Ivan Mazepa

[benda]

Dear Ivan_Mazepa!

I agree with you - Moscowians really broke all oathes (though Alexey Mikhailovich refused to bring oath in 1654).
But Ivan Vyhovskyi broke them too by starting the war with Moscow and joining Rzhech Pospolita. I'm not saying he was n't right - no, Moscowian soldiers behaved little better than Polish in Ukraine - but I think he should not have joined Poland - remembering first half of XVII century and should not have started a WAR with Moscow (though Ukrainians won a battle under Konotop, I think Vyhovskyi was abandoned hetman bulava because of this 1658-1659 war).
So we can say Moscowians broke it first and then we did it twice.
I agree - Pyotr is a Russian hero, not Ukrainian. His massacre in Baturin after Mazepa's betrayal was barbarian, like in Middle Age. But Mazepa had to know Pyotr would do something like that when allying Karl XII in 1709.
He was a great patron of art and culture. But you have to know that by XVIII century ЙНГЮЖЭЙЮ ЯРЮПЬХМЮ was very remote of plain people. They became landlords - no worse than Russians. They used work of peasants like them.
Mazepa was not an exception as hetman. But he couldn't reconcile himself to the fact that his power in Ukraine would never be absolute while tsar is over him, restricting him. That's why he decided to support Karl XII.

Olexiy, Kyiv

[Serhii]

Olexiy

So we can say Moscowians broke it first and then we did it twice.

Hope you know that Moscow didn't pay any attention at those
articles ( Perejaslav and then so calleled Bereznewi statti). They simply did their brutal job - Bohdan Khmelnickiy did want to refuse that unhappy treaty with Moscowia before his death. He understood his mistake , but...

I agree - Pyotr is a Russian hero, not Ukrainian.

I think not all Russians think so , and it is good. Russian poet Boris Chichibabin who lived in Kharkiw wrote 'Let Piotr be damned' and was absolutely right.

Thank you for joining our discusions !

[Ivan_Mazepa]

Hi Serhii.

Originally posted by benda
But you have to know that by XVIII century ЙНГЮЖЭЙЮ ЯРЮПЬХМЮ was very remote of plain people. They became landlords - no worse than Russians. They used work of peasants like them.

- Peasants in Hetmanschyna had to work something like 2-4 days for a landlord (if I remember correctly), while Russians introduced FULL serfdom.

- A little analogy: currently, as a Ukrainian, who would you prefer to pay your taxes to, Ukrainian government or Russian government?

- In the argument between the populists and non-populists , like Kulish ("Chorna Rada") for example, I just cannot decide where I stand. Pros and cons:

Non-populists:
starshyna was the political elite of the state. The stronger it is, the stronger the state is. Rebellions by the free cossaks is condemned because cossacks are anarchists and don't want a state structure. That's what happened in the real life- Hetmanshyna survived longer because its elite acted in their own (and Hetmanshyna's) interests and resisted Russian overtures.

Bad thing with elite is that it can be corrupted, become a sellout. So when Russians offered the starshyna an opportunity to completely enserf the peasants, they took it. (Russian offer was better then what starshyna was getting while it served as a guard for Hetmanschyna's independence)

Populists, like Shevchenko.
They focus on the fact that the starshyna sold out to the Russians and betrayed the people. However as I said above, these same people (free cossaks, peasants) were fighting the elite when the elite was trying to establish a state. The goal of the peasants and free cossacks is admirable- they want a democratic and free state, but in the 17th-18th century it's a futuristic, utopian idea. All around there are strong monarchies, but these 'dreamers' want a democracy.

My conclusion: peasants/free cossacks screwed Ukraine in the late 17th to early 18th cent. because they were fighting the starshyna when starshyna was attempting to form a CONTEMPORARY of that period state. Starshyna screwed Ukraine because it sold out to Russians in the mid, late 18th century.

...But he couldn't reconcile himself to the fact that his power in Ukraine would never be absolute while tsar is over him, restricting him.
You're saying he wanted too much power? What is wrong with having absolute power in your native land? That's who should have it, not some foreigner.

[benda]

Well, Vlad III Dracula was a Romanian too, and he was a very cruel ruler. Ivan Groznyi was Russian - do Russians think well of him? I repeat one more time - one can't say a man is better than other man just because he belongs to the same nation.

[benda]

Russians really introduced a full ЙПЁОЮВВХМЮ but fully it was done only when Yekaterina II (I hate her) was ruling - and that was in the end of XVIII century while we're talking about XVII - beginning of XVIII.

[lenire]

Breda,

Dracula was not a ruler of any kind. He was a very small time baron who actually guarded a very small border area near Brasov.
Rumours are that he was cruel, but I've been to his house/castle and I can tell you, it must have been a very cold winter, so no wonder the guy was always in a bad mood.

Len

[benda]

Well, it's said Ivan Hroznyi had a sharp back-ache - can you justify his crimes with that? That's a kind of rumours like that Hitler was angry in the summer of 1942 for he was in Ukraine and there was too hot there. Talking about Dracula - Transylvania wasn't a small territory. He even started a war with Ottoman empire - Turks killed him.
And why are you calling me "Breda"?