In the 17th century, the Cossack rebellion led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky established the Cossack Hetmanate, which allied with Muscovy in 1654 through the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The exact nature of the relationship established by this treaty between the Cossack Hetmanate and Tsardom of Moscow remains a matter of scholarly controversy.[10] This led to increasing Muscovy dominance, culminating in the 18th century with the partition of Polish-controlled territories and the incorporation of Ukrainian lands into the Russian Empire and Habsburg Austria.[11]: 199
Under Soviet rule, initial policies of Ukrainianization gave way to oppressive Russification. The Holodomor famine of 1932–1933, a man-made disaster, caused the deaths of 4-5 millions Ukrainians.[13]: §§ 8.1.3 During World War II, Ukraine endured brutal occupations by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) fought for independence, though parts of Ukrainian society also collaborated with occupying forces. Post-war, Soviet control was reestablished, and Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
The discovery of 1.4-million-year-old stone tools in Korolevo, located in western Ukraine, marks one of the earliest securely dated presences of hominins in Europe.These tools offer crucial insights into the behaviors and adaptive strategies of early members of the genus Homo, likely Homo erectus, as they expanded into the continent during the Lower Paleolithic period.[16]Neanderthal presence in Ukraine is well-documented through archaeological findings such as those at the Molodova sites, which date to approximately 45,000–43,000 BC. These sites, located along the Dniester River, are particularly notable for their evidence of advanced behavior. One remarkable feature is the discovery of a dwelling constructed from mammoth bones, a testament to Neanderthal ingenuity and adaptation to harsh Ice Age environments. These structures highlight their ability to organize resources and create durable shelters.[17][18][19]
The Crimean Mountains hold significant evidence of early modern humans (Homo sapiens) during the Upper Paleolithic period. The Buran-Kaya cave sites have yielded artifacts, such as tools and ornaments, along with skeletal remains, dating to approximately 32,000 BC. These Gravettian settlements reflect a sophisticated hunter-gatherer culture, known for their blade-based lithic technologies and artistic expression. The region likely served as a vital hub for human activity, offering both shelter and access to diverse ecological resources.[20] The archaeological record in Ukraine highlights the area's importance as a crossroads for early human populations migrating through Europe. From the earliest stone tools to evidence of complex social structures and artistic traditions, Ukraine offers a valuable lens into the evolution and adaptation of early humans over hundreds of thousands of years.
The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (ca. 4,500–3,000 BC), centered in modern-day Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, represents one of the most advanced Neolithic civilizations in Europe. These people were known for their impressive settlements, some of which were among the largest in the world at the time, with populations reaching up to 10,000 inhabitants. They built concentric layouts of houses, often using clay and wood, demonstrating advanced planning. They are renowned for their intricate painted ceramics, featuring geometric and symbolic designs in red, black, and white. Their economy was primarily agrarian, complemented by animal husbandry and small-scale trade. Archaeological findings suggest a focus on fertility cults, as evidenced by numerous figurines and symbolic artifacts. The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture began to decline around 3000 BC, possibly due to environmental changes, resource depletion, or pressures from neighboring steppe cultures.[21]
The Sredny Stog culture (ca. 4500–3500 BC) emerged to the east of the Cucuteni-Trypillian zone, on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It marked a transitional phase between the Neolithic and the emergence of the early Bronze Age steppe cultures. This culture is among the earliest to show evidence of horse domestication, which became a defining feature of steppe societies. Early indications of mound burial (kurgans) began to appear, reflecting evolving social hierarchies and ritual practices. The Sredny Stog culture played a significant role in the genesis of the later Yamna culture.[22]
The Yamna culture (ca. 3300–2600 BC), also known as the Pit Grave culture, was a dominant force in the early Bronze Age across the Pontic-Caspian steppe. This culture is often linked with the spread of Indo-European languages and reflects a shift toward a more mobile, pastoralist lifestyle. The Yamna culture is characterized by its burial mounds (kurgans), often accompanied by grave goods such as weapons, ornaments, and animal sacrifices. The economy relied heavily on livestock, including sheep, cattle, and horses, which supported a semi-nomadic lifestyle. They utilized copper and bronze tools and weapons, demonstrating early metallurgical skills. Many scholars associate the Yamna culture with Proto-Indo-European speakers, as their migrations and cultural diffusion likely influenced vast areas of Europe and Asia.[23]
Following the Yamna culture, the Catacomb culture (ca. 2800–2200 BC) emerged, encompassing much of the same geographic area. It is distinguished by its unique burial practices, where bodies were interred in specially carved niches within grave pits. They further advanced bronze metallurgy, producing a variety of tools, weapons, and ornaments. The Catacomb culture maintained many traditions of the Yamna culture while also interacting with neighboring groups to the west and south.[24]
Cucuteni-Typillia ceramic vessel (National Museum of the History of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine)
Yamna stone stele, c. 2600 BC
Catacomb culture wagon models
Antiquity
Scythian settlement, Greek colonization, and Roman domination
During the Iron Age, the region witnessed the rise and interaction of diverse peoples and cultures. Following earlier Bronze Age societies, the Dacians, alongside nomadic groups such as the Cimmerians (associated with the Novocherkassk archaeological culture), Scythians, and Sarmatians, dominated the landscape. Among these, the Scythians established a powerful kingdom that flourished between 750 and 250 BC, characterized by their mastery of mounted warfare and trade networks spanning vast territories.[25]
One of the notable events in Scythian history was the campaign of Darius the Great in 513 BC. The Achaemenid Persian king led an expedition aimed at subjugating the Scythians. While the Scythians employed their signature scorched-earth and guerrilla tactics to evade outright defeat, the campaign resulted in the Persian domination of several Thracian peoples and regions along the Black Sea’s northern coast. These territories, encompassing parts of modern-day Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and southern Russia, were incorporated into the vast Achaemenid sphere of influence, though direct control remained tenuous.[26][27]
Meanwhile, Greek colonization left a lasting imprint on the region. Beginning in the 7th or 6th century BC during the Archaic period, Greek settlers established colonies along the northern Black Sea coast, including Crimea and parts of modern Ukraine. These colonies, such as Chersonesus and Olbia, served as hubs of trade, cultural exchange, and Hellenic influence. The Bosporan Kingdom, a Greco-Scythian polity formed in this context, became a regional power, blending Greek traditions with local elements. It thrived until the 4th century AD, when invasions by the Goths and later the Huns disrupted its stability.[28][29]
The Roman Empire, expanding its reach into the region, briefly annexed the Bosporan Kingdom from 62 to 68 AD under Emperor Nero. During this period, the reigning Bosporan king, Tiberius Julius Cotys I, was deposed, and the kingdom was directly administered by Rome. Following Nero’s rule, the Bosporan Kingdom was restored as a Romanclient state, retaining local governance but under Roman military oversight. This arrangement ensured the region remained within Rome’s economic and strategic sphere during the middle of the 1st century AD.[30][31][32]
In the 3rd century AD, the Goths, a Germanic people originally from Scandinavia, began migrating toward Eastern Europe. By approximately 250 to 375 AD, they had settled in the area of modern Ukraine, which they referred to as Oium. This region is linked to the archaeological Chernyakhov culture, known for its unique mix of local and Gothic influences.[33]
The Goths in this region soon divided into two main groups: the Visigoths (Western Goths) and the Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths). The Ostrogoths established a stronghold in Ukraine but faced significant changes in the 370s with the arrival of the Huns, a nomadic group from Central Asia. The Huns were powerful warriors and ultimately brought the Ostrogoths under their control, leading to major shifts in Gothic society and governance.[34]
Territory under Hunnic control, c. 450 AD
To the north of the Ostrogothic territory was the Kyiv culture, a Slavic archaeological culture that thrived from the 2nd to the 5th centuries AD. As the Huns expanded their influence across Eastern Europe, this culture also came under threat. Many Slavic and other local groups were affected by the Hunnic invasions, resulting in changes in settlement patterns and local governance.[35]
In 454 AD, a decisive battle known as the Battle of Nedao marked a turning point. The Ostrogoths, along with other Germanic tribes, rebelled against the Huns and contributed to their defeat. Following this victory, the Ostrogoths were permitted by the Romans to settle in Pannonia (modern-day Hungary), marking their departure from the Ukrainian lands.[36]
Meanwhile, the Black Sea’s northeastern shores were dotted with ancient Greek colonies, such as Tyras, Pontic Olbia, and Hermonassa. Established as early as the 6th century BC, these colonies developed into important cultural and trading centers under Roman and later Byzantine rule. These cities continued to thrive until the 6th century AD, when Byzantine influence began to wane.[37]
In the early 6th century AD, the Bosporan Kingdom on the Crimean Peninsula came under the rule of a Hunnic king named Gordas. Gordas maintained friendly relations with the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, but this ended when Gordas was killed in a local revolt around 527 AD. Justinian seized the opportunity to intervene, occupying the Bosporan Kingdom and further extending Byzantine influence over the region. However, even into the 12th century, Byzantine emperors continued to claim dominion over the Crimean region, known as the Cimmerian Bosporus.[38][39]
Following the power vacuum left by the fall of Hunnic and Gothic dominance, the Early Slavs began to expand over much of the territory that is now Ukraine during the 5th century, continuing their migration into the Balkans in the 6th century. The exact origins of the Early Slavs remain uncertain, though several theories suggest they may have originated near the Polesia region, a marshy area between modern-day Belarus and Ukraine. This period marks a transition from the Kyiv culture to the establishment of Slavic tribes across Eastern Europe.[40]
In the 5th and 6th centuries, the Antes Union (a tribal confederation) is generally believed to have been situated in present-day Ukraine. The Antes are considered ancestors of several Slavic tribes that would later form the Ukrainians, including the Polans, Severians, Drevlians, White Croats, Dulebes, Ulichs, and Tivertsi. The migration of these tribes from Ukraine throughout the Balkans contributed to the foundation of several South Slavic nations, while northern migrations, reaching as far as Lake Ilmen, gave rise to the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichs, and Radimichs.[41]
The collapse of the Antes Union in 602, following a devastating raid by the Pannonian Avars, led to a fragmentation of the early Slavic federation. Despite this, many of these tribes maintained their distinct identities until the formation of larger political entities in the early second millennium, such as Kievan Rus', which began to consolidate Slavic lands.[41]
The Early Slavs were primarily agrarian, relying on subsistence farming, and lived in semi-nomadic communities. Over time, they developed a complex social structure, with local chieftains leading tribal groups. They also practiced paganism, with a pantheon of gods tied to nature, such as Perun (god of thunder) and Dazhbog (sun god). By the time of the Antes Union's decline, the cultural and religious practices of the Slavs had already begun to influence neighboring peoples, laying the groundwork for the Slavic cultural sphere that would emerge later in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.[42]
In the 7th century, the territory of modern Ukraine was at the core of the state of the Bulgars, often referred to as Old Great Bulgaria. This state, with its capital at Phanagoria (located in what is now the Taman Peninsula), controlled a significant part of the northern Black Sea region. The Bulgars, a semi-nomadic people from Central Asia, were known for their sophisticated society, military organization, and far-reaching influence.[33]
Approximate territory of Old Great Bulgaria
By the end of the 7th century, the Bulgars faced increasing pressure from neighboring tribes and empires. Most of the Bulgar tribes migrated in various directions—some settled in the Balkans, where they eventually established the First Bulgarian Empire. Other groups moved towards the Volga region, forming Volga Bulgaria, which became a prominent center of trade and culture. The remaining parts of Old Great Bulgaria were eventually absorbed by the Khazars, another semi-nomadic people from Central Asia.[33]
The Khazars founded the Khazar Khaganate, a powerful and influential state near the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus. The Khaganate's territory expanded to include parts of modern-day western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, southern Russia, and northern Azerbaijan. The Khazars were noted for their religious tolerance and political pragmatism, famously adopting Judaism as their state religion in the 8th century, although Christianity, Islam, and other faiths were also practiced within their borders.[43]
The Khazars played a key role in the politics and economy of Eastern Europe and the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Their control over trade routes contributed to the establishment of the Pax Khazarica, a period of relative peace and stability that fostered safe long-distance trade. This stability allowed traders, including the Radhanite Jews, to operate along vast routes that stretched from China to the Byzantine Empire. These trade routes facilitated the exchange of goods, culture, and ideas across Eurasia.[44]
The origins of the Kievan state and the etymology of its name, Rus', continue to be subjects of scholarly debate. One theory, often called the 'Norman theory', posits that the term Rus' originated from the ScandinavianVarangians, who were active in trade and military ventures across Eastern Europe in the early medieval period. Proponents of this theory argue that the Varangians, also known as the Rus', initially brought a political and military influence that shaped the emerging state structure, with the term Rus' eventually becoming synonymous with the region and its people.[45]
In contrast, the 'anti-Norman theory' suggests that the term Rus' has indigenous Slavic or Baltic roots, developing independently of Scandinavian influence. Advocates of this theory assert that Eastern Slavic tribes already had established political and social frameworks before any contact with the Varangians, and that these tribes were naturally progressing toward political consolidation. According to this perspective, the name Rus' could be linked to the Ros River, a historically significant waterway flowing through present-day Ukraine, which was home to various Slavic communities. In this view, Rus' may have referred to a collective identity tied to a specific geographic region or a union of native tribes, rather than to foreign invaders or rulers.[46][47]
The Rus' under the walls of Constantinople
The first reliable mention of the Rus' dates back to the year 839 in the Frankish chronicle Annals of St. Bertin, where members of an embassy from the north, arriving in the Byzantine Empire, referred to themselves as Rus'.[48] The second notable mention of the Rus' occurred in 860, when they launched a bold and unexpected naval raid on Constantinople from the territory around present-day Kiev. Commanding a fleet across the Black Sea, the Rus' forces struck at the very heart of the Byzantine Empire, quickly reaching the city’s outskirts. According to accounts from Greek eyewitnesses, the Rus' not only managed to pillage the suburbs of Constantinople but also instilled widespread fear among its residents. The Byzantine defenses were unprepared, allowing the Rus' to withdraw without significant resistance.[49]
The earliest source about the history of the Middle Dnieper region is the Tale of Bygone Years (or Primary Chronicle), written no earlier than the 11th century. In its 'legendary' part, it narrates the Rus' raid on Constantinople and the formation of a state centered in Kiev during the second half of the 9th century. The Chronicle, in particular, mentions the names of the leaders of the raid on Constantinople — Askold and Dir — and calls them retainers of the Scandinavian Rurik dynasty. According to the Chronicle, a representative of this dynasty, Oleg the Wise, allegedly came to Kiev from Novgorod in 882, killed Askold and Dir, and took control of the Kiev state. This narrative contains chronological errors—for example, it incorrectly dates the Constantinople raid to 867—and lacks corroboration from archaeological evidence, which suggests that Novgorod itself was only established in the 10th century. Therefore, modern historians view the Chronicle's account of the 9th century as largely speculative and likely a later construction by the Chronicle's author.[50][51]
Scholars associate the state-building processes in the Middle Dnieper region with the emergence of the well-known trade route from Scandinavia to Constantinople, known as the 'Route from the Varangians to the Greeks'. A significant section of this route ran along the Dnieper River, and Kiev was an important transshipment point, allowing control over trade along the Dnieper, Pripyat, and Desna rivers.[53] The Middle Dnieper region began to serve as a political, cultural, and economic center for the East Slavic world. It eventually came to be known as the Rus' land in the narrow sense of this term.[52] According to The Tale of Bygone Years, the East Slavic tribe of the Polans, inhabitants of the Middle Dnieper region, adopted the name Rus' for their land and were regarded as the most advanced among the East Slavs. Thus, they played a central role in forming a new tribal union centered around Kiev.[54]
From the first half of the 10th century, the first confirmed ruler of the Kievan state, as documented in foreign sources, was Igor the Old, whom the Primary Chronicle identifies as a prince. Information in the Chronicle regarding governance during this period is considered relatively reliable. The princely retinue played a significant role in governance, accompanying rulers on campaigns and collecting tribute from subjugated local Slavic tribes. The collected tribute (such as furs, honey, hides, wax, and slaves) was mainly exported to Byzantium, with the proceeds used to purchase weapons, luxury goods, and wine—constituting the core of imports. When trade conditions no longer met the prince's expectations, he led an unsuccessful campaign against Constantinople in 941, which eventually resulted in a new Rus-Byzantine trade treaty in 944. The Tale of Bygone Years recounts Igor's attempt to levy additional tribute from the subdued Slavs, which led to a rebellion by the Drevlians, who killed him in 945.[55]
Following Igor's death in 945, his widow, Princess Olga, assumed the role of regent for their young son, Sviatoslav, who was still too young to rule. Olga is best known for her calculated and fierce retaliation against the Drevlians, a campaign that culminated in the annexation of their lands into the expanding Kievan Rus'. Olga also implemented significant reforms, particularly by restructuring the tribute collection system known as poliudie. This new system made revenue collection more systematic and centralized, reducing the likelihood of rebellion by ensuring a more balanced distribution of power. In a landmark decision, Olga became the first ruler of Kievan Rus' to embrace Christianity around 957 during a diplomatic visit to Constantinople. However, despite her conversion, the state under her rule remained predominantly pagan, with Christianity gaining influence only later under her descendants.[56][57]
When Sviatoslav assumed rule over Kievan Rus', he launched an ambitious military expansion. His most notable achievement was the decisive defeat of the Khazar Khaganate, a once-dominant regional power that had controlled key trade routes for centuries. The fall of the Khazars opened opportunities for Kievan Rus' to extend its influence into the Caucasus and beyond. In addition to his campaigns in the east, Sviatoslav waged numerous battles against the Byzantine Empire, seeking to establish Kievan Rus' as a formidable power in the Balkans. His primary goal was to create a lasting base in Bulgaria, strengthening his strategic position in southeastern Europe. However, his ambitions in the Balkans were thwarted after a Byzantine counterattack. In 972, while returning from his Balkan campaign, Sviatoslav was ambushed and killed by the Pechenegs near the Dnieper River.[58][59]
After Sviatoslav's death, a power struggle ensued among his sons. Yaropolk, Sviatoslav's eldest son, assumed the title of Grand Prince of Kiev and worked to consolidate power across the vast territory, leading to conflicts with his brothers. Oleg, Sviatoslav's second son, governed the Drevlian lands, and rivalry between him and Yaropolk escalated into open warfare. During one of their clashes around 977, Oleg was killed, further intensifying the conflict. Initially, Vladimir, Sviatoslav's youngest son, fled to avoid being entangled in the conflict. However, after Oleg's death, he returned with a Varangian army. By 980, Vladimir had defeated Yaropolk and consolidated power, becoming the sole ruler of Kievan Rus'.[60]
During the reign of Vladimir the Great, Kievan Rus' expanded significantly, notably through the conquest and annexation of Red Ruthenia, Transcarpathia, and Korsun. These territorial gains made Kievan Rus' the largest state in Europe at the time, covering over 800,000 square kilometers and boasting a population of more than 5 million. The socio-economic structure of Kievan Rus' was similar to that of other European states of the period, characterized by a natural economy, communal land ownership, and reliance on slash-and-burn agriculture, and animal husbandry.[61]
Christianization of Kievan Rus'
Vladimir reformed local governance by abolishing the traditional tribal autonomies and installing his own appointed governors, further centralizing his authority. Under his rule, Kiev emerged as one of the wealthiest commercial centers in Europe during the 10th and 11th centuries, benefiting from its strategic location on trade routes and its growing political influence. Initially, Vladimir supported the worship of Slavic deities such as Perun. However, in 988, he made a historic decision to convert Kievan Rus' to Christianity, adopting Eastern Orthodoxy from the Byzantine Empire. He personally led the mass baptism of the people of Kiev in the Pochaina River and built the first stone church in Kievan Rus' — Church of the Tithes. He also introduced the Charter on Church Courts and Tithes, thereby securing a strong relationship between the church and state. Unlike the earlier attempts of his grandmother, Princess Olga, Vladimir's reforms had a lasting impact, deeply influencing the religious and cultural development of the region.[62]
Vladimir's rule also saw administrative, monetary, and military reforms. He appointed governors and entrusted his sons with ruling major cities, also minted his own gold (Zlatnik) and silver (Srebrenik) coins, and granted borderlands to loyal vassals in exchange for military defense. To protect the realm, Vladimir oversaw the construction of an extensive system of defensive fortifications, known as the Serpent's Walls, which stretched for 1,000 kilometers, safeguarding Kievan Rus' from external threats.[63]
Despite these accomplishments, Kievan Rus' entered a turbulent period of internal strife following Vladimir's death in 1015, as his sons fought for control. This era of internecine conflict lasted until 1019, when Yaroslav the Wise emerged victorious and assumed the throne. Ruling jointly with his brother Mstislav until 1036, Yaroslav presided over what is often regarded as the golden age of Kievan Rus'. One of Yaroslav's key achievements was his decisive defeat of the Pechenegs, who had long been a threat to the state. To commemorate this victory, Yaroslav ordered the construction of the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, a structure that still stands as a symbol of this prosperous era. He also founded the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra and supported the election of Hilarion of Kiev as the Kyiv Metropolitan, marking a significant step in the independence of the Kievan church. Yaroslav's reign was also notable for the introduction of the first written legal code — Rus' Truth, which established a foundation for legal governance in the state. Additionally, Yaroslav engaged in extensive marriage diplomacy, forming alliances by arranging marriages between his daughters and European royalty.[64][65] However, after Yaroslav's death, Kievan Rus' began to fragment, as his sons divided the territory among themselves, leading to further internecine conflicts and the eventual decline of centralized power.[66]
The feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus' began in the late 11th century, driven by a complex interplay of internal and external factors. One significant factor was the rotational succession system, allowing power to pass among male relatives instead of directly from father to son. This system often sparked conflicts, as competing claims to power emerged. With princes often granted specific territories, autonomous principalities began to emerge clearly. Regional cities such as Chernihiv, Polotsk, and Novgorod gained power and asserted their independence, with local elites increasing their influence. By this time, the authority of the Grand Prince of Kiev was notably weakening. Regional princes, bolstered by local resources and armies, began to resist central control. Additionally, the vast geography and economic diversity of Rus' impeded unity, as various regions developed their own trade routes and systems. External threats from nomadic groups, such as the Pechenegs and Polovtsy (Cumans), further exacerbated regionalism, compelling local rulers to focus on defending their territories.[67][68]
After Yaroslav the Wise's death, his sons divided the lands, which significantly accelerated political fragmentation. Although his succession plan aimed to prevent conflict, it ultimately sowed the seeds of feudal division. The Council of Liubech, convened by several princes, including Vladimir Monomakh, sought to settle disputes and clarify the inheritance of principalities. This agreement formalized Kievan Rus's division into regional hereditary principalities, thereby legalizing fragmentation. The adage "Let everyone hold his own" emerged, signifying that each prince would govern his own territory without interference from others.[69]
Vladimir Monomakh, who served as Grand Prince of Kiev from 1113 to 1125, is remembered as one of Kievan Rus' most capable leaders. He ascended the throne amid internal strife and external threats, yet worked diligently to stabilize the fragmented territories of Rus'. Monomakh's reign achieved relative unity through efforts to reduce feuds among princes and reinforce central authority. His military successes, particularly against the Polovtsy (Cumans), secured the region's borders. Diplomatically, he forged strong ties with Europe, notably through his marriage to Gytha of Wessex, the daughter of English King Harold II. As an educated ruler, Monomakh authored The Instruction of Vladimir Monomakh, offering insights on governance, morality, and leadership. His reign is often regarded as one of the last periods of unity before Rus' descended further into division.[70][71]
Monomakh's son, Mstislav the Great, preserved some unity during his reign from 1125 to 1132. However, following his death, the principality fractured. The division of lands among Monomakh's sons and other relatives resulted in multiple competing power centers.[72][73] The process of feudal fragmentation marked a turning point in the history of Rus', culminating in its eventual decline and the rise of smaller, more independent states. These would later evolve into the medieval powers of the Kingdom of Ruthenia, the Principality of Polotsk, the Novgorod Republic, and others.[74][75][76][77]
Imaginative portrayal of the 1240 Siege of Kiev in the 16th-century Facial Chronicle
In 1222, a new wave of nomads—the warlike Mongols—arrived in the Black Sea steppes and defeated the Polovtsians as part of the Mongol Empire's westward expansion. The Polovtsians, who had family ties with the Rus' princes, turned to Rus' for help. A joint Rus'-Polovtsian force marched into the steppes, where the Battle of the Kalka River took place in 1223. Following the battle, the Mongols retreated eastward for approximately 15 years.[78]
In the late 1230s, the Mongols returned with significantly larger forces under the leadership of Batu Khan and his general Subutai. The Mongols first attacked the eastern regions of the state, using superior siege tactics to overwhelm local defenses. Between 1239 and 1240, the Mongols shifted their focus to the southern territories. In 1240, they laid siege to Kiev, which ultimately fell after a brutal assault, marking the final collapse of Kievan Rus' as a unified political entity.[79][80]
As a result of this invasion, Kievan Rus' was extensively destroyed, depopulated, and fragmented. Following their conquest, the Mongols established dominion over the region through the Golden Horde, transforming most of the Rus' principalities into tributary states. Under Mongol rule, the Rus' were required to pay heavy taxes and submit to Mongol authority. The invasion severely stunted the region's political, cultural, and economic development, and the effects of Mongol domination reverberated for centuries. Despite its devastation, the Eastern Orthodox Church played an important role in preserving cultural identity during Mongol rule.[81][82]
The Principality—later the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (Ruthenia)—emerged from the disintegration of Kievan Rus'. Its rulers continued the political and cultural legacy of Kiev, preserving the traditions and governance of the Rus' state even as Kiev fell to Mongol control.[8][83] Previously, Vladimir the Great had established the cities of Halych and Volodymyr as regional capitals, setting the foundation for future political entities in the region. The area was originally inhabited by the Dulebes, Tivertsi, and White Croats tribes.[84] Initially, Volhynia and Galicia existed as separate principalities, each ruled by descendants of Yaroslav the Wise. Galicia was governed by the Rostislavich dynasty, while Volhynia was initially ruled by the Igorevichs and eventually by the Iziaslavich dynasty.[85] During the reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153–1187), Galicia expanded its influence, extending as far as the Black Sea.[85]
Rivalry between the rulers of these principalities often revolved around efforts to assert dominance over one another. This conflict was finally resolved by Roman the Great (1197–1205), who not only succeeded in uniting Galicia and Volhynia under his rule but also briefly extended his authority over Kiev. Roman's consolidation of power laid the groundwork for the rise of the Principality of Galicia–Volhynia, which became a significant political force in the region.[86]
Following Roman's death, a period of unrest ensued, lasting until his son Daniel Romanovich reclaimed the throne in 1238. Daniel successfully restored his father's state, including Kiev. In 1240, the Mongol Empire, led by Batu Khan, unleashed devastating invasions across Kievan Rus'. Cities like Kiev were sacked, leaving much of the region in ruins. Daniel's decisive victory at the Battle of Yaroslavl in 1245 ended internal conflicts and firmly secured his control over the state. By 1246, Daniel was compelled to recognize Mongol supremacy to safeguard his state. Though this submission was humiliating, it allowed Daniel to retain some degree of autonomy, provided he paid tribute to the Mongol khan.[87]
Despite this subjugation, Daniel remained determined to free Ruthenia from Mongol dominance. He sought support from Western Europe, forging diplomatic ties with the Papacy, Poland, Hungary, and the Holy Roman Empire. In 1253, Daniel was crowned King of Ruthenia (Latin: Rex Rusiae) by a papal legate in Drohiczyn, receiving formal recognition from Pope Innocent IV. This coronation symbolized Ruthenia's alignment with Western Europe and its Christian identity, while still adhering to the Orthodox faith. The crowning also carried the hope of an anti-Mongol alliance, though such a coalition never materialized due to political divisions in Western Europe.[88] King Daniel also founded numerous cities that became hubs of trade, culture, and military strength. Among his most notable achievements were the establishments of Lviv, named after his son Lev, and Kholm. These urban centers not only revitalized the kingdom's economy but also helped Daniel consolidate his political authority over the region.[89][90]
After King Daniel Romanovych's death in 1264, the kingdom was inherited by his son, Lev Danylovych. Lev I ruled from 1269 to 1301 and relocated the capital from Kholm to Lviv. He continued his father's policies of defending the kingdom against external threats, particularly from the Mongols, while also striving to maintain alliances with Poland and Lithuania to counterbalance Mongol influence. Although Lev managed to preserve the state's territorial integrity, the kingdom's power gradually eroded under the relentless pressure from the Mongol Golden Horde and ongoing internal political challenges.[91][92] Following Lev's death in 1301, his son, Yuri Lvovych, ascended the throne and ruled until 1308. During his reign, Yuri I succeeded in maintaining relative stability, yet the kingdom's political position had significantly weakened compared to the time of Daniel. Despite his efforts, Yuri's reign was short-lived, and after his death, the kingdom entered a period of fragmentation.[93]
King's seal of Yuri Lvovych
Yuri's sons, Andrew and Lev II, attempted to co-rule, but their efforts to sustain the kingdom's unity and strength ultimately failed. The Mongol Golden Horde continued to exert substantial influence over the weakened Kingdom of Ruthenia throughout the 14th century.[94][95] After the deaths of the co-rulers around 1323, the kingdom found itself without strong leadership. Yuri II Boleslav, the last ruler of the Kingdom of Ruthenia, took power following the demise of the Romanovych line. Reigning from 1323 to 1340, he was a member of the Polish Piast dynasty, chosen as king due to his maternal connection to the Ruthenian royal family—his mother, Maria, was the daughter of Lev I.[96] Upon ascending the throne, Boleslav converted to Orthodox Christianity and adopted the name Yuriy to garner support from the local Orthodox nobility. However, his reign was fraught with tension due to his Catholic background, which clashed with the predominantly Orthodox Ruthenian elite. During his rule, Yuriy II struggled to balance the competing interests of Poland, Lithuania, and the Mongol Golden Horde, while also introducing pro-Catholic policies that alienated the local nobility. His rule culminated in his assassination in 1340 by Ruthenian nobles discontented with his leadership. His death triggered a fierce power struggle between Poland and Lithuania for control over the region. Soon after, Galicia was annexed by Poland, and Volhynia fell under Lithuanian rule, marking the end of the independent Kingdom of Ruthenia.[97]
From the 13th century onwards, various parts of the coastline of what is now Ukraine were dominated by the Republic of Genoa, which established numerous colonies around the Black Sea. Many of these colonies were located in today's Odesa Oblast. The Genoese settlements were heavily fortified, protected by garrisons stationed within the fortresses, and served primarily to strengthen Genoa’s control over trade in the Black Sea region. Genoa's dominance persisted until the 15th century.[98][99][100]
In 1322, Pope John XXII established a diocese in Caffa (modern-day Feodosia), separating it from the Diocese of Khanbaliq (modern-day Beijing), which was the only Catholic presence in the Mongol-controlled territories at the time. For several centuries, the Caffa diocese served as the central Catholic authority from the Balkans to Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde.[101]
Meanwhile, in southwestern Crimea, the Principality of Theodoro, also known as the Principality of Gothia, emerged as a small but important Byzantine successor state. Centered around its capital, Doros (modern-day Mangup), Theodoro was a multi-ethnic state with Greeks, Goths, and Alans, among others. It played a crucial role as a buffer between Genoese colonies and the Crimean Khanate. Theodoro maintained close ties with the Byzantine Empire and the Empire of Trebizond. However, in 1475, the Ottomans conquered the principality during their campaign to dominate the Black Sea region, incorporating it into their expanding empire.[citation needed]
During the 14th century, Poland and Lithuania waged wars against Mongol invaders, gradually reclaiming territories. As a result, most of Ukraine came under the control of Poland and Lithuania. In particular, Red Ruthenia, parts of Volhynia, and Podolia were absorbed into the Kingdom of Poland. The Polish monarch adopted the title "lord and heir of Ruthenia" (Latin: Russiae dominus et Heres).[102] Following the Battle of Blue Waters (1362/63), Lithuania gained control over Polotsk, Volhynia, Chernihiv, and Kyiv. The rulers of Lithuania then adopted the title "ruler of Rus’".[citation needed]
Despite the political collapse of Kievan Rus' and the Kingdom of Ruthenia, their political, cultural, and religious traditions persisted under Lithuanian control. Ruthenian aristocrats, such as the Olelkovich family, integrated into the Lithuanian ruling elite, serving in positions of power within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as members of the duke's privy council, high-ranking military officers, and administrators.[103] Although Lithuanian was the native language of the ruling elite, the primary written languages in the Grand Duchy were Latin, Old Church Slavonic, and Ruthenian. By the early modern period, East Slavonic Chancery language had been gradually replaced by Polish.[104]
Eventually, Poland extended its influence over southwestern Ukraine. After the Union between Poland and Lithuania, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, and Jews migrated to the region, displacing Ukrainians from positions of authority that they had shared with Lithuanians. This led to increased migration of Ukrainians toward central Ukraine. Polish migration, combined with policies of Polonization and other forms of repression, increasingly marginalized Ukrainians and intensified their cultural and political subjugation.[citation needed]
In 1490, due to growing oppression by the Polish authorities, a series of rebellions broke out, led by Ukrainian leader Petro Mukha. His forces, which included early Cossacks, Hutsuls, and Moldavians (Romanians), launched a series of successful uprisings known as Mukha’s Rebellion. Supported by the Moldavian prince Stephen the Great, Mukha's forces captured several cities in Pokuttya and advanced as far west as Lviv, though they failed to seize the city.[105]
The decline of the Golden Horde in the 15th century paved the way for the establishment of the Crimean Khanate, which controlled much of the Black Sea coastline and the southern steppes of Ukraine. From the early 16th century until the late 18th century, the Crimean Khanate engaged in a vast slave trade, exporting approximately 2 million slaves from Russia and Ukraine to the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East between 1500 and 1700. The Khanate remained a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire until its dissolution by the Russian Empire in 1783, following the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774.[106][107]
After the Union of Lublin in 1569 and the formation of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Ukraine came under Polish administration, becoming part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. This period marked a significant shift in the region's political and social landscape. Following the establishment of the Commonwealth, there was a renewed effort to colonize the lands of Ukraine, leading to the foundation of many new towns and villages. These developments also facilitated the expansion of connections between various Ukrainian regions, such as Halych Land (Galicia) and Volhynia, helping to strengthen internal links within the Ukrainian lands.[108]
The Renaissance ideas began to permeate Ukrainian society, driven by the spread of new schools and institutions. Polish settlers arrived in large numbers, gradually mixing with the local population, and this led to a process of cultural assimilation. A significant portion of the Ukrainian nobility became 'polonised', adopting Polish customs, language, and converting to Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, the majority of Ruthenian-speaking peasants remained loyal to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which caused growing social tensions. Polish influence extended not only politically but also culturally, as some polonized nobles, such as Stanisław Orzechowski, made notable contributions to Polish intellectual and cultural life.[citation needed]
Control of the territory of Ukraine in 1600
At the same time, the harsh conditions imposed on Ruthenian peasants sparked widespread resistance. Those who fled serfdom sought freedom in the borderlands, where they became known as Cossacks. The Cossacks quickly gained a reputation for their martial prowess and independence. Some of them were enlisted by the Commonwealth to serve as soldiers, particularly in the defense of the southeastern borders against Tatar raids, while others participated in campaigns abroad, such as Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny, who played a key role in the Commonwealth's victory at the Battle of Khotyn in 1621.[109]
Despite their contributions to the Commonwealth's military efforts, the Cossacks were consistently denied any substantial political or social autonomy. The ruling nobility of the Commonwealth viewed the Cossacks largely as a disruptive force and attempted to transform them into serfs. This ongoing marginalization and denial of rights fueled a series of Cossack uprisings, as they sought to defend their autonomy and way of life, ultimately setting the stage for more significant conflicts between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth.[110]
Size and population of the voivodeships in the 16th century[111]
The Cossack Hetmanate, also known as the Hetmanate of Ukraine, was a self-governing Cossack state that existed from 1649 to 1764. It emerged during a turbulent period in Eastern Europe, following the 1648 UkrainianCossack (Kozak) rebellion, or Khmelnytsky Uprising, which aimed to liberate Ukrainian lands from Polish-Lithuanian control. This uprising, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, destabilized the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and began an era of chaos in Ukrainian history known as the "Ruin" (referred to as "the Deluge" in Polish history). The newly-formed Cossack Hetmanate soon found itself caught in a complex web of military and diplomatic conflicts with the Ottoman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Tsardom of Muscovy.[112]
Following a series of early military successes, the Treaty of Zboriv in 1649 officially established the Hetmanate as an autonomous entity within the Commonwealth. However, the region’s quest for stability remained elusive, and in 1654, the Zaporozhian Host, seeking to escape Polish influence, entered into the Pereiaslav Agreement with Tsardom of Muscovy. This treaty brought the Hetmanate under Moscow protection, altering the political landscape. Despite the initial hopes for autonomy, the Hetmanate soon faced challenges in maintaining its sovereignty as Moscow sought to expand its influence.[112]
French map of Ukraine (Carte d'Ukranie), by Beauplan (1600–1673), cartographer (south at the top)
In an effort to regain control over Ukrainian territories, the Commonwealth attempted to compromise with the Cossack state through the Treaty of Hadiach in 1658. Yet, after thirteen years of continuous warfare, the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667 divided Ukraine between Poland and Muscovy, splitting the country along the Dnieper River. Right-bank Ukraine remained under Polish control, while left-bank Ukraine was incorporated into the Tsardom of Muscovy. Although the Hetmanate retained a degree of autonomy, this division marked the beginning of a long period of foreign dominance over Ukrainian lands.[112]
The late 17th century was characterized by civil strife, foreign intervention, and territorial shifts. From 1657 to 1686, Ukraine endured constant conflict and war, with neighboring powers exploiting the instability. For example, HetmanPetro Doroshenko's efforts to control regions like Kyiv and Bratslav were thwarted when these areas fell under Turkish occupation. The Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 ultimately returned much of this land to Polish control, although the Cossacks continued to assert their independence in regions such as Zaporizhzhia and Sloboda Ukraine, where semi-independent republics emerged on the Moscow frontier.[113]
Seal of the old Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
In addition to political turbulence, the Hetmanate played a significant role in the cultural and intellectual development of both Ukraine and Moscovy. Ukrainian clerics, scholars, and intellectuals, many of whom were educated at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, contributed to major reforms in Moscow society, particularly during the reign of Peter the Great. Figures like Theophan Prokopovich and Stefan Yavorsky, both key members of the Most Holy Synod, influenced religious and cultural reforms, with the so-called "Ukrainian school" dominating Russian literature in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.[114][115]
The Metropolis of Kyiv was also annexed by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, a significant moment in the religious history of Ukraine. This annexation by Moscow symbolized the growing cultural and political ties between Ukraine and Moscovy, although the Hetmanate’s leadership continued to struggle to preserve their autonomy.[116]
The Hetmanate reached its peak of independence under Hetman Ivan Mazepa, who sought to align with Swedish Empire and break free from Russian dominance during the Great Northern War. However, Mazepa’s rebellion ended in disaster at the Battle of Poltava in 1709, after which Moscow control tightened significantly. The office of hetman was eventually abolished in 1764 under Catherine the Great, marking the official end of the Cossack Hetmanate and its institutions.[117][118] Despite its eventual dissolution, the Hetmanate’s legacy endured, influencing both Ukrainian national identity and Russian political and cultural life.
During the 18th century, the Russian Empire steadily replaced its earlier "protection" over central Ukraine with direct control, gradually eroding the autonomy of the Cossacks. The Cossack uprisings, which had once been directed against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, now shifted focus to the Russian authorities. However, by the late 18th century, these uprisings had largely petered out, weakened by the overwhelming power of the Russian state and internal divisions within the Cossack ranks.[119]
Territories controlled by Ukrainian Cossacks at the end of their existence
After the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774, in which Ukrainian Cossacks played a vital role supporting the Russian Empire, a dramatic shift occurred. The Russian victory resulted in the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, which granted Russia significant territorial gains along the Black Sea coast, as well as control over parts of the Ottoman Empire's sphere of influence. This victory, while strengthening Russia, diminished the strategic importance of the Zaporozhian Sich, as the borderlands the Cossacks had traditionally defended were now under Russian control. This geopolitical shift paved the way for the Sich’s destruction.[120]
In 1775, Russian troops under General Peter Tekeli marched on the Zaporozhian Sich, following orders from Empress Catherine the Great. Catherine, intent on centralizing her empire and removing any threats to her power, saw the independent and militarized Cossack host as an obstacle. On June 15, 1775, after a swift operation, Tekeli’s forces, consisting of 8 cavalry regiments, 10 infantry regiments, 20 hussar squadrons, 17 pike squadrons, and 13 squadrons of Don Cossacks—totaling 45,000 troops—destroyed the Sich. Defended by a small garrison of only 3,000 Cossacks, the Sich fell quickly.[121]
Cannons at the entrance to the Fortress of Saint Elizabeth
The last Kosh Otaman, Petro Kalnyshevsky, was arrested and exiled to the Solovetsky Islands in the far north, where he spent the remainder of his life in harsh conditions, dying in captivity. The destruction of the Sich marked the end of an era for the Cossack state, a symbol of Ukrainian independence and military prowess. Following the destruction, a smaller group of Cossacks fled to the lands of the Ottoman Empire, settling beyond the Danube, where they formed the Danubian Sich. Others relocated to the Kuban region in the Russian Empire, where they helped establish the Kuban Cossack Host. However, the majority of the Ukrainian Cossacks were deported to remote parts of the Russian Empire, including Siberia, in a move that sought to break their power and disperse their population. Cultural Loss: In addition to the loss of Cossack autonomy, the Russian troops seized over 30,000 documents, along with weapons and other valuables, representing the history of Ukraine from the 16th to the 18th centuries. These items were stored in the fortress of St. Elizabeth, which had been the primary military base of the Russian Imperial Army in Ukraine. The fortress itself held historical significance, having repelled the last slave raids by the Crimean Tatars and played a crucial role in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774. These historical artifacts remained in St. Elizabeth’s fortress until they were eventually transferred to Kyiv in 1918, providing valuable insights into the rich history of the Ukrainian Cossacks.[122][123][124]
Cossack Mamay and the Haidamaka hang a Jew by his heels. Ukrainian folk art, 19th century.
Meanwhile, in right-bank Ukraine, dissatisfaction with Polish rule had been growing for decades. Increased corvée (forced labor) obligations, along with the abuse of power by Polish magnates, nobles, and their Jewish stewards, led to widespread unrest. The peasants, many of whom were Orthodox Christians, resented the imposition of taxes and labor on their lands, as well as the presence of Roman Catholic and Uniate clergy. The resulting discontent gave rise to a series of Haidamak uprisings, in which bands of rebels attacked and looted towns, targeting the estates of nobles, clergy, and Jewish populations. Major uprisings occurred in 1734, 1750, and the largest—known as Koliyivschyna—took place in 1768. This uprising was violently suppressed, but it revealed deep-seated resentment toward foreign rule in Ukraine.[125]
By the end of the century, Catherine the Great’s policies had reshaped the political landscape of Ukraine. The Cossack's role in defending the borderlands was no longer necessary, as the Russian Empire now controlled the Black Sea and Crimea. In 1783, the Crimean Khanate was formally annexed by Russia, cementing control over the northern Black Sea region. A few years earlier, in 1778, a mass emigration of Christians from Crimea occurred, further altering the demographic balance of the region. Finally, in 1793, following the Second Partition of Poland, right-bank Ukraine was officially incorporated into the Russian Empire. By the end of Catherine’s reign, most of Ukraine had fallen under Russian control, bringing an end to the centuries-old struggle for autonomy and leaving the Ukrainian people under the rule of the Tsar.[126]
Under the reign of Alexander I (1801–1825), the Russian presence in Ukraine was largely limited to the imperial army and its bureaucracy. However, by the reign of Nicholas I (1825–1855), Russia had established a centralized administration in Ukraine. After suppressing the November Uprising of 1830, the tsarist regime implemented Russification policies, particularly on the Right-bank Ukraine. These policies not only suppressed the Ukrainian language but also aimed to weaken local traditions by emphasizing loyalty to the Russian Orthodox Church, which actively promoted Russification in contrast to the Uniate Church's earlier influence in Western Ukraine.[127]
The 1861 emancipation of serfs had a profound effect on Ukraine, as 42% of its population were serfs. By the late 19th century, heavy taxes, rapid population growth, and land shortages led to widespread impoverishment among the peasantry. Many rural Ukrainians began migrating to cities, where industrialization and urban development created new economic opportunities but also fostered a growing sense of class consciousness. The construction of the first railway track in 1866 not only integrated Ukraine’s economy into the Russian imperial system but also facilitated the mobility of workers and goods. Despite their hardships, Ukrainian peasants and workers contributed significantly to the empire’s economy, with the steppe regions producing 20% of the world's wheat and 80% of the empire's sugar.[127]
The Ukrainian national revival began in the late 18th century with the emergence of modern Ukrainian literature, spearheaded by Ivan Kotliarevsky. Prominent 19th-century Ukrainian authors included Taras Shevchenko, Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky, and Lesya Ukrainka in the Russian Empire, and Ivan Franko in Austria-Hungary. The rise of a Ukrainian intelligentsia, increasingly composed of commoners and peasants, challenged the dominance of the traditional nobility and fueled the movement for national rights and social justice. However, fearing the rise of separatism, the Russian government imposed strict limits on Ukrainian language and culture. In 1863, the Valuev Circular banned the use of Ukrainian in religious and educational texts. Further repression came with the Ems Ukaz in 1876, which prohibited Ukrainian-language publications, the import of Ukrainian books from abroad, the use of Ukrainian in theater, and even public readings. Ukrainian schools were also suppressed. These policies prompted many Ukrainian intellectuals, such as Mykhailo Drahomanov and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, to flee to Austrian-ruled Western Ukraine.[128] In addition, the development of underground educational organizations, such as the "Prosvita" society, played a critical role in preserving Ukrainian culture. Despite the restrictions, Ukrainians within the Russian Empire sometimes succeeded in advancing within the system, often blending loyalty to the tsar with a subtle promotion of their heritage.
The fate of Ukrainians under the Austrian Empire was markedly different. In Austrian-ruled Galicia, Ukrainians found themselves in a delicate position within the broader Russian-Austrian rivalry for influence in Central and Southern Europe. Unlike in the Russian Empire, Galicia’s ruling elite were primarily of Austrian or Polish descent, while the Ruthenian population remained predominantly peasant. During the 19th century, Russophilia was initially common among Galicia’s Slavic population. However, the influx of Ukrainian intellectuals fleeing Russian repression, combined with Austrian intervention, gradually replaced Russophilia with a growing Ukrainophilia. This sentiment spread back into Russian-ruled Ukraine, fueling the national revival.[127]
The 2.4 million Ukrainians under Habsburg rule lived primarily in Eastern Galicia, with 95% of them being peasants. The region remained one of the poorest in Europe, with persistent land shortages and limited industrialization. Nevertheless, the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia became a key institution in preserving Ukrainian culture and fostering national identity. The first Ukrainian-language newspaper, Zoria Halytska, launched in 1848, symbolized the growing national awakening. Many Ukrainians from Galicia and other Austrian territories also emigrated to North America and South America during this period, seeking economic opportunities and escaping poverty.[129]
The late 19th century witnessed a slow but steady growth of Ukrainian urban populations and the beginnings of a political awakening. Ukrainians in Galicia formed the Supreme Ruthenian Council and began advocating for autonomy and reforms, such as land redistribution. In Russian Ukraine, underground networks spread literature, education, and national ideas among the peasantry, contributing to the resilience of Ukrainian identity under challenging conditions.
The Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) was officially proclaimed on November 20, 1917, amidst the turmoil of the Russian Revolution and the disintegration of the Russian Empire. Initially, the Ukrainian Central Council (Rada), comprising influential Ukrainian political figures, pursued autonomy within a federated Russia. However, as the political situation in Russia grew increasingly unstable, the UPR took a decisive step by declaring full independence on January 22, 1918.[130]
From its inception, the fledgling UPR faced significant challenges. Internally, political divisions among various factions, including socialists, nationalists, and federalists, complicated governance and decision-making. Economically, the nascent republic struggled with the transition from imperial control to an independent administration, resulting in shortages, inflation, and a weakened infrastructure. Externally, the UPR faced threats from multiple sides, primarily from the Bolsheviks, who regarded Ukraine as essential to their revolutionary agenda. As a result, they launched a series of military campaigns to assert control over Ukrainian territories, triggering prolonged and intense conflicts with UPR forces.[131]
As the Bolsheviks sought to expand their influence across the former territories of the Russian Empire, Ukraine became a significant battleground. In December 1917, amidst the chaos of the Russian Revolution and the collapse of imperial power, the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was proclaimed. This was a direct challenge to the Ukrainian People's Republic, which had declared its independence from the Russian Empire earlier that year. The UPR, led by nationalists and democrats, sought to build an independent Ukrainian state. In contrast, the Bolshevik-backed People's Republic of Soviets aimed to bring Ukraine under Soviet control and align it with the goals of the Russian Bolsheviks.[132]
Flag of Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets
In March 1918, this newly established republic merged with two other short-lived Soviet republics in the region: the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic and the Odessa Soviet Republic. These republics were formed by local Bolshevik groups seeking to establish Soviet power across key industrial and strategic regions of Ukraine. The result of this merger was the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, a state that was aligned with Soviet Russia and part of the larger efforts of the Bolsheviks to secure control over Ukraine during the chaotic period of civil war and foreign intervention. This period was marked by fierce conflicts between various Ukrainian factions, including the Ukrainian People's Republic, anarchists, and foreign powers, alongside the advancing Bolshevik forces, contributing to the overall instability of the region. When the Bolshevik troops retreated from the territory, on April 18, 1918, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic was officially dissolved.[133][134]
Amid growing unrest, a coup d'état led by General Pavlo Skoropadskyi on April 29, 1918, dismantled the UPR and established the Ukrainian State, also known as the Hetmanate. Skoropadskyi, a former officer in the Russian Imperial Army, assumed the title of Hetman of all Ukraine, aiming to create a strong, centralized state with close ties to the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. His vision for the Hetmanate included restoring order, promoting economic development, and implementing agrarian reforms to stabilize the economy and society.[135]
Skoropadskyi inspecting troops from the "Greycoat" division
While the Hetmanate initially brought some stability, Skoropadskyi's alignment with the Central Powers and his authoritarian policies alienated many Ukrainians. Nationalists, socialists, and peasant groups grew increasingly discontented, perceiving his regime as prioritizing foreign interests over Ukrainian sovereignty. Additionally, Skoropadskyi's agricultural reforms, which often favored large landowners and reinstated some pre-revolutionary land policies, furthered resentment among the rural populace.[136]
As the Central Powers began to crumble in late 1918 with their defeat in World War I, opposition to Skoropadskyi's rule surged. In November 1918, a coalition of anti-Hetmanate forces known as The Directorate, led by Symon Petliura, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and other prominent Ukrainian leaders, initiated a successful uprising against Skoropadskyi’s government. By December 1918, Skoropadskyi was forced to abdicate, dissolving the Ukrainian State and restoring the Ukrainian People's Republic.[137]
Simultaneously, a separate Ukrainian state was established in the western part of the country. The West Ukrainian People's Republic (WUPR) was proclaimed on October 19, 1918, following the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This new state centered around Eastern Galicia, including the key city of Lviv, and extended into parts of Bukovina and Transcarpathia, areas with substantial Ukrainian populations. The WUPR government, led by Yevhen Petrushevych, aspired to build an independent Ukrainian state in Western Ukraine, distinct from both Polish and Russian influences.[138][139]
The Supreme Command of the Ukrainian Galician Army. Sitting, 5th through 7th from left, Gen Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko, Col Viktor Kurmanovych, and Otaman Alfred Schamanek
The WUPR quickly developed its administrative structures, forming the Ukrainian Galician Army to defend its territories and introducing social and economic reforms to stabilize the new state. However, the WUPR’s claim over Eastern Galicia sparked immediate conflict with the re-established Polish state, which also sought control over the region. This territorial dispute erupted into the Polish-Ukrainian War (1918-1919), beginning with fierce fighting in Lviv, where Polish paramilitary forces resisted Ukrainian authority.[140]
Although Ukrainian forces initially gained some ground, the Polish Army, bolstered by material support from the Entente Powers, soon regained momentum. By mid-1919, the Polish Army launched a major offensive, pushing back the Ukrainian Galician Army and regaining control over contested areas. Facing overwhelming opposition, WUPR forces retreated into Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) territory by July 1919, marking the end of the WUPR as an independent state.[141]
In an effort to consolidate their positions during a tumultuous period, UPR and WUPR formally united on January 22, 1919, through the signing of the Unification Act (Act Zluky). This historic declaration symbolized the unification of the two republics into a single Ukrainian state. Despite its significance as a milestone for Ukrainian national aspirations, the unification remained largely symbolic in practice. The lack of effective integration between the UPR and WUPR resulted in minimal military coordination or mutual support. Both entities were preoccupied with their respective military challenges: the UPR was engaged in a desperate struggle against advancing Bolshevik forces, while the WUPR was embroiled in a conflict with Polish troops over territorial claims in Eastern Galicia.[12]
The Makhnovshchina, which existed from 1918 to 1921, was a revolutionary anarchist movement in southern Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno. It emerged during the chaos of the Russian Civil War. The Makhnovists aimed to establish a stateless, self-managed society based on anarchist principles, where peasants and workers controlled the land and factories. Makhno's forces fought against various powers, including the Bolsheviks, the White Army, and foreign invaders. Despite initial successes, the movement was eventually crushed by the Bolsheviks.[142]
The Kholodny Yar Republic, which existed from 1919 to 1922, was a small Ukrainian insurgent state located in the Chyhyryn region. It was formed by local resistance fighters and peasants who opposed both the Bolshevik Red Army and White Army forces during the Russian Civil War. Inspired by Ukrainian independence and nationalist ideals, the republic remained independent for a few years but was eventually overwhelmed by Bolshevik forces.[143][144]
In May 1919, in central Ukraine began the Hryhoriv Uprising, largest anti-soviet Uprising in Ukraine, which was brutally suppressed by regular troops.[145]
The Kuban People's Republic, which existed from 1918 to 1920, was a short-lived state established by Cossacks in the Kuban region, near the Black Sea. In the wake of the Russian Empire's collapse during the revolution, the Kuban Cossacks declared independence and formed the Kuban Rada to govern. Their goal was to preserve their cultural identity and retain control over their land amid the Russian Civil War. The republic allied with the White Army against the Bolsheviks and sought to unite with the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) due to shared Cossack heritage and mutual strategic interests. However, these negotiations never culminated in a formal union. Isolated, the republic fell to the advancing Bolshevik Red Army by 1920, ending its brief independence.[146][147][148]
Continued struggle and exile of the UPR government
Exiled Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura (right foreground) conversing with Polish General Antoni Listowski after his alliance with the Poles
After being driven out of Kyiv by Bolshevik forces in early 1919, the UPR government, led by Symon Petliura, continued to resist Bolshevik advances and Polish encroachment. By 1920, facing insurmountable odds and a deteriorating military position, Petliura sought an alliance with Poland. In April 1920, the Treaty of Warsaw was signed, under which the UPR agreed to recognize Polish control over Western Ukraine in exchange for Polish military support against the Bolsheviks.[149]
The joint Polish-Ukrainian campaign initially achieved some success, including the temporary recapture of Kyiv in May 1920. However, the Bolshevik counter-offensive soon pushed back the allied forces. The situation for the UPR became even more precarious when Poland sought a peace agreement with Soviet Russia, culminating in the signing of the Treaty of Riga in March 1921. The treaty effectively partitioned Ukraine, leaving most of its territory under Soviet control and the western parts under Polish administration.[150]
With the signing of the Treaty of Riga, the UPR government went into exile, primarily in Poland and other European countries. Ukrainian leaders continued their efforts to advocate for Ukrainian independence in the international arena, but without a territorial base or significant military forces, their influence was limited. Symon Petliura, a key figure in the UPR, continued his political activities in exile until his assassination in Paris in 1926.[151]
In 1919 total chaos engulfed Ukraine. Indeed, in the modern history of Europe no country experienced such complete anarchy, bitter civil strife, and total collapse of authority as did Ukraine at this time. Six different armies – those of the Ukrainians, the Bolsheviks, the Whites, the Entente [French], the Poles and the anarchists – operated on its territory. Kiev changed hands five times in less than a year. Cities and regions were cut off from each other by the numerous fronts. Communications with the outside world broke down almost completely. The starving cities emptied as people moved into the countryside in their search for food.[152]
Between 1917 and 1920, several entities that aspired to be independent Ukrainian states came into existence. This period, however, was extremely chaotic, characterized by revolution, international and civil war, and lack of strong central authority. Many factions competed for power in the area that is today's Ukraine, and not all groups desired a separate Ukrainian state. Ultimately, Ukrainian independence was short-lived, as most Ukrainian lands were incorporated into the Soviet Union and the remainder, in western Ukraine, was divided among Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania.[153]
As both the UPR and WUPR faced defeat, the Bolshevik forces consolidated their control over Ukraine. On December 30, 1919, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the establishment of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (Ukrainian SSR), positioning it as a satellite of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The new Soviet government aimed to establish complete Soviet authority over all Ukrainian territories, incorporating Ukraine into the broader framework of Soviet expansion.[13]
The creation of the Ukrainian SSR marked the beginning of Soviet rule in Ukraine. Over the next two years, the Red Army systematically subdued remaining Ukrainian forces, nationalist resistance movements, and other anti-Bolshevik factions. By 1921, Bolshevik forces had largely crushed organized resistance, paving the way for the integration of the Ukrainian SSR as one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union in 1922.[154]
The Ukrainianization program aimed at fostering Ukrainian ethnic identity among the population of Ukraine. This 1921 recruitment poster uses Ukrainian orthography to convey its message, "Son, join the School of Red Commanders [uk], and the defense of Soviet Ukraine will be ensured".
In the 1920s, the Soviet government implemented a policy of "Ukrainization" as part of its broader strategy to strengthen support for the Soviet regime in non-Russian republics. This policy encouraged the use of the Ukrainian language in education, government, and media. Ukrainian culture and history were promoted to win over the local population and intellectual elite. Ukrainization allowed a degree of cultural revival after years of Russian dominance in Ukraine. Ukrainian literature, theater, and arts experienced significant growth, and schools began teaching in the Ukrainian language. However, this policy was carefully controlled by the Communist Party, ensuring that cultural development aligned with Soviet ideology.[155]
Following the devastation of war and revolution, the Soviet government introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) to stabilize the economy. It represented a temporary retreat from pure socialist policies, allowing some elements of private enterprise and market mechanisms to function alongside state-controlled industries. The NEP had a mixed impact on Ukraine. On one hand, it allowed limited economic recovery, especially in agriculture and small-scale industry. Peasants were permitted to sell surplus products on the market, and small businesses could operate under certain conditions. On the other hand, large-scale industries remained under state control, and the heavy industrial sector, which Ukraine relied on, remained inefficient and slow to recover. While the NEP offered some relief to peasants, many remained suspicious of Soviet power, particularly after the harsh grain requisition policies during the civil war. Tensions between the peasantry and the Soviet regime continued to simmer.[156]
During this period, the Communist Party tightened its control over Ukraine. The Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) became a key instrument in enforcing Soviet policies and maintaining order. Political power was highly centralized, with decisions made in Moscow dictating policy in Ukraine. Despite the relative cultural freedom of Ukrainization, any political opposition to the Soviet regime was harshly repressed. Former nationalists, intellectuals, and opponents of Soviet power were marginalized, and any movement toward true Ukrainian autonomy was quickly suppressed.
In the early Soviet years, there was a strong emphasis on rebuilding Ukraine's war-ravaged economy. Ukraine was a critical industrial center, especially in coal, steel, and machinery production. While some infrastructure was rebuilt, economic challenges remained due to the inefficiency of state control and the lingering effects of war. Ukraine, being an agriculturally rich region, faced difficulties as the peasants were subjected to state control over grain production. Despite the NEP, rural areas continued to suffer from poverty, which would later fuel resistance to Soviet policies.[157]
By the late 1920s, the NEP was being phased out as the Soviet Union prepared for a shift towards more centralized and state-controlled economic policies under Stalin. The focus was moving toward heavy industrialization and forced collectivization, setting the stage for the dramatic and tragic events of the 1930s, including the Holodomor. Although Ukrainization was relatively successful in the 1920s, by the end of the decade, Stalin's regime began to reverse this policy, with a focus on Russian centralization. The coming years would see a crackdown on Ukrainian nationalism and culture as part of Stalin's larger efforts to solidify control over the Soviet republics.
Forced collectivization, industrialization and Holodomor
In 1929, Joseph Stalin launched a campaign of forced collectivization across the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. The policy aimed to consolidate individual peasant farms into large, state-controlled collective farms (kolkhozes) to increase agricultural productivity and secure grain supplies for rapid industrialization. Ukrainian peasants, particularly wealthier ones known as "kulaks", resisted collectivization. The Soviet regime responded with brutal force, seizing land, livestock, and grain, and deporting or executing those who resisted. Collectivization led to widespread chaos in rural areas. Agricultural output plummeted due to poor planning, lack of incentives, and resistance from the peasantry. The disruption of traditional farming practices and the state's requisition of grain exacerbated food shortages.[158]
Depopulation in 1929–1933, including during the Holodomor.
In 1932-33, Holodomor, derived from the Ukrainian words for "hunger" (holod) and "extermination" (moryty), was a man-made famine that resulted from the Soviet government's grain requisition policies and punitive measures against those who resisted collectivization. Millions of Ukrainians died from starvation during the Holodomor. Entire villages were decimated, and the event remains one of the most tragic episodes in Ukrainian history. The Soviet government denied the famine's existence and continued exporting grain during the crisis. The Holodomor not only devastated the rural population but also weakened Ukrainian national identity and culture. It served as a stark warning against any resistance to Soviet authority.[13]: §§ 8.1.3[159][160]
Stalin's economic strategy included a series of Five-Year Plans aimed at rapidly industrializing the Soviet Union. Ukraine, with its rich natural resources and strategic location, was a key focus of these plans. Ukraine became a major center for heavy industry, particularly in coal mining, steel production, and machine building. Cities like Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk (now Dnipro), and Stalino (now Donetsk) were transformed into industrial hubs. The rapid growth of industry led to significant urbanization. Millions of Ukrainians moved from rural areas to cities in search of work, fundamentally altering the demographic and social landscape.[161]
Throughout the 1930s, Stalin's regime became increasingly marked by paranoia and a relentless drive to eradicate any perceived threats to his authority. This climate of suspicion fueled widespread political repression across the Soviet Union, profoundly impacting every layer of society in Ukraine. The purges specifically targeted Ukrainian intellectuals, artists, political leaders, and ordinary citizens suspected of harboring nationalist sympathies or potential dissenting views. Stalin’s objective was clear: to eliminate any possible source of opposition to Soviet rule, no matter how tenuous or imagined.[162]
Mass burial in Bykivnia
The Great Purge, reaching its zenith between 1936 and 1938, devastated Ukraine. During this period, tens of thousands were arrested, tortured, and executed, or sent to forced labor camps (the Gulag) in remote Soviet regions. The Ukrainian intelligentsia, initially supported during the Soviet policy of Ukrainization in the 1920s, became a particular target as they were increasingly viewed as a threat to Soviet ideological conformity. In a systematic crackdown, the NKVD, Stalin’s secret police, dismantled the Ukrainian cultural and intellectual community. Most members of this intelligentsia were either imprisoned, executed, or driven to despair and suicide. One notable site, the Slovo Building in Kharkiv, where many prominent Ukrainian intellectuals resided, became infamous as a place where residents were closely surveilled, then rounded up in these purges.[163][164]
The terror also took a horrific toll on Kyiv, which became the capital of the Ukrainian SSR in 1934, replacing Kharkiv. Tens of thousands of Kyiv’s citizens were abducted by Soviet security forces, tortured, and summarily executed on fabricated charges. Victims were accused of treason, espionage, or nationalist activities without evidence and sentenced to death in sham trials. Their bodies were secretly buried in Bykivnia, a wooded area near Kyiv, which later became one of the largest mass grave sites in Ukraine. After Ukraine’s independence and the declassification of KGB archives, thousands of graves were discovered in Bykivnia, leading to the establishment of the Bykivnia Graves Memorial Complex. Soviet authorities had long denied the truth, claiming instead that Nazi atrocities had caused the mass burials.[165][166]
These purges were marked by infamous show trials, where prominent figures were coerced, often through brutal interrogation, into confessing to invented charges of anti-Soviet activity. The loss of Ukraine's educated and skilled citizens stifled intellectual, cultural, and social progress for decades, creating a legacy of fear that has hampered Ukraine's development and left a scar that is remembered in Ukraine to this day.[167]
In March 1939, as Czechoslovakia disintegrated under pressure from Nazi Germany, Carpathian Ukraine declared independence as the Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine. The government envisioned this small, mountainous region as the nucleus of a future independent Ukrainian state. Unfortunately, this independence was short-lived. Within days, Hungarian forces, supported by Nazi Germany, invaded and occupied the region. The occupation was brutal, and many Ukrainian leaders were arrested or executed. Carpathian Ukraine remained under Hungarian control.[169]
On 22 June 1941, Nazi Germany and its allies launched Operation Barbarossa, invading the Soviet Union. Ukraine became one of the main battlegrounds during the conflict, as Nazi forces occupied large parts of the country, including major cities such as Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv. The German occupation, while initially seen by some as a potential liberation from the oppressive Soviet regime, quickly turned brutal. Nazi ideology viewed Ukraine as a critical part of its plan for Lebensraum (living space) and exploitation of resources.[citation needed]
Around 4.5 to 6 million Ukrainians fought in the Soviet Red Army against Nazi Germany, contributing significantly to the eventual Soviet victory. At the same time, Ukraine became a center of partisan resistance. Some Ukrainians collaborated with the Germans, hoping to secure independence, while others joined the resistance movement. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), formed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), fought for an independent Ukraine, engaging in conflict with both the Nazis and the Soviet forces. This dual struggle was motivated by a desire to free Ukraine from foreign domination, but the complexity of alliances and enmities made this a multi-sided war.[171]
UPA propaganda poster. The OUN/UPA's formal greeting is written in Ukrainian on two of horizontal lines Glory to Ukraine – Glory to (her) Heroes. The soldier is standing on the banners of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Meanwhile, some factions within the Ukrainian nationalist movement, such as the Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance (UNDA), sought autonomy within a pro-Polish framework before the war. However, Polish policies of forced assimilation marginalized these efforts, leading to growing tensions between Poles and Ukrainians. During the German occupation, these tensions escalated into violent ethnic conflicts in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, known as the Volhynian-Galician tragedy. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and Polish underground forces, including the Armia Krajowa, engaged in a simultaneous campaign of mutual violence during 1943–1944. The UPA targeted Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, resulting in the deaths of up to 100,000 Poles, while Polish forces carried out attacks on Ukrainian civilians, killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians. These events, driven by competing nationalist ambitions, caused immense suffering on both sides and remain a deeply painful chapter in Ukrainian-Polish history.[172]
The Nazi occupation of Ukraine was marked by extreme brutality, especially towards Jews. Around 1.5 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust in Ukraine, with atrocities such as the Babi Yar massacre, where tens of thousands of Jews were executed near Kyiv. The occupation also saw widespread repression of other groups, including Roma, communists, and Ukrainian nationalists.[173]
By 1943, following the Battle of Stalingrad, the tide of the war began to turn in favor of the Soviet Union. Soviet forces began to push the Germans out of Ukraine, and by 1944, the entire country was back under Soviet control. However, Soviet "liberation" did not bring freedom for many Ukrainians. The Soviet government imposed harsh reprisals against those suspected of collaboration with the Nazis or support for Ukrainian independence. The NKVD (Soviet secret police) conducted mass arrests, deportations, and executions. Small groups of UPA partisans continued their armed resistance against the Soviet regime well into the late 1940s and early 1950s, particularly in Western Ukraine, though the Soviet authorities eventually crushed this insurgency.[174]
Carpathian Ukraine, during the Hungarian occupation, faced significant repression, particularly against its Jewish and Ukrainian populations. Thousands of Jews from the region were deported to Nazi concentration camps, and many Ukrainian nationalists were imprisoned or killed. In 1944, the Soviet Red Army "liberated" Carpathian Ukraine from Hungarian and German forces.[175]
Front page of the Zakarpattia Ukraine newspaper (1944) with manifest of unification with Soviet Ukraine
In addition to the annexation of Galicia and Volhynia, several other territories were incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and subsequent wartime events. These included Northern Bukovina, South Bessarabia, and Carpathian Ruthenia (Transcarpathia), regions with a predominantly Ukrainian population.[176][177]
Post-war reconstruction of the Ukrainian SSR and continuation of repressions
Location of the Ukrainian SSR (yellow) within the Soviet Union in 1954–1991
After World War II, amendments to the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR were accepted, which allowed it to act as a separate subject of international law in some cases and to a certain extent, remaining a part of the Soviet Union at the same time. In particular, these amendments allowed the Ukrainian SSR to become one of the founding members of the United Nations (UN) together with the Soviet Union and the Byelorussian SSR. This was part of a deal with the United States to ensure a degree of balance in the General Assembly, which, the USSR opined, was unbalanced in favor of the Western Bloc. In its capacity as a member of the UN, the Ukrainian SSR was an elected member of the United Nations Security Council in 1948–1949 and 1984–1985.[citation needed]
The deportees were transported in such wagons.
One of the most notable territorial changes occurred in 1954, when the Crimean Oblastwas transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian SSR.[178] However, this period was also marked by severe repression and social upheaval. The famine of 1946-1947 devastated large parts of Ukraine, as the Soviet government requisitioned the entirety of the grain harvest, exacerbating food shortages. Western Ukraine, however, was less affected by the famine, largely due to the resistance efforts of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). In response, the Soviet regime launched Operation "West" in 1947, forcibly deporting over 77,000 individuals—men, women, and children—from Western Ukraine to Siberia. These deportees later played a critical role in organizing uprisings within the Soviet Gulag system, including the notable Norilsk Uprising, which hastened the decline of the forced labor camp network.[179][180][181][182]
From the 1960s through the 1980s, Ukraine became a focal point for dissident activity within the USSR. A disproportionately high number of Ukrainian intellectuals, activists, and cultural figures were imprisoned, exiled, or subjected to punitive psychiatry for opposing the regime. These movements not only highlighted the systemic oppression within the Soviet Union but also laid the groundwork for future independence efforts.[183][184]
On 26 April 1986, the Ukrainian town of Pripyat became the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in history when Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded. The resulting radioactive fallout contaminated vast areas of northern Ukraine and neighboring Belarus. This tragedy had profound environmental, health, and political consequences. The Chernobyl disaster galvanized local independence movements, such as Rukh, which gained significant momentum in the late 1980s and contributed to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union.[citation needed]
The Path to Independence
By 1990, calls for Ukrainian sovereignty reached a fever pitch, fueled by decades of cultural suppression, economic exploitation, and a growing national consciousness among Ukrainians. On 21 January 1990, one of the most iconic demonstrations of unity and determination occurred when over 300,000 Ukrainians formed the "human chain" stretching from Kyiv to Lviv. This symbolic act, known as the "Chain of Unity", marked the anniversary of the Unification Act of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the West Ukrainian People's Republic in 1919. It highlighted the nation's steadfast commitment to reclaiming its independence, emphasizing the unity between eastern and western Ukraine.[185]
The momentum gained from these movements culminated in a series of decisive events. On 16 July 1990, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty, asserting Ukraine's autonomy and commitment to creating a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This declaration was a critical step towards independence, signaling the diminishing grip of the Soviet Union over its republics.[186][187]
The final collapse of the Soviet Union occurred on 26 December 1991, following a series of seismic political changes. Earlier that year, on 1 December 1991, a nationwide referendum was held in Ukraine, where an overwhelming 90.32% of voters supported independence. This demonstrated a nearly unanimous desire across all regions of the country, including those with significant Russian-speaking populations, to break free from Soviet rule.[188]
The dissolution of the USSR was formalized in the Białowieża Forest in Belarus, where the leaders of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia—Leonid Kravchuk, Stanislav Shushkevich, and Boris Yeltsin—signed the Belovezh Accords on 8 December 1991. These accords declared the Soviet Union defunct and established the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a loose association of former Soviet republics. By 26 December 1991, the USSR officially ceased to exist, and Ukraine's independence gained de jure recognition from the international community.[189]
The front page of the parliamentary newspaper Holos Ukrayiny with the text of the declaration printed on the lower half (27 August 1991)
On August 24, 1991, following the failed August Coup in Moscow, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) declared Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union.[188] This historic decision was reinforced by a nationwide referendum on December 1, 1991, where over 90% of voters supported independence, with majorities in every region (including 56% in Crimea).[190] That same day, Ukraine held its first presidential election, a pivotal moment in its post-Soviet history. Leonid Kravchuk, a former high-ranking Soviet official, won the election, becoming first President of Ukraine. During his tenure, Kravchuk worked to maintain stability, distance Ukraine from Moscow’s influence, and manage internal political challenges.[191]
After declaring independence, Ukraine began a complex post-Soviet transition, shaping its identity as a new independent nation. From 1991 to 1996, Ukraine experienced significant political, economic, and social transformations aimed at establishing itself as a sovereign state on the global stage.[192]
In the early years of independence, the Verkhovna Rada played a key role in establishing the country’s legal and political framework. As Ukraine’s legislative body, the Rada was responsible for drafting and passing laws to build the foundation of Ukraine’s political and economic structures. However, it faced ideological divides as members debated Ukraine’s path—whether to orient toward Western integration or maintain stronger ties with Russian Federation. These debates mirrored broader societal divides and significantly influenced legislative reform.[193]
To solidify its national identity, Ukraine adopted state symbols that resonated with historical and cultural significance. The Parliament selected the blue-and-yellow flag and the tryzub (trident) as national emblems, which became powerful representations of Ukrainian sovereignty and unity.[194][195]
A significant historical moment of this period was the transfer of powers from the President of the Ukrainian People's RepublicMykola Plaviuk to the newly elected President of independent Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, during the solemn session of the Verkhovna Rada on August 22, 1992 in Kyiv. This transfer, while largely symbolic, marked a continuity of the Ukrainian struggle for independence, linking the efforts of past leaders to those of the new government. This act represented the culmination of over 70 years of Ukrainian national aspirations and signaled a deepening commitment to the state’s sovereignty and historical continuity.[196][197] In his declaration, Plaviuk proclaimed that the current Ukrainian state is the lawful successor to the Ukrainian People's Republic and a continuation of its authority and state traditions.[198][196][b]
The transition to a market economy was compounded by inflation and political instability. The absence of immediate reforms led to widespread frustration, culminating in a snap presidential election in 1994, where Leonid Kravchuk was succeeded by Leonid Kuchma, an engineer and former Soviet official. Kuchma’s presidency aimed at modernizing Ukraine’s economy and fostering a balanced relationship with both Russia and Western Europe, a delicate approach to preserving Ukraine’s independence amid complex geopolitical pressures.[200]
Trying to stabilize the economy, back in 1992, Ukraine introduced a temporary currency, the Ukrainian karbovanets. This currency was intended to serve as a stopgap measure until a more permanent solution could be implemented. The karbovanets quickly devalued, contributing to growing economic instability.[201] In 1996, Ukraine introduced the Hryvnia as the national currency, marking a significant milestone in the country’s economic transition and further solidifying its independence.[202][203] It is named after a measure of weight used in Kievan Rus'.[204]
Despite disputes in the Verkhovna Rada, which at the time struggled to reach consensus on reform initiatives and reconcile the interests of pro-Western and pro-Russian factions, Ukraine took a decisive step in defining its legal structure by adopting the Constitution of Ukraine on June 28, 1996. This document established Ukraine as a democratic, law-based state with a presidential-parliamentary system, clearly delineating the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Drafted with input from various political factions and scholars, the Constitution enshrined Ukraine’s commitment to legal governance and human rights, becoming a cornerstone for Ukraine’s development as an independent nation.[205]
At the end of its transition, Ukraine created the main components of its independence. With its own currency, Constitution, national symbols, and a growing sense of national identity, Ukraine began to chart its course as a sovereign state. Despite the fact that the post-Soviet transition period caused numerous economic and political challenges, this formative period played an important role in shaping the direction and identity of modern Ukraine.
The third presidential election in Ukraine took place in 1999, resulting in a victory for Leonid Kuchma, who defeated Petro Symonenko in the run-off. This secured Kuchma a second consecutive term. However, his second term was plagued by widespread controversies, including allegations of authoritarianism, pervasive corruption scandals, curtailment of media freedoms, and large-scale public protests that challenged his leadership and legitimacy.[206]
Protests of 6 February 2001 during Ukraine without Kuchma campaign
One of the darkest episodes of Kuchma’s presidency was the "Cassette Scandal", which erupted after recordings allegedly made by his former bodyguard, Mykola Melnychenko, were leaked. These recordings implicated Kuchma in severe abuses of power, including involvement in the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze, as well as corruption and electoral manipulations. The scandal provoked massive public outrage, culminating in the "Ukraine without Kuchma" protests of 2000–2001. These protests, marked by their intensity and broad support, severely undermined Kuchma's standing both domestically and internationally.[207][208]
During his presidency, Kuchma’s administration was accused of suppressing opposition media outlets and harassing journalists and political opponents. High-profile figures like Viacheslav Chornovil died under mysterious circumstances, further fueling suspicions of state complicity.[209][210][211] Historian Serhy Yekelchyk observed that Kuchma's government "employed electoral fraud freely", particularly during the 1999 presidential elections and the 2000 constitutional referendum.[212]
Amid these challenges, Viktor Yushchenko, a respected economist and reformer, rose to prominence. His tenure as the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine earned him recognition for his professionalism and integrity, which led to his appointment as Prime Minister in 1999, during Kuchma's re-election campaign. Yushchenko was perceived as a technocratic leader capable of addressing Ukraine’s economic stagnation and corruption.[citation needed]
Yushchenko as prime minister visiting Poland in 2000
Initially, Yushchenko's government embarked on an ambitious reform agenda. These reforms included fiscal discipline, restructuring of key industries, and efforts to stabilize the economy, which had suffered during Kuchma’s first term. However, Yushchenko's policies soon clashed with the entrenched oligarchic networks that had flourished under Kuchma's protection. These oligarchic factions, wielding significant influence in Parliament and the Kuchma administration, actively resisted reforms that threatened their monopolistic practices and access to state resources.[213]
One of the most contentious episodes of Yushchenko’s premiership was the dismissal of his deputy prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, in 2001. Tymoshenko, who spearheaded anti-corruption initiatives and energy sector reforms, posed a significant challenge to oligarchic interests. Under pressure from Kuchma and oligarchic allies, Yushchenko was forced to dismiss Tymoshenko, a move that symbolized the constraints on reform under Kuchma’s presidency. Shortly after, the Verkhovna Rada, dominated by pro-Kuchma factions, passed a vote of no confidence in Yushchenko’s government, effectively ending his tenure as Prime Minister. Kuchma’s lack of support during this political crisis highlighted the deepening rift between the two leaders.[214][215]
Following his dismissal, Yushchenko became a potent symbol of reform and anti-corruption, gaining significant public support. In 2002, he founded the "Our Ukraine" (Nasha Ukrayina) political coalition, which championed pro-Western and democratic ideals. This bloc emerged as a key opposition force against Kuchma’s policies and set the stage for the pivotal 2004 presidential election. In this election, Yushchenko, as the leading opposition candidate, challenged Viktor Yanukovych, Kuchma’s chosen successor, in a contest that would shape Ukraine’s political trajectory for years to come.[216]
In 2004, Kuchma announced that he would not run for re-election. Two major candidates emerged in the 2004 presidential election. Viktor Yanukovych,[217] the incumbent Prime Minister, supported by both Kuchma and by the Russian Federation, wanted closer ties with Russia. The main opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, called for Ukraine to turn its attention westward and aim to eventually join the EU.
In the runoff election, Yanukovych officially won by a narrow margin, but Yushchenko and his supporters alleged that vote rigging and intimidation cost him many votes, especially in eastern Ukraine. A political crisis erupted after the opposition started massive street protests in Kyiv and other cities ("Orange Revolution"), and the Supreme Court of Ukraine ordered the election results null and void. A second runoff found Viktor Yushchenko the winner. Five days later, Yanukovych resigned from office and his cabinet was dismissed on 5 January 2005.[citation needed]
By the time of the presidential election of 2010, Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko—allies during the Orange Revolution[220]—had become bitter enemies.[207] Tymoshenko ran for president against both Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, creating a three-way race. Yushchenko, whose popularity had plummeted,[218] persisted in running, and many pro-Orange voters stayed home.[221] In the second round of the election, Yanukovych won the run-off ballot with 48% to Tymoshenko's 45%.[222]
During his presidency (2010–2014), Yanukovych and his Party of Regions were accused of trying to create a "controlled democracy" in Ukraine and of trying to destroy the main opposition party Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko, but both have denied these charges.[223] One frequently cited example of Yanukovych's attempts to centralise power was the 2011 sentencing of Yulia Tymoshenko, which has been condemned by Western governments as potentially being politically motivated.[224]
Following the violence, the Ukrainian parliament on 22 February voted to remove Yanukovych from power (on the grounds that his whereabouts were unknown and he thus could not fulfil his duties), and to free Yulia Tymoshenko from prison. On the same day, Yanukovych supporter Volodymyr Rybak resigned as speaker of the Parliament, and was replaced by Tymoshenko loyalist Oleksandr Turchynov, who was subsequently installed as interim President.[231] Yanukovych had fled Kyiv, and subsequently gave a press conference in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don.[232]
On 1 January 2016, Ukraine joined the DCFTA with the EU. Ukrainian citizens were granted visa-free travel to the Schengen Area for up to 90 days during any 180-day period on 11 June 2017, and the Association Agreement formally came into effect on 1 September 2017.[233] Significant achievements in the foreign policy arena include support for anti-Russian sanctions, obtaining a visa-free regime with the countries of the European Union, and better recognition of the need to overcome extremely difficult tasks within the country. However, the old local authorities did not want any changes; they were cleansed of anti-Maidan activists (lustration), but only in part. The fight against corruption was launched, but was limited to sentences of petty officials and electronic declarations, and the newly established NABU and NACP were marked by scandals in their work. Judicial reform was combined with the appointment of old, compromised judges. The investigation of crimes against Maidan residents was delayed. In order to counteract the massive global Russian anti-Ukrainian propaganda of the "information war", the Ministry of Information Policy was created, which for 5 years did not show effective work, except for the ban on Kaspersky Lab, Dr.Web, 1С, Mail.ru, Yandex and Russian social networks VKontakte or Odnoklassniki and propaganda media. In 2017, the president signed the law "On Education", which met with opposition from national minorities, and quarreled with the Government of Hungary.[citation needed].[234]
On 19 May 2018, Poroshenko signed a Decree which put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on the final termination of Ukraine's participation in the statutory bodies of the Commonwealth of Independent States.[235][236] As of February 2019, Ukraine minimized its participation in the Commonwealth of Independent States to a critical minimum and effectively completed its withdrawal. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine did not ratify the accession, i.e. Ukraine has never been a member of the CIS.[237]
On 21 February 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, with the norms on the strategic course of Ukraine for membership in the European Union and NATO being enshrined in the preamble of the Basic Law, three articles and transitional provisions.[239]
On 21 April 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president in the second round of the presidential election. Early parliamentary elections on 21 July allowed the newly formed pro-presidential Servant of the People party to win an absolute majority of seats for the first time in the history of independent Ukraine (248). Dmytro Razumkov, the party's chairman, was elected speaker of parliament. The majority was able to form a government on 29 August on its own, without forming coalitions, and approved Oleksii Honcharuk as prime minister.[240] On 4 March 2020, due to a 1.5% drop in GDP (instead of a 4.5% increase at the time of the election), the Verkhovna Rada fired Honcharuk's government and Denys Shmyhal[241] became the new Prime Minister.[242]
On 17 May 2021, the Association Trio was formed by signing a joint memorandum between the Foreign Ministers of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Association Trio is tripartite format for the enhanced cooperation, coordination, and dialogue between the three countries (that have signed the Association Agreement with the EU) with the European Union on issues of common interest related to European integration, enhancing cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, and committing to the prospect of joining the European Union.[244]
At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy without outside interference.[245]
Ukraine was originally preparing to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, but instead signed an application for membership in February 2022.[246]
In March 2014, the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation occurred. Although official results of a referendum on Crimean reunification with Russia were reported as showing a large majority in favor of the proposition, the vote was organized under Russian military occupation and was denounced by the European Union and the United States as illegal.[247]
President Zelenskyy with members of the Ukrainian army on 18 June 2022
On 2 February 2021, a presidential decree banned the television broadcasting of the pro-Russian TV channels 112 Ukraine, NewsOne and ZIK.[262][263] The decision of the National Security and Defense Council and the Presidential Decree of 19 February 2021 imposed sanctions on 8 individuals and 19 legal entities, including Putin's pro-Russian politician and Putin's godfather Viktor Medvedchuk and his wife Oksana Marchenko.[264][265]
On the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the country was the poorest in Europe,[273] a handicap whose cause was attributed to high corruption levels[274] and the slow pace of economic liberalization and institutional reform.[275][276][277][278] Russia's invasion of the country damaged Ukraine's economy and future prospects of improvement to such an extent, that the GDP of the country was projected to shrink by as much as 35% in its first year alone after the invasion.[279]
Knowledge about Ukraine in other parts of the world came chiefly from Russian secondary sources until relatively recently. After the second half of the seventeenth century, when Muscovy and later the Russian Empire came to control much of Ukrainian territory, Russian writers included Ukraine as part of Russian history. This included referring to medieval Kievan Rus' as "Kievan Russia" and its Old East Slavic culture and inhabitants as "Kievan Russian" or "Old Russian". Later Ukraine or its parts were called "Little Russia", "South Russia", "West Russia" (with Belarus), or "New Russia" (the Black Sea coast and southeastern steppe). But parts of Ukraine beyond Russia's reach were called Ruthenia and its people Ruthenians. The names chosen to refer to Ukraine and Ukrainians have often reflected a certain political position, and sometimes even to deny the existence of Ukrainian nationality.[33]: 10–11 The Russian point-of-view of Ukrainian history became the prevailing one in Western academia, and although the bias was identified as early as the 1950s, many scholars of Slavic studies and history believe significant changes are still necessary to correct the Moscow-centric view.[280]
The scholarly study of Ukraine's history emerged from romantic impulses in the late 19th century when German Romanticism spread to Eastern Europe. The outstanding leaders were Volodymyr Antonovych (1834–1908), based in Kiev, and his student Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866–1934).[281] The first serious challenge to the Russian view of Ukraine was Hrushevsky's 1904 article "The Traditional Scheme of 'Russian' History and the Problem of the Rational organization of the History of the Eastern Slavs".[282] For the first time full-scale scholarly studies based on archival sources, modern research techniques, and modern historical theories became possible. However, the demands of government officials—Tsarist, to a lesser degree Austro-Hungarian and Polish, and later Soviet—made it difficult to disseminate ideas that ran counter to the central government. Therefore, exile schools of historians emerged in central Europe and Canada after 1920.[citation needed]
Strikingly different interpretations of the medieval state of Kievan Rus' appear in the four schools of historiography within Ukraine: Russophile, Sovietophile, Eastern Slavic, and Ukrainophile. In the Soviet Union, there was a radical break after 1921, led by Mikhail Pokrovsky. Until 1934, history was generally not regarded as chauvinistic, but was rewritten in the style of Marxist historiography. National "pasts" were rewritten as social and national liberation for non-Russians, and social liberation for Russians, in a process that ended in 1917. Under Stalin, the state and its official historiography were given a distinct Russian character and a certain Russocentrism. Imperial history was rewritten such that non-Russian love caused an emulation and deference to "join" the Russian people by becoming part of the (tsarist) Russian state, and in return, Russian state interests were driven by altruism and concern for neighboring people.[283] Russophile and Sovietophile schools have become marginalized in independent Ukraine, with the Ukrainophile school being dominant in the early 21st century. The Ukrainophile school promotes an identity that is mutually exclusive of Russia. It has come to dominate the nation's educational system, security forces, and national symbols and monuments, although it has been dismissed as nationalist by Western historians. The East Slavic school, an eclectic compromise between Ukrainophiles and Russophilism, has a weaker ideological and symbolic base, although it is preferred by Ukraine's centrist former elites.[284]
Many historians in recent years have sought alternatives to national histories, and Ukrainian history invited approaches that looked beyond a national paradigm. Multiethnic history recognises the numerous peoples in Ukraine; transnational history portrays Ukraine as a border zone for various empires; and area studies categorises Ukraine as part of East-Central Europe or, less often, as part of Eurasia. Serhii Plokhy argues that looking beyond the country's national history has made possible a richer understanding of Ukraine, its people, and the surrounding regions.[285] since 2015, there has been renewed interest in integrating a "territorial-civic" and "linguistic-ethnic" history of Ukraine. For example, the history of the Crimean Tatars and the more distant history of the Crimea peninsula is now integrated into Ukrainian school history. This is part of the constitutionally mandated "people of Ukraine" rather than "Ukrainian people". Slowly, the histories of Poles and Jews are also being reintegrated. However, due to the current political climate caused by territorial sovereignty breaches by Russia, the role of Russians as "co-host" has been greatly minimized, and there are still unresolved difficult issues of the past, for example, the role of Ukrainians during the Holodomor.[286]: 98
After 1991, historical memory was a powerful tool in the political mobilization and legitimation of the post-Soviet Ukrainian state, as well as the division of selectively used memory along the lines of the political division of Ukrainian society. Ukraine did not experience the restorationist paradigm typical of some other post-Soviet nations, for example the three Baltic countries—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—although the multifaceted history of independence, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Soviet-era repressions, mass famine, and World War II collaboration were used to provide a different constitutive frame for developing Ukrainian nationhood. The politics of identity (which includes the production of history textbooks and the authorization of commemorative practices) has remained fragmented and tailored to reflect the ideological anxieties and concerns of individual regions of Ukraine.[287]
Canadian historiography on Ukraine
In Soviet Ukraine, twentieth-century historians were strictly limited in the range of models and topics they could cover, with Moscow insisting on an official Marxist approach. However, émigré Ukrainians in Canada developed an independent scholarship that ignored Marxism, and shared the Western tendencies in historiography.[288]George W. Simpson and Orest Subtelny were leaders promoting Ukrainian studies in Canadian academe.[289] The lack of independence in Ukraine meant that traditional historiographical emphases on diplomacy and politics were handicapped. The flourishing of social history after 1960 opened many new approaches for researchers in Canada; Subtelny used the modernization model. Later historiographical trends were quickly adapted to the Ukrainian evidence, with special focus on Ukrainian nationalism. The new cultural history, post-colonial studies, and the "linguistic turn" augmenting, if not replacing social history, allowed for multiple angles of approach. By 1991, historians in Canada had freely explored a wide range of approaches regarding the emergence of a national identity. After independence, a high priority in Canada was assisting in the freeing of Ukrainian scholarship from Soviet-Marxist orthodoxy—which downplayed Ukrainian nationalism and insisted that true Ukrainians were always trying to reunite with Russia. Independence from Moscow meant freedom from an orthodoxy that was never well suited to Ukrainian developments. Scholars in Ukraine welcomed the "national paradigm" that Canadian historians had helped develop. Since 1991, the study of Ukrainian nation-building became an increasingly global and collaborative enterprise, with scholars from Ukraine studying and working in Canada, and with conferences on related topics attracting scholars from around the world.[290]
^ abJarosław Pelenski. In P. Potichnyj (ed.) (1992). Ukraine and Russia in their historical encounter. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, University of Alberta. pp.8–15
^Garba, R.; Usyk, V.; Ylä-Mella, L.; Kameník, J.; Stübner, K.; Lachner, J.; Rugel, G.; Veselovský, F.; Gerasimenko, N.; Herries, A. I. R.; Kučera, J.; Knudsen, M. F.; Jansen, J. D. (28 March 2024). "East-to-west human dispersal into Europe 1.4 million years ago". Nature. 627 (8005): 805–810. Bibcode:2024Natur.627..805G. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07151-3. PMID38448591.
^Reich, David, (24 April, 2024). "The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans", in: The Transfomation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC, International Conference, HUN-REN RCH Institute of Archaeology, Budapest.
^Joseph Roisman, Ian Worthington. "A companion to Ancient Macedonia" John Wiley & Sons, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4443-5163-7 pp. 135–138, 343–345
^The Oxford Classical Dictionary by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, ISBN 0-19-860641-9,"page 1515,"The Thracians were subdued by the Persians by 516"
^Michel Kazanski (2020). "Archaeology of the Slavic Migrations", in: Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online, Editor-in-Chief Marc L. Greenberg, BRILL
^History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., UNESCO, 1996, ISBN92-3-102812-X.
^Gautier, Paul (1965). "Le dossier d'un haut fonctionnaire byzantin d'Alexis Ier Comnène, Manuel Stra-boromanos". Revue des études byzantines, Paris, vol.23, pp. 178, 190
^Barford, P. M. (2001). The early Slavs: Culture and society in early medieval Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 32. ISBN0-8014-3977-9. OCLC47054689.
^ abМ. Грушевський – "Історія України". Том І, розділ IV, Велике слов'янське розселення: Історія Антів, їх походи, війна з Словянами, боротьба з Аварами, останні звістки, про Антів
^Slavs / Ilya Gavritukhin, Vladimir Petrukhin. // Saint-Germain World 1679-Social security [Electronic resource]. - 2015. - pp. 388-389 — - (Great Russian Encyclopedia : [in 35 volumes] / ch. ed. Yuri Osipov; 2004-2017, vol. 30) — - ISBN 978-5-85270-367-5.
^"Khazar". Encyclopedia Britannica. 29 March 2020. Archived from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
^Извлеченіе изъ древнихъ Русскихъ л?тописей / Отделъ І. Изв?стія л?тописные // Сборникъ матеріаловъ для исторической топографіи Кіева и его окрестностей. — К. : типографія Е. Я. Федорова, 1874. — С. 16.
^Dimnik, Martin (1994). The dynasty of Chernigov. 1054-1146. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. p. 389. ISBN0888441169.
^Самсонова М. Н. Рогволод и Рогнеда: скандинавские корни полоцкой княжеской династии // Alba Ruscia: белорусские земли на перекрестке культур и цивилизаций (X—XVI вв.) (Серия «Исторические исследования».) — М.: Квадрига, 2015. /Отв. ред. А. В. Мартынюк. — 256 с. — С. 25—26.
^Michael C. Paul, "Was the Prince of Novgorod a 'Third-rate bureaucrat' after 1136?" Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 56, No. 1 (Spring 2008): 72–113.
^Крип'якевич І. П. Галицько-Волинське князівство. — Київ: Наукова думка, 1984. — С. 105.
^Войтович Л. (2001) Юрій Львович та його політика. Галичина та Волинь у добу середньовіччя, до 800-річчя із дня народження Данила Галицького, Львів: Інститут українознавства ім. І. Крип'яквича НАН України.
^Khvalkov, Evgeny (2017). The colonies of Genoa in the Black Sea region: Evolution and transformation. New York: Routledge. p. 69. ISBN978-1-351-62306-3. OCLC994262849.
^Voloshchuk, Myroslav. Chwalba, Andrzej; Zamorski, Krzysztof (eds.). The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: History, Memory, Legacy. The Principles of Ancient Rzeczpospolita Formation: The Medieval Ruthenian Dimension.
^Hrushevsky, M., 1999, The History of the Ukrainian Cossacks, Vol. 1, The Cossack Age to 1625, Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, ISBN1895571286
^Kamenskii, Alexander. "The Battle of Poltava in Russian Historical Memory." Harvard Ukrainian Studies 31.1/4 (2009): 195–204 online.
^Brown, Peter B. "Gazing Anew at Poltava: Perspectives from the Military Revolution Controversy, Comparative History, and Decision-Making Doctrines." Harvard Ukrainian Studies 31.1/4 (2009): 107–133. online
^Яворницький Д.І. Запорожжя в залишках старовини і переказах народу: Ч. І; Ч.ІІ. К.: Веселка, 1995. – 447 с.: іл., с. 376 – 391.
^Davies, Brian L. (2016). The Russo-Turkish War, 1768–1774. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 248. ISBN978-1-47250801-0.
^Михайличенко Д. Ю. Травнева військово-політична криза в УСРР, 1919 р. // Вісник Харківського національного університету ім. В. Н. Каразіна. — Сер. Історія України. — Вип. 5. — Харків, 2002. — С. 137.
^Richard K Debo, Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918–1921, pp. 210–211, McGill-Queen's Press, 1992, ISBN0-7735-0828-7.
^K. Marek. Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law. Librairie Droz 1968. pp. 419–420.
^Kappeler, Andreas (2023). Ungleiche Brüder: Russen und Ukrainer vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart [Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present] (in German). München: C.H.Beck oHG. p. 168. ISBN978-3-406-80042-9. Der weit überproportionale Anteil an ukrainischen Opfern wirft die Frage auf, ob die sowjetische Führung mit der von ihr herbeigeführten Hungersnot nicht nur allgemein die Bauern, sondern spezifisch die ukrainischen Bauern und damit die Basis der ukrainischen Nation treffen wollte. [The vastly disproportionate number of Ukrainian victims raises the question whether the Soviet leadership was targeting not just the peasants in general with the famine it caused, but specifically the Ukrainian peasants and thereby the foundations of the Ukrainian nation.]
^Павличко С. Дискурс модернізму в українській літературі: [монографія] / С. Павличко. — К.: Либідь, 1997. — C. 170.
^Українська література XX століття: навч.-метод. посіб. для студентів 2-го курсу, які навчаються за спец. 035 — Філологія (заоч. форма) / Нар. укр. акад., каф. українознавства; упоряд. О. В. Слюніна. — Харків: Вид-во НУА, 2018. — 128 с.
^Taras Kuzio; Andrew Wilson (1994). Ukraine: Perestroika to Independence. University of Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. ISBN092086287X.
^"German-Soviet Pact". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 27 July 2022. ...paved the way for the joint invasion and occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that September.
^Leonid D. Grenkevich. The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941–1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis.Routledge. 2013. p.325
^Командував нею заступник міністра внутрішніх справ УРСР Микола Дятлов. Місце дислокації штабу операції — Львів. До виконання операції були залучені: оперсклад МГБ — 6859 осіб, збройні сили (солдати внутрішніх військ МГБ і корпус охорони МГБ, особовий склад МВД і прикордонних військ, «стрибки»)— 46 509, радянський партактив — 15 556, армійські шофери — 1227 осіб
^История сталинского Гулага. Конец 1920-х — первая половина 1950-х годов: Собрание документов в 7 томах. — Т. 6: Восстания, бунты и забастовки заключённых Архивная копия от 1 апреля 2024 на Wayback Machine / Ответственный редактор и составитель В. А. Козлов; Составитель О. В. Лавинская. — М.: РОССПЭН, 2004. — 736 с.
^Макарова А. Б. Норильское восстание // «Воля»: журнал узников тоталитарных систем. — 1993. — № 1. — С. 68—108.
^Дисиденти. Антологія текстів / Упоряд.: О. Сінченко, Д. Стус, Л. Фінберг; Наук. ред. О. Сінченко. Національний університет «Києво-Могилянська академія», Центр досліджень історії та культури східноєвропейського єврейства, Центр європейських гуманітарних досліджень; Український католицький університет, Інститут релігії та суспільства. ‒ K.: Дух і Літера, 2018. ‒ 656 с. ‒ (БІБЛІОТЕКА СПРОТИВУ, БІБЛІОТЕКА НАДІЇ)
^Bociurkiw В. R. Religious Situation in the Soviet Ukraine. A paper presented at a Symposium marking the 30th anniversary of the Ukrainian Quarterly in Doc. 1974.Koszeliwec I. Kronika ukrainskiego oporu. Kultura. № 1 — 2 (328 — 329).
^Langer, Lawrence N. (2002). "Grivna". Historical Dictionary of Medieval Russia. Scarecrow Press. pp. 56–57. ISBN9780810866188. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
^Adrian Karatnycky, "Ukraine's Orange Revolution," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 2 (March – April 2005), pp. 35–52 in JSTORArchived 6 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine
^Bullough, Oliver (6 February 2015). "Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 March 2021. Since 1991, officials, members of parliament and businessmen have created complex and highly lucrative schemes to plunder the state budget. The theft has crippled Ukraine. The economy was as large as Poland's at independence, now it is a third of the size. Ordinary Ukrainians have seen their living standards stagnate, while a handful of oligarchs have become billionaires.
^Pikulicka-Wilczewska, Agnieszka (19 July 2017). "Why the reforms in Ukraine are so slow?". New Eastern Europe - A bimonthly news magazine dedicated to Central and Eastern European affairs. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
^"The slow-reform trap". Bruegel | The Brussels-based economic think tank. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
^Velychenko, Stephen (1993). Shaping Identity in Eastern Europe and Russia: Soviet-Russian and Polish Accounts of Ukrainian History, 1914–1991. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 23. ISBN978-1-137-05825-6. OCLC1004379833.
^Taras Kuzio, "National Identity and History Writing in Ukraine," Nationalities Papers 2006 34(4): 407–427, online in EBSCO
^Plokhy, Serhii (2007). "Beyond Nationality" Ab Imperio 2007 (4): 25–46,
^Studenna-Skrukwa, Marta (2022). "What history? What homeland? The nationalization of history in the school education before the breakthroughs in 2014–15 and after". In Tomasz Stryjek; Joanna Konieczna-Sałamatin (eds.). The politics of memory in Poland and Ukraine: From reconciliation to de-conciliation. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 85–103. ISBN978-1-003-01734-9. OCLC1257314140.
^See: Portnov, Andriy (2007). "Exercises with history Ukrainian style (notes on public aspects of history's functioning in post-Soviet Ukraine)". Ab Imperio 2007 (3): 93–138, (in Ukrainian)
^Roman Senkus, "Ukrainian Studies in Canada Since the 1950s: An Introduction." East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies 5.1 (2018): 3–7.
^Serhy Yekelchyk, "Studying the Blueprint for a Nation: Canadian Historiography of Modern Ukraine," East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies (2018) 5#1 pp. 115–137. onlineArchived 28 February 2019 at the Wayback Machine
Bilinsky, Yaroslav The Second Soviet Republic: The Ukraine after World War II (Rutgers UP, 1964).
Cross, Samuel Hazzard; Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P., eds. (1953) [1930]. The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text(PDF). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mediaeval Academy of America. p. 325. Retrieved 26 January 2023.
Mason, Emma (2004). The house of Godwine : the history of a dynasty. London: Hambledon and London. ISBN1-85285-389-1. OCLC51912953.
Vernadsky, George (1970). The Mongols and Russia. A History of Russia, Volume III. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Topical studies
Kononenko, Konstantyn. Ukraine and Russia: A History of the Economic Relations between Ukraine and Russia, 1654–1917 (Marquette University Press 1958).
Luckyj, George S. Towards an Intellectual History of Ukraine: An Anthology of Ukrainian Thought from 1710 to 1995 (1996).
Shkandrij, Myroslav (2014). Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929–1956. Yale University Press – Studies the ideology and legacy of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, especially of Dmytro Dontsov, Olena Teliha, Leonid Mosendz, Oleh Olzhych, Yurii Lypa, Ulas Samchuk, Yurii Klen, and Dokia Humenna.
Gross, Jan T. (1988). Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia
Kostiuk, Hryhory (1960). Stalinist Rule in the Ukraine. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. Online.
Kudelia, Serhiy. (2013). "Choosing Violence in Irregular Wars: The Case of Anti-Soviet Insurgency in Western Ukraine", East European Politics and Societies 27#1 pp. 149–181.
Lower, Wendy, (2005). Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine. University of North Carolina Press
Narvselius, Eleonora (2012). "The 'Bandera Debate': The Contentious Legacy of World War II and Liberalization of Collective Memory in Western Ukraine", Canadian Slavonic Papers 54#3 pp. 469–490.
Redlich, Shimon (2002). Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1919–1945. Indiana University Press
Zabarko, Boris, ed. (2005). Holocaust in the Ukraine. Mitchell Vallentine & Co.
Recent history
Aslund, Anders, and Michael McFaul. (2006). Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough
Blaj, L. (2013). "Ukraine's Independence and Its Geostrategic Impact in Eastern Europe". Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 21 (2–3): 165. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2013.841797. S2CID143454991.
Paul D'Anieri (1999). Politics and Society in Ukraine. Avalon. ISBN9780813335384.
Himka, John-Paul. "The National and the Social in the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1920- The Historiographical Agenda". Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, vol. 34 (1994): 95–110.
Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo (1904). "The traditional scheme of 'Russian' history and the problem of a rational organization of the history of the East Slavs". Articles on Slavistics (in Ukrainian). 1, 2 (55, 2): 35–42, 355–364. WikidataQ28703759.
Kasianov, Georgiy, and Philipp Ther, eds. Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography (Central European University Press 2009). [ISBN missing].
Reid, Anna. "Putin's War on History: The Thousand-Year Struggle Over Ukraine" Foreign Affairs (May/June 2022) 101#1 pp. 54–63. excerpt[permanent dead link]
Velychenko, Stephen, National history as cultural process: a survey of the interpretations of Ukraine's past in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian historical writing from the earliest times to 1914 (Edmonton, 1992).
Velychenko, Stephen, Shaping identity in Eastern Europe and Russia: Soviet-Russian and Polish accounts of Ukrainian history, 1914–1991 (London, 1993).
Verstiuk, Vladyslav. "Conceptual Issues in Studying the History of the Ukrainian Revolution". Journal of Ukrainian Studies 24.1 (1999): 5–20.
Wade, Rex A., "The Revolution At Ninety-(One): Anglo-American Historiography Of The Russian Revolution Of 1917", Journal of Modern Russian History and Historiography 1.1 (2008): vii-42.
Yekelchyk, Serhy. "Studying the Blueprint for a Nation: Canadian Historiography of Modern Ukraine". East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies 5.1 (2018).
Volume 2: Ярослав Грицак (Yaroslav Hrytsak) (1996). Формування модерної української нації XIX-XX ст. (Formation of the Modern Ukrainian Nation in the late 19th–20th centuries). Kyiv: Генеза (Heneza). ISBN966-504-150-9.. Available online.
Further reading
Tsvirkun, Alexander F.; Savelii, Valentin A. (2005). History of Ukraine. Kyiv: 7 class electronic textbooks.
Alexander F. Tsvirkun (2010). E-learning course: History of Ukraine. Kyiv: Journal Auditorium.
.svg)
.png)
,_cartographer.jpg)
.jpg)
_17.JPG)
.jpg)
