in practice by B. Khmel’nytskyi, during ten revolutionary years the Ukrainian Hetmanat finally became firmly established in the geo-political structure of Europe as a truly independent state, but nominally dependant from the monarch courts of this region. At the territory of East-Central Europe the new state-political organism led by hetman came into being, that laid claim to the certain international status, that could be assured at that time just bordering dynastical houses. Self-proclaimed governor of the Hetmanat Khmel’nytskyi was recognized by European and Asian monarchs as a vassalage ruler, who had right to name himself with title «dux».

The hetman of Ukraine made a number of international agreements, among them the agreements with Muscovite Principality are special marked out in historiography, that in due course being influenced by certain factors assumed mythological ting in meaning «reunification», «affiliation», «unification» etc. of Ukraine and Russia. It is known that any pact had not been accepted by Cossack Assembly (Rada) of 1654 in the Pereyaslav-city. As a result of that-year negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in February and March two documents came into being, namely the 23 points — «articles», which were sent by Bohdan Khmel’nytskyi to Moscow and which had to become a basis of further agreement, and 11 points-«articles» which were sent to Chyhyryn by Muscovite tsar Aleksei Michaylovich. Just some of this «articles» (they are also named «the articles of March») were realized during the next years. According to statements of many historians, neither Russian party no Ukrainian one adhered to the attained agreements, therefore just a nominal tsar’s protectorate over the Ukrainian state is likely to be spoken about. By the way, at the same time Khmel’nytskyi without hesitating recognized supremacy of Ottoman sultan as well as tended toward recognizing of Hungarian Prince and Swedish king protection. Thus he «intimidated» one monarch by other and tried to oppose the one dynastic sovereign to other for to achieve a separate «appanage» status for just consolidated Cossack State.

The policy of Bohdan Khmel’nytskyi was continued by his successors at a post of hetman. One of the reasons of the enough frequently changing of the protectors held by the government of Ivan Vyhovskyi, Yurii Khmel’nytskyi, Petro Doroshenko, Ivan Mazepa, Pylyp Orlyk, during 60-th of the 17 century — the beginning of the 18 century was impossibility to assure by them consolidation of Ukraine under the leadership of such or diverse monarchs. Some other factors causing hesitation of the Ukrainian rulers between dynastic monarchies and class-represented ones of European and Asian continents also existed. Rather the main factor among them was an assurance by a king of Polish-Lithuanian federation, by a tsar of Muscovite Principality or by a sultan of Ottoman Empire (It was the triangle that mostly the «barging» of hetmans from the one to other protection has taken part in it) the better liberties for Zaporozhian Cossacks as a corporative estate organization, as well as «the rights and privileges» of every supreme and middle classes of contemporary Ukrainian society, being consolidating factors of early modem Ukrainian state.

Within the some historical periods the Crimean khan, prince of Transylvania and king of Sweden were the protestors of Ukraine as well. Enough frequent transfer of hetmans from a one to another monarch and their policy of poly-vassalage (hence sometimes they recognized themselves as vassals of two or even three suzerains at ones) could mean only the fact that by means of these actions they tried to ensure the status quo of own power and to help out movement towards achieving for themselves the more independent status.

The main «apple of discord» of a diplomatic and military rivalry, that from the middle of the 17-th century, was not able be divided by the prominent monarchic houses of the East-Central, East-South and the North Europe, was a problem of belonging of a new state of the region to the sphere of influence of a one of them. In accordance with this the international legal status of Ukraine continued be indefinite during long time. Neither Truce of Andrusovo of 1667 between Moscow and Warsaw nor Truce of Buchach of 1672 among Warsaw and Istanbul, as well as nor Truce of Bakhchisaray of 1681 among Istanbul and Moscow, or nor «Permanent Pease Treaty» of 1686 between Warsaw and Moscow established finally the authority of any of these dynastic houses over the entire territory of Ukraine. Beside this, since the middle 70-th step by step the boundaries of modus vivendi between Poland, Turkey and Russia started on to become apparent. The two former states temporally limited their territorial appetites with Right-bank Ukraine, the last one tried not to lost of its hands the Left-bank Ukraine. Although everyone of the «supreme parts» of this international contest did not left the plans to occupy all Ukrainian lands, gradually their diplomats began to follow the concept of balance in relation among their countries, on account of All-European tendencies in the international relations of that time.

Consequently, having analyzed the main aspects of Ukrainian Hetmanat foreign policy within the context of international relation of the states of East-Central, East-South and North Europe, the fact of recognizing by the governors of Cossack state a vassalage towards several neighboring monarchical rulers at once is to be noted. So during 1654–1657 the hetman B. Khmel’nytskyi simultaneously was under the protections of Turkish sultan and Muscovite tsar and he wanted to take a suzerainty of Sweden. In 1658 I. Vyhovskyi firstly submitted to Muscovite tsar and Swedish king and than he went over under a protectorate of Polish king. During 1669–1676 P. Doroshenko recognized own submission to Polish king and Turkish sultan but he finished with a Muscovite protection. During long time hetman I. Mazepa was under a scepter of Russian monarchs (1687–1708), and then under that of Polish and Swedish king. His fellow-fighter and successor P. Orlyk recognized the supremacy of Swedish king and Turkish sultan, nevertheless in the Ukrainian Constitution of 1710 he laid down the basis for an independent existing of Cossack State. The sources of such kind behavior of the main creators of international policy of Hetmanate are to be searched out in the practice or inter-governmental relations of this European region at an edge of the Middle Ages and Early Modem Age.

More than a half of a century the Ukrainian rulers, on account of the contesting of the more powerful state (Polish-Lithuanian federation, Muscovite-Russian State, Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Sweden), were forced to conduct the policy of manoeuvring among them, to pass from the one side into other, to refused from the one suzerain for another. Thereby the international legal legitimacy of early-modern Ukrainian State was ensured. Sometimes the hetmans recognized their dependence from several monarchs simultaneously but this was doing only for protecting own state from incorporation into other states. It is obvious, that after a careful examination of foreign policy model of Ukrainian Hetmanate in 1648 and 1714, it may be noticed that it consists of a sticking to poly-vassalage towards the neighboring monarchical houses of the region and pursuing the aim to obtain independence from the contemporary dynastic rulers.

1996–2002,

Kyiv — Warsaw — St.-Petersburg — Moscow — Krakow — Lviv.