The Pereiaslav Agreement (1654)

As the war continued with varying fortune without a clear prospect for success (since the Tatars were against it) Khmelnytskyi started to look for another powerful and reliable ally. Two powerful neighbors – Turkey and Muscovy – were under consideration. There was a big problem with the Turks – they were Muslims. It was clear that the masses would not like such a union.

    A much more popular candidate for the role of Ukraine’s protector was the tsar of Moscow, since Russians had the same religion. From the start of the uprising, Khmelnytskyi had asked the tsar to come to his aid. But Moscow’s response had been extremely cautious. Moscow lost a war with Poland in the 1630s and now it decided to wait for Cossacks and Poles to exhaust each other and only then to enter the war. However, by 1653, with the Ukrainians threatening to choose Turkey, the Muscovites could not put off a decision any longer. Tsar Alexei decided to help Ukrainians and in such a way to expand his territories.

    In January 1654, in the city of Pereiaslav (present-day Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi in Kyiv region) a treaty between Russia and Ukraine was concluded. According to the Pereiaslav agreement Cossack Ukraine got wide autonomy under Russia’s protection. It had practically unlimited internal self-rule but was to pay tribute to Moscow as price for protection. As to foreign relations, Ukraine was free to establish them with any country except for Poland, Crimea and Turkey. But Khmelnytskyi often violated this rule and maintained close diplomatic relations with these countries. Moscow also allowed Ukraine to have a large army (60,000) of registered Cossacks.

    After Khmelnytskyi concluded the Pereiaslav agreement with Moscow, the Crimean Tatars decided to support Poland. In the summer of 1656 Poland’s position sharply deteriorated. Swedish armies entered Poland from the north and occupied much of its territory. Poland, fighting on several fronts, seemed on the verge of collapse.[5] Under such circumstances Polish diplomats promised the Russian tsar to elect him their king and make Poland part of a common Russian-Polish-Lithuanian federation under Moscow leadership. Moscow accepted the proposal and declared war on Sweden (1656). The Polish-Russian union automatically closed all hopes for Khmelnytskyi to liberate Ukraine. He was infuriated and decided to break the union with Russia.[6] Only death (1657) prevented him from doing it. This fact is silenced in Russia for political reasons.

Evaluations of Khmelnytskyi

Polish historians usually give negative assessments of Khmelnytskyi’s activity. Bukowietska, for example, blamed the hetman for initiating a bloody civil war, in which a “brother fought against a brother” (since Ukrainian Cossacks fought against Polonized Ukrainian szlahta). She called the hetman a “primitive drunkard” (because of his habit of excessive drinking), who “destroyed the liberties his people enjoyed.” Another Polish historian J. Friedberg said that Ukrainian Cossacks were ruled by greed in the war and that they used the slogan of protecting the Orthodox religion only to cover their real egoistic intentions. In his opinion, the Cossack leaders wanted “heaven on earth for themselves,” where peasants would be their serfs. Many Polish historians consider Khmelnytskyi as traitor, who by starting a civil war and by concluding unions with Poland’s enemies betrayed his motherland – the Rzeczpospolita. 

    Jewish historians blame Khmelnytskyi for initiation of pogroms and massacres of the Jewish people. They call him the instigator of the first genocidal catastrophe or first ‘holocaust’ in the history of the Jews. They generally give a very negative assessment of the Cossacks as rude and cruel people.

    Contemporary Russian historians (as did their tsarist and Soviet colleagues) praise Khmelnytskyi for the Pereiaslav Agreement which initiated the unification of Ukraine and Russia. Russian historians have tried to prove that the only aim of the Khmelnytskyi uprising was the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainians to be “reunited” with their “older brothers” – the Russians. Most Russian politicians support this theory as it suits Russia’s political aims well. In general, Russian historians say that the Ancient Rus People or Древнерусский народ (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians) was artificially separated by the Tatar-Mongols in the 13^th century; then later in the 17^th century hetman Khmelnytskyi “fulfilled the desire of the Ukrainians to be reunited” with their powerful brothers. Thus, Ukrainians and Russians should live together as they in fact have common roots and can be considered two branches of the same people. Present-day Ukrainian historians severely criticize this theory as it undermines Ukraine’s historical foundation for independence. Many Ukrainian historians think that it would have been better if the hetman had refrained from the union with Moscow. The famous Ukrainian poet T. Shevchenko was especially critical of the hetman for brining Ukraine under Russian control. Some Ukrainian historians, however, praise Khmelnytskyi. They say that he raised national consciousness and dignity among Ukrainians and managed to get autonomy which lasted over 100 years within Russia’s borders.